Part 20
(cf. Isa 6:2). Yet the word used here signifies rather 'the place of his feet' (margelot', see v. 14), hence the REB rendering, 'the covering at his feet', is to be preferred to the NRSV. Nevertheless, sexual overtones are undoubtedly present both in the repeated use of the verb 'lie' (sakab, w. 4, 7, 8, 13, 14) and in Ruth's request, 'spread your skirt [literally "wings"; cf. 2:12] over your servant', a highly unconventional proposal of marriage (cf. Deut 22:30; 27:20; Ezek 16:8). Far from finding this morally offensive, Boaz gives Ruth his blessing and reaffirms the public regard for her as 'a worthy woman' (v. n, '(set hayil; cf. P rov 31:10). Yet the unconventional nature of her behaviour is implied by the secrecy which Boaz urges (v. 14). There is no suggestion that Ruth is a woman of loose morals. Her action is motivated by the fact that Boaz is 'next-of-kin' (go'el, v. 9).
This, however, raises acutely the question of the relationship of the book of Ruth to OT law, for nowhere else in the OT are the obligations of a go'cl said to include marriage. His duties were the restoration of property to his impoverished kin and the redemption of their persons from slavery (Lev 25:25, 47-9). The go'el's responsibility in the matter of Elimelech's property is not made specific until 4:3-4. The focus here appears to be solely on Ruth's marriage. Yet for the story to have credibility Ruth's request must have appeared reasonable. Indeed Boaz does not question it. It may be that, in different areas, local practice varied and that the laws of Leviticus were formulated in order to regulate the matter, or the term go'el is used here in a less technical sense. What is involved here is not to be confused with levirate marriage, an obligation imposed only upon the brother of a dead man and then only in the case of brothers living together in a closely knit family unit (Deut 25:5). Whereas the refusal to undertake the obligation of levirate marriage was regarded as a grave dereliction of duty (cf. Gen 38:14, 26; Deut 25: 7-10), this was not so in Ruth's case. Marriage to her was clearly a voluntary undertaking (v. 13).
The most significant aspect of Boaz's relationship to Naomi and Ruth is now disclosed (v. 20). He is a 'kinsman redeemer' (go'el; Lev 25:25, 47-9). v. 21 has a playful, humorous touch. Boaz's instruction, 'keep close to my young women' (v. 8), becomes on Ruth's lips, 'keep close to my young men'. Naomi responds with an appropriate warning!
The chapter's close marks the end of harvest (June) and the start of a new uncertain future. Where will provision be found? Once again the initiative is Naomi's (cf. 1:6). (ch. 3) Unlike chs. i and 2, ch. 3 has no public aspect. It begins and ends with private conversation between Ruth and Naomi, and pivots on the intimate scene between Ruth and Boaz at the threshing floor.
The meaning of Boaz's statement in v. 10 is not entirely clear. The 'first instance' of Ruth's loyalty was her selfless devotion in leaving homeland and family for Naomi's sake (2:11). 'The last instance', v. lob implies, relates to her singleminded commitment to build up Naomi's family by avoiding other relationships. On these grounds Boaz pledges himself to fulfil Ruth's request (v. n). With v. 12 (where there is a slight dislocation of the Heb.) an element is introduced into the story of which neither Naomi nor Ruth appear to have been aware, the existence of a yet closer relative.
(3:1—5) Naomi continues her efforts to secure Ruth's, and with it her own, future by the only means she understands, namely marriage (cf. 1:9). To this end she plans an extraordinary and entirely unconventional scheme, although whether from genuine concern for Ruth or from self-interest is unclear. Certainly its outcome is to her own advantage (4:15). The ambivalence of Naomi's character remains unresolved. The instruction to Ruth to wash, perfume herself, and put on her
i95
RUTH
group of elders (v. 2) and by the people (v. n). Ruth's relations with Boaz which began furtively and unconventionally are publicly acknowledged. Theirs is no illicit liaison, and Ruth is no longer an outsider, the Moabite. Significantly the blessing (v. n) compares her to Rachel and Leah, the mothers of the twelve tribes of Israel, v. 12 further associates her with Tamar, like Ruth a foreigner who, by unconventional means, secured the future of a line threatened with extinction (Gen 38). The clan named after her son Perez rose eventually to a degree of prominence (Neh 11:4—6; i Chr 27:3). Is there a hint here that the speakers knew of Ruth's unconventional behaviour at the threshing floor? Thus Ruth was not the first foreign woman with a place in the genealogy of the royal Davidic line.
(3:15-18) The themes of emptiness and fullness, prominent in Naomi's lament in 1:21, recur in these last verses. Naomi's physical emptiness is relieved, but this is but the prelude to the satisfying of her deeper need. Naomi had the first word in this chapter. Now she has the last word. Boaz's mention of the closer relative has introduced an element of uncertainty into her carefully conceived plan. Once again the element of chance is taken into account as she bids Ruth wait to see 'how the matter will fall' (v. 18). There is no overt reference here to Yahweh's intervention or direction, implicit though it has been in the several references to his name in blessing. The emphasis throughout falls on the human obligation to act according to loyalty (hesed). (4:1-6) Action moves now from the private to the public arena and hence to exclusively male participants and the arrival of the unnamed next-of-kin, known only as 'so-andso' (peloni 'almoni), a deliberately shadowy figure. The area inside the city gate, the traditional place for executing business, is the scene of a double legal transaction, the redemption of Elimelech's land and the marriage of Ruth. The exact nature of the relationship between these two issues is unclear, and this uncertainty may perhaps account both for a slight dislocation in the Hebrew of v. 5 and, more significantly, for the disjunction between the consonantal text and its vocalized form. The consonantal text is represented by the NRSV, 'The day you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you are also acquiring Ruth the Moabite'; in contrast the vocalic text, represented by the REB, reads, 'On the day you take over the field from Naomi, I take over the widow, Ruth the Moabite.' Either way, the mention of this young woman of child-bearing age complicates the situation. Up to this point mention had been made only of Naomi (v. 3). Ruth's prospective child, however, would inherit the land and thus disadvantage the family of the unnamed kinsman. It is this new factor in the situation that accounts for his sudden change of mind from unqualified agreement (v. 4) to instant refusal (v. 6).
(4:13—22) Now, for only the second time in the narrative, YHWH intervenes, this time in enabling Ruth to conceive
(cf. 1:6). Yet, from v. 14 to the end ofthe book, Ruth is relegated to the shadows, regarded as little more than a surrogate mother for Naomi's child. Although no longer termed 'the Moabite' she is still an outsider. The story ends as it began with Naomi, empty through bereavement of husband and sons, filled now by the birth 'to her' of a male child (v. 17). The identity ofthe go'el (v. 14) is ambiguous, referring perhaps to Boaz through whom Naomi's future has been secured, or more probably, in view of v. 15, to the newborn child. A woman still needs a male go'el. Yet the response ofthe women (v. 15) puts the importance of sons in perspective; Ruth's love for Naomi is of more value than seven sons (cf. i Sam 1:8). But thereafter the focus is on Naomi and the child. Ruth is ignored. The concluding genealogy is entirely male. Yet the remarkable fact is that the title ofthe book bears Ruth's name.
Although the book of Ruth is often termed a love story, the only reference to 'love' occurs in v. 15, not between Ruth and Boaz but between Ruth and Naomi, unreciprocated though it was on the older woman's part. The women who shared Naomi's distress (1:19—21) share her joy, and, in the only instance of its kind in the OT, name the child (v. 17). Elsewhere this is a function ofthe parents alone.
A number of unanswered questions remain: why did Ruth glean as one of the landless poor if the family was already in possession of land, and why was the kinsman not aware of the existence of property (cf. 2 Kings 8:3—6)? These are not the narrator's concern. (4:7-12) Although the marriage in question does not accord with the regulations of a strictly levirate marriage, its purpose, 'to maintain the dead man's name on his inheritance' (w. 5, 10), is expressed in identical terms (lehaqim "sew, cf. Deut 25:7). Nevertheless there are striking differences between the transaction described here and the procedures set out in Deut 25:5—10. There the removal of the sandal by the rejected widow, accompanied by spitting in the reluctant brotherin-law's face, was a potent sign of his disgrace; here the bestowal of the sandal by its wearer is the solemn confirmation of a transaction.
Whether w. lyb and 18—22 are an original part of the narrative is open to question. It is, however, arguable on literary grounds that the names of the genealogy form a counterpart to the tragic names of ch. i. From a tale of death and bereavement they point to a glorious future. In the canonical context their importance lies in giving the story a wider significance than the purely domestic, and in introducing the promise of hope after the despair with which the book of Judges ends.
Campbell, E. F. (1975) Ruth (New York: Doubleday). Hubbard Jr., R. L. (1988), The Book of Ruth, NICOT (Grand Rapids,
The amount of space proportionate to the whole narrative which is devoted to this legal transaction emphasizes its importance in the story. The agreement concerning both the property and the marriage is ratified by a properly constituted
Mich.: Eerdmans). Sasson, J. M. (1989), Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological
Commentary and a Formalist-FolUorist Interpretation, The Biblical Seminar, 2nd edn. (Sheffield: JSOT).
12. i and 2 Samuel GWILYM H. J O N E S
various approaches to the books of Samuel by textual critics
(for a summary see McCarter 1980).
A. Title. 1. In the Hebrew canon the books of Samuel were read as one continuous work, with only a very brief space between the final words of the first and the beginning of the second. Their appearance as one work in Hebrew MSS was known to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 6. 25), Jerome (Prologus galeatus), and Origen (quoted by Eusebius). This is the position reflected too in the Masoretic note at the end of 2 Samuel, which gives the sum total of verses as 1,506 and the middle verse as i Sam 28:24. Th£ simple title is 'Samuel'; if the title refers to content, it is only appropriate to the first half of the first book, for David takes centre stage from then on; it is equally inappropriate if it is an indication of authorship, as suggested by the Talmud (B. Bat. i^b), for it reports Samuel's death at i Sam 25:1.
2. A positive approach to the LXX can lead to an extensive use of it to reconstruct what was the original Hebrew text before its emergence in the shorter version preserved in the MT. This was the approach initiated by Julius Wellhausen in 1871 and built upon by a succession of commentators. It was a method of study that was not thrown off course when it was realized that a number of recensions of the Greek were in existence, each of different value and reliability. There was confidence that from the surviving recensions an original Greek translation could be reconstructed; cases where this reconstructed Greek text was superior to the Hebrew could be distinguished from those where the Greek was merely paraphrasing the original.
3. Taking a more negative attitude towards the LXX, it was claimed that the divergent readings of the LXX could not confidently be used to reconstruct the Hebrew original. Other reasons can be suggested for such divergences; most may be attributed to the wish of the Greek translators to correct the Hebrew or else to their practice of paraphrasing the Hebrew rather than translating it. Nor could it be assumed that it was possible to recover the original Greek translation from the various recensions available. Consequently a more wary attitude towards the Greek was adopted, and serious questions were raised concerning its value for reconstructing the text of the books of Samuel. As an example of this approach McCarter refers to P. de Boer's studies in 1938 and 1949.
2. The division into two books was made by the LXX, which gives them and the books of Kings the title basileion ('kingdoms'), with the books of Samuel designated as I and II and the two books of Kings as III and IV. It may be that the conventional size scrolls used by Greek writers demanded such a division, and a fitting conclusion to the first half was found in the report of the death of Saul in i Sam 31. The Latin accepted this division, but modified 'Kingdoms' to 'Kings' (Regum). The division was first introduced into the Hebrew text with the publication of Daniel Bomberg's first edition of the Hebrew Bible (Venice 1516—17).
3. 'Samuel' belonged with Joshua, Judges, and Kings to the section of the HB known as 'former prophets' (nlbi'im risonim), a terminology used by the Bible itself (cf. Zech 1:4; 7:7). It is only to a limited extent that this section of the Bible is concerned with prophets, but it was assumed in antiquity that Samuel was the author of Judges and Samuel, and that further material was added by Nathan and Gad (i Chr 29:29). Likewise, the books of Kings were attributed to Jeremiah (B. Bat. I4b-i5a). But the tradition of 'prophetic' authorship is no longer tenable.
4. However, the position had to be reassessed with the discovery of Hebrew MSS of the books of Samuel in Cave 4 at Qumran and in view of the work done on these fragments since 1952. The three relevant MSS are: 4QSama, containing fragments of most of i and 2 Samuel and dating from 50—25 BCE; 4QSamb, fragments of a small part of i Samuel and dated in the third century BCE; 4QSamc, small fragments of i Sam 25 and 2 Sam 14—15 and dated in the first century BCE. The significance of these fragments is that the Hebrew text preserved in them is generally at variance with the MT, but close to the LXX (cf. Cross I953»; 1955), and thus they give some confirmation to the more positive attitude towards the Greek text. Detailed comparisons have enabled textual critics to be more precise in their reconstruction of the text of Samuel. In many instances the Qumran fragments are closer to the Lucianic MSS of the LXX (LXXL) than to the Codex Vaticanus (LXXB)—not that the evidence of LXXB is to be ignored, for it is fuller than the MT and in many ways superior to it. Nevertheless, like the MT, it does suffer from extensive haplographies. The evidence of LXXL is especially valuable for recovering the Hebrew text of Samuel, particularly when it is in agreement with the ancient Qumran fragments and is supported, as is frequently the case, by other ancient witnesses, such as the third century CE'S Old Latin and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (see further Ulrich 1978; Tov 1979).
B. Text. 1. The Hebrew text of the books of Samuel (MT) is in a poor state, evident mainly in the number and extent of its haplographies, i.e. scribal omissions from the text caused by the use of identical consonants at the end of words or sentences (known as homoiotdeuton). For examples, reference can be made to: i Sam 4:1/7, where the Greek text contains the additional words, 'And Eli grew very old, and his sons continued to act more and more wickedly in the presence of the LORD'; i Sam n, at the beginning of which 4QSama has a few lines of additional text; i Sam 17-18, where, in the account of David's contest with Goliath, the Greek text is shorter and more consistent. Nevertheless, reference to the Greek text raises as many problems as it solves, for it has to be admitted that some of the divergences between the MTand the LXX are not due to the Greek's preservation of the original, but may have been caused by the tendency of the Greek to paraphrase the Hebrew. A different evaluation of the Greek text has led to
197 I AND 2 SAMUEL
before becoming attached to a narrative complex. The most influential study in this area was Rost's examination of the succession narrative in 2 Sam 9-10; i Kings 1-2 (1982). Following the success of his approach other studies concentrated on complexes such as the ark narrative (Campbell 1975; Miller and Roberts 1977) and the story of David's rise (Gr0nbaek 1971), and others again on shorter units.
C. Composition. 1. On first appearance the books of Samuel may give the impression of a well-organized composition dealing with three main characters, Samuel, Saul, and David. But on a closer reading of the narrative, a number of discrepancies, contradictions, and duplications become evident. Although Samuel seems to be the main character in the first block of narratives, he disappears completely from i Sam 4—6 only to be reintroduced again in i Sam 7. Two different interpretations of the movement to secure a king are evident in i Sam 8—n; in some sections YHWH disapproves of the development and it was contrary to his will that a king was chosen, but in others the kingship, and Saul its first incumbent, gain divine approval. There are a number of duplicates in both the Saul and David cycle of narratives. In the case of Saul, there are two accounts of his rejection by YHWH (i Sam 13 and 15) and two again of David's introduction to his court (i Sam 16 and 17). The Davidic cycle has double reports of his betrothal to Saul's daughter (i Sam 18), his defection to the king of Gath
4. The Ark Narrative. Narratives about the ark in i Sam 4:1/7—7:1 are taken as one unit because of their concentration on the fate of the ark during a particular period, their total exclusion of Samuel, who is the key figure in the surrounding chapters, and their distinctive vocabulary. Some have also included 2 Sam 6, recording the transportation of the ark to Jerusalem, as a climax to the complex; there is, however, no general agreement on this, mainly because of the difficulties caused by variations in nomenclature between i Sam 7:1 and 2 Sam 6:2-4.
5. The historical setting suggests an early date for the ark narrative. The tenth century BCE has been proposed as a possibility, with the pilgrims coming up to festivals in Jerusalem as the intended audience. Its purpose was to give them an outline of the ark's previous history. Others, whilst accepting a tenth-century date, find in the narrative an underlying theological theme, namely YHWH's activity in the history of Israel
(i Sam 21 and 27) and his unwillingness to grasp the chance to kill Saul (i Sam 24 and 26). These features demand a consideration of the composition of the books.
2. Continuous Strands. An approach that found favour among scholars of an earlier generation was to find in i and 2 Samuel evidence of continuous strata of material. It was an approach that was developed under the influence of Pentateuchal criticism and its apparent success in identifying the main narrative strands combined to form the Pentateuch. Examples of duplicate narratives, with their repetitions and deviations, naturally led to a search for strands or sources similar to the ones which had proved so successful in Pentateuchal source criticism. The traditions in i Sam 8—n about the founding of a monarchy provided a good starting-point for such an investigation. In the older strand in i Sam 9:1-10:16; n; 13-14 is found an account which takes a favourable attitude towards the monarchy and is thought to be historically reliable. A later account in i Sam 8:1-22; 10:17-27; 12; 15 is critical of the monarchy and is thought to reflect the theocratic view of the post-exilic period to such extent as to make it of little historical value. Moving from these parallel strands to other duplicate narratives, attempts have been made to identify one strand as a continuation of the Pentateuchal J and the other as a continuation of E; others found in the antimonarchial strand traces of Deuteronomistic thinking. A fairly late example of this line of thought is found in Otto Eissfeldt's Introduction
(Campbell 1975) and by implication his power and invincibility (Gordon 1986).
6. An earlier date, taking the narrative back to the time of Saul and David, has also been proposed (Miller and Roberts 1977). The main argument given in support is that an account of the previous misfortunes of the ark would be unnecessary and irrelevant once David was on his way to be king in Jerusalem. A date between the defeat at Ebenezer and the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem has therefore been suggested. This issue has been made more complex by Miller and Roberts' proposal to connect other passages with the ark narrative, more especially the passages in ch. 2 which are critical of Eli and his sons and therefore provide a reason for the defeat at Ebenezer.
7. An early date seems more appropriate for the ark narrative than the later date proposed by some investigators. To date some parts of it after the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE and others in the reign of Hezekiah in the late eighth or early seventh centuries, and to interpret it as a narrative intended to combat the tide of Assyrian religious beliefs and practices (Schicklberger 1973), divorces it entirely from the historical setting to which it belongs. So too does the emphasis on its timelessness and therefore its possible relevance to those in the Babylonian exile (Timm 19 6 6). On the contrary, it is best understood as an ancient independent unit which eventually found its way into the books of Samuel (cf also Gordon 1986).
(1965), where it is argued that in atleast i Samuel there is an E sequence almost without gaps. Because this sequence was by nature a reshaping of an earlier secular presentation, it follows by implication that there was an original continuous strand which betrayed the marks of the Pentateuchal J stratum. Although Eissfeldt's work appeared in its third German edition in 1964, he was by then out of step with the general trend of OT literary criticism, which had abandoned the idea that continuous strata could be traced in the books of Samuel, and with that the possibility of identifying them as a continuation of Pentateuchal strands.
8. The Founding of the Monarchy. As noted above, the presence of duplicate accounts of the founding of the monarchy in i Sam 8-n was one of the main reasons for finding in Samuel a continuation of Pentateuchal sources. With the abandonment of that approach an alternative method of dealing with these chapters had to be sought. The contrast between pro-monarchial and antimonarchial attitudes cannot be missed; it must also be observed that they have been set side by side and allowed to intertwine; however, the placing of an antimonarchial section at the beginning of the complex
3. Independent Units. A different and more acceptable approach is to posit that the books attained their present form after the combination of a number of independent narrative units, some long and some short. Many of the narratives had a previous existence as independent pieces
I AND 2 SAMUEL 198
concluding sections have been proposed is not in itself a sufficient reason for doubting the existence of the History.
(8:1-22) and another at its end (12:1-25) is a dear indication of the sentiment of the final editor.
13. Unquestionably the impression gained is that an author has brought together material relating to David's advance to the throne and has worked it around a dominant theme. Its obvious aim was to demonstrate that David was the legitimate successor of Saul as king of all Israel and that he gained the throne lawfully by respecting 'the LORD'S anointed' and not taking any of the many chances given to him to usurp the throne. This latter point is made clear in the two accounts of David's refusal to take Saul's life (i Sam 24 and 26); the same point is brought out again in the emphasis on David's noncom plicity in the deaths of Saul (i Sam29:i—n),Abner (2 Sam 3:28—39), and Ishbaal (2 Sam 4:9—12), as it is in Abigail's specific statement to this effect in i Sam 25:30-1. David behaved honourably on all these occasions, and it is impossible to support the view that he was an opportunist engaged in guerrilla warfare against Saul and joining with bands of malcontents to usurp the throne (as argued by Ishida 1977; cf. Gordon 1984 for a refutation of this argument).
9. These features have been given a different interpretation in recent studies. First, instead of searching for evidence in support of Pentateuchal sources there is a tendency to find the origin of individual narratives at different centres. Some, such as 8:1—22, originated at Ramah, others, such as 10:17—27, at Mizpah; some again, such as 11:1-25, obviously preserve ancient semi-historical material (see Weiser 1962). Secondly, there has been a shift of opinion regarding the priority of the two different attitudes towards the monarchy. Instead of taking the pro-monarchial strand as older and more reliable than the antimonarchial, which was later and reflects a post-exilic view of the institution, it is now claimed that the antimonarchial stance was a natural immediate reaction towards such an innovation (cf Ishida 1977; Criisemann 1978). Thirdly, the nature of the opposition to the monarchy in these chapters has been reassessed. One contention is that the antimonarchial sections were not absolutely opposed to the monarchy but to particular forms of monarchy, especially those encroaching upon the sovereignty of YHWH (Boecker 1969; cf. Birch 1976).
14. A tenth-century date for this History has been suggested; a justification of David's conduct as he was moving towards the throne was perhaps necessary in the reign of
10. It does not concern us at this point to decide how the monarchy was founded, nor to attempt a description of the historical circumstances leading to the election and anointing of Israel's first king. But, as far as the composition of the books of Samuel is concerned, what is envisaged is that a number of traditions about the early beginnings were available at different key centres, each reflecting the interests of its particular centre. When they were brought together into this complex, they were set side by side without any apparent awareness of the contradiction involved.
Solomon, when a Saulide faction was in danger of threatening the unity of the kingdom. It has been suggested that a member of Solomon's court prepared the history and deliberately took a positive attitude towards the Saulides. Not quite as convincing is the proposal to date it in the early years of the divided kingdom, soon after Solomon's death, and to give it the specific aim of supporting Davidic and Jerusalemite claims to supremacy over 'all Israel'.
15. The comparison made recently between the History and the thirteenth-century BCE 'Apology of Hattushilish' throws an interesting light on the history of the genre (McCarter 1980). Hattushilish, a Hittite king, after absolute allegiance to his predecessor, finally usurped the throne when his life was in danger. In his revolt he was assisted by the goddess Ishtar who had promised him the throne. Similarly David had been faithful to Saul until he was finally compelled to leave court; he too came to the throne because YHWH had promised it to him. In both versions it was divine will that finally decided the issue of succession.
11. The History of David's Rise. The extensive collection of narratives in i Sam 16—31 has been designated as 'The History of David's Rise', whose theme is the advance of David under the guidance of YHWH, a theme supported by its counterpart, namely that Saul had lost divine favour and was no longer competent to rule (cf. Gr0nbaek 1971). Although Saul is present throughout these chapters, interest focuses on David, and the story of his rise to power, from his initial anointing at Bethlehem by Samuel until his acceptance as king over Israel in Jerusalem, is traced step by step.
12. There are some uncertainties about this History. Its natural starting-point is with Samuel's commission to find a successor for Saul (i Sam 16:1); but alternative starting-points have been proposed. Some have argued against the inclusion of the report of David's anointing in 16:1—13, mainly because no other reference to his anointing is found in the History, and furthermore because it is Saul that is consistently called 'God's anointed'. Others have taken the starting-point back to 15:1. Likewise there is disagreement about the History's conclusion. A suitable climax is provided by the account in 2 Sam 5:1-10 of David's occupation of Jerusalem. But arguments have been presented for including other sections within the History, most notably the account of David's victories over the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:17-25 in fulfilment of the promise in 2 Sam 3:18, and also 2 Sam 6:1-23 because oflinguistic similarities to 5:17-25. Also included by some is Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam 7, which seems to be presupposed by 2 Sam 3:9—10 and 5:2. However, the fact that such a variety of opening and
16. The Succession Narrative. L. Rost's (1926) study of the succession narrative identified 2 Sam 9-20; i Kings 1-2 as a separate unit that was mainly concerned with the issue of succession to David's throne. It is an issue that is given full expression in i Kings 1:20, and the narrative as a whole is concluded with the statement in i Kings 2:46 that 'the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon'. Other possible candidates for the throne have been dismissed one by one until the final scene portrays the contest between the two last candidates, Adonijah and Solomon.
17. There are no real grounds for disagreement about the conclusion of the succession narrative, despite the attempts to take i Kings 1—2 with the Solomonic corpus which follows rather than the Davidic section which precedes. Another view that has been taken is that the original corpus was a Court History of Davidic times, upon which was superimposed the theme of succession when i Kings 1—2 was added to it (Flanagan 1972). There is more room for disagreement about the
199 I AND 2 SAMUEL
this corpus of material is too closely integrated with the remainder of the narrative in Samuel—Kings to be separated and treated as an entity. He finds in the narrative 'recollections' of previous sections as well as thematic and verbal similarities to other parts of Samuel—Kings. Rejecting the term 'succession narrative', he finds the schema 'David under the blessing' (2 Sam 2—5) and 'David under the curse' (2 Sam 9—24) adequate to deal with the Davidic corpus of tradition.
specific point at which the narrative begins. It can be argued that the promise to David in 2 Sam 7 is an appropriate introduction to a section concerned about the succession (Jones 1990). Links have been noted too with the bulk of 2 Sam 2-4 (Gunn 1976), possibly with 5:1-3 and also with 6:16, 20-3; but the case for connecting these sections with the corpus is not as convincing as is the one for connecting 2 Sam 7. Strict adherence to the theme of succession helps to eliminate some of these sections.
20. Whatever difficulties may arise in connection with such terms as 'court history' and 'succession narrative', it is clear that a block of tradition reaches its climax with the statement in i Kings 2:46, which causes a break between it and what follows. Although the succession of Solomon to the throne gives a general indication of the theme of that section, the concept of 'succession narrative', as originally defined, may well have to be modified. But it is conceivable that during the early years of Solomon the events leading to his accession to the throne were recorded. It may be that the unease caused by the executions of i Kings 2:39 prompted the writing of a political tract to show that Solomon was the legitimate heir. Its contents suggest that it emerged from court circles.
18. Giving it the title Court History raises the question of the character of this complex of narratives. A court history must be envisaged as a document giving an account of events which keeps as faithfully as possible to their course, and would depend possibly on some records, and definitely on recollections of eyewitnesses. Eyewitness accounts would have been possible here if the History is dated in the period of the Solomonic Enlightenment which came soon after the events described. Consequently it has won acclamation as 'the oldest speciment of ancient Israelite historical writing' and as 'genuine historical writing' (von Rad 1966). Nevertheless, the validity of the term 'history' has been doubted. Reports of private scenes and conversations suggest that some of its contents are more akin to court gossip than to reliable history. Its interest in personalities rather than in the political implication of events, its lack of reference to the international scene, and the absence of citation of sources and of chronology have led to the judgement that, whilst using historical facts and possessing a historical theme, it cannot be classified as historical writing (Whybray 1968). Although the author displays remarkable narrative skill, his work is more a historical novel. Admittedly all the characteristics of a good novel are present: a theme, division into scenes, artistic structure, use of dialogue, portrayal of characters, and mastery of style. But to consider it as a novel, or a 'work of art and entertainment' (Gunn 1978), fails to do justice to its aim and purpose. There are good reasons for placing it in the category of political propaganda.
D. The Deuteronomistic History. 1. The final compilation of the books of Samuel, like that of Joshua, Judges, and Kings, with which they formed a corpus, is generally attributed to a Deuteronomistic author or authors. The complex, covering the period from the death of Moses (Deut 34) to the account of Jehoiachin's favourable treatment in exile in 561 BCE; (2 Kings 25:27-30), is generally known as the Deuteronomistic History (see Noth 1943). Without surveying the long and complex debate about the Deuteronomistic History, the position can be generally stated as follows: in Joshua-2 Kings is found a presentation of history according to a single line of interpretation; there are links of language and thought between these books and the Deuteronomic law and its accompanying speeches in the book of Deuteronomy (see Weinfeld 1972); despite its influence on subsequent studies, Noth's concept of a single Deuteronomistic historian (Noth 1943) presented too simple a view of the history; similarly the idea of a double redaction, one working before the Exile, soon after 621 BCE, and the other in the Exile, after 561 BCE (see Nelson 1981), also presents too simplistic a picture of compilation; a more prolonged and complex development, reflecting continuing activity by a Deuteronomic school or circle, has found support because it attempts to do justice to both the unity and diversity found in the Deuteronomistic History (see Jones 1984).
19. The aim and purpose of the complex thus becomes an issue. As noted, its aim has been described as seeking to demonstrate the legitimacy of Solomon's accession to the throne and to justify the elimination of his opponents. The narrative's aim is to make a point. Works disseminating political propaganda were known in the days of Solomon; Egyptian precedents also sought to legitimize claims to the throne, such as the claims of Amenemhet in the Prophecy of Neferty and the claims of Sesostris in the Instruction of Amenemhet (Whybray 1968; Mettinger 1976). Doubts have been raised, however, regarding its designation as 'succession narrative' and also the definition of its aim as legitimizing Solomon. Against the former it has been pointed out that succession is not the dominant issue in most of these chapters, especially in 2 Sam 13-20 (Conroy 1978; Gunn 1978); against the latter a case has been made for seeing an anti-Solomonic tendency in i Kings i—2 and anti-Davidic elements in 2 Sam 10—12. Many of the discussions of purpose are combined with complex analyses of the Deuteronomistic History into editions by successive redactors, with the various editions modifying the view taken of David and Solomon. For such reasons some have been inclined to abandon altogether the concept of 'succession narrative'. Carlson (1964), for instance, claims that
2. It must be recognized, however, that the contribution of the Deuteronomists to the final form of the books of Samuel is less pronounced than their part in fashioning Judges and Kings. The exploits of the 'judges' were presented within the Deuteronomists' own rigid formula; likewise they imposed their own structure on their presentation of the kings of Israel and of Judah, sometimes including very little material within their standard formulae. Evidence of such a domineering structuring is absent from the books of Samuel. A possible reason is that the blocks of tradition mentioned above were complete narratives in themselves, and because they more or less subscribed to the Deuteronomistic viewpoint there was very little need for editorial activity. A full list of verses which can be regarded as Deuteronomistic annotations is given by
I AND 2 SAMUEL 200
McCarter (1980; (i Sam); 1984 (2 Sam)). In some places in i Samuel relatively lengthy additions have been made to the text, such as the polemic against a non-Jerusalemite priesthood in i Sam 2:27-36; 3:11-14, or the interpolation to Abigail's speech at i Sam 25:28-31 with its anticipation of some sections in Nathan's oracle, i Sam 12 is certainly Deuteronomistic, for Samuel's speech is reckoned to be one of the orations included by the Deuteronomist to mark one of the important milestones in Israelite history. A review of Israel's past history, when God performed some of his mighty acts on behalf of his people, serves to emphasize that the monarchy was an unwelcome development. Other annotations are very brief and have been inserted in order to incorporate material into the Deuteronomistic History, such as YHWH's reply in i Sam 8:8 or notices about Saul's kingship at i Sam 13:1—2; 14:47-51. Similarly in 2 Samuel, some interpolations are more significant than others, such as the ones in the report of Nathan's prophecy (2 Sam 7:12/7—130, 22—4), which make the prohibition of a temple only temporary and typically occur on an important historical occasion. Less significant ones are in the form of formulaic introductions to the reigns of kings, such as 2 Sam 2:ioa, n; 5:4—5.
brought all this material together by means of redactional links and editorial expansions, and gave the material an antimonarchial slant, has been challenged. Weiser (1962) saw in this antimonarchial stratum an earlier, pre-Deuteronomistic, prophetic layer. Although Weiser refused to think of this layer as a literary unit, others have seen in it evidence of a complete pre-Deuteronomistic edition of Samuel which had originated in prophetic circles (cf Birch 1976). McCarter (1980) has accepted that there was a pre-Deuteronomistic structure belonging to a middle or penultimate stage of tradition and having its own characteristics or slant. It is further claimed that it was this prophetic history that gave the first edition of
Samuel its basic shape; beyond the negative portrayal of kingship as a concession, it sought to set out the essential elements of the new institution from a prophetic perspective. Its point of view was distinctly northern. McCarter accepted too that the origin of Deuteronomic law and theology was to be found in northern prophetic circles (cf. Nicholson 1967) and that the intermediate prophetic stratum can therefore quite easily be called 'proto-Deuteronomic'.
3. Another approach associates the prophetic viewpoint with a later rather than earlier stage in the history of tradition. The view taken by Dietrich (1972) and Veijola (1975; 1977) is that three layers of Deuteronomistic tradition succeeded one another in the following order. First of all came a basic historical work (DtrH), whose intention was to present one great history of God's dealings with his people. It was composed soon after 587 BCE, possibly at Mizpah, and probably knew nothing of the fate of king Zedekiah after his transportation to Babylon. Secondly came a redaction which included prophetical texts (DtrP) and sought to emphasize the importance of the prophetic role and the function of the divine word in history. It has been dated between 580 and 560 BCE and connected with Judah, probably Jerusalem. Finally came a nomistic redaction (DtrN) containing law-oriented additions which brought out more clearly the place of the law. It has been ascribed to the period immediately after the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in 561 BCE. Admittedly, the views of Dietrich and Veijola have not been generally or enthusiastically received, and they have been accused of classifying texts according to subject-matter rather than producing firm evidence of redactional activity. Nevertheless, it is an interpretation that has the advantage of being able to hold together two different emphases: on the one hand it gives full recognition to the unified theological outlook of the history, and on the other it allows for the various emphases being brought out in different redactions. The idea of continuous activity by a 'Deuteronomic school' gives room for unity and diversity.
3. Deuteronomistic editing, although only slight, served to give expression to some theological themes which were important in the eyes of the Deuteronomists. Among these are the primacy of the Jerusalem temple and the Davidic covenant, which stands out in contrast to the earlier period of disobedience to God's will and the later period which similarly deserved an unfavourable judgement. The Deuteronomists had a very positive view of the dynastic promise to David; on its basis they held out a hope for the restoration and renewal of the Davidic dynasty in the future. Connected with this hope was their emphasis on repentance; a return to God would save them from Philistine oppression (2 Sam 7:3), and the real basis for future security was a confession of wrong and the continuation of their relationship with YHWH (i Sam 12:1924). The presence of these themes in 1-2 Samuel is sufficient evidence of some Deuteronomistic editing.
E. A Prophetic History. 1. It cannot be denied that the history given in 1-2 Samuel, especially in the sections relating to the foundation of the monarchy, is prophetic in perspective and therefore very critical of the monarchy. In these sections the figure of Samuel dominates. He appears in i Sam 1—7 as an ideal prophetic leader, and for that reason the move towards a kingship is presented as an act of folly and of unfaithfulness to God. Even after the founding of the monarchy, the prophet still had a role; Samuel remained as an intercessor between God and people and had the task of condemning Saul's kingship because of his disobedience. As the narrative proceeds, David is presented as the man chosen by YHWH. This is established as the ideal of Israelite kingship—the king was YHWH's chosen, but he was subject to prophetic authority, for the prophet had a hand in choosing, anointing, and instructing the king. This prophetic perspective cannot be ignored.
4. Whichever of these approaches finds favour, it is accepted without question that at some stage or other prophetical interests and emphases found expression in the Deuteronomistic History. The work cannot be read without observation of a very pronounced prophetic slant in many of its narratives.
F. Outline
Samuel (i Sam 1:1—4:10) The Ark Narrative (i Sam 4:1/7-7:1) Moving towards a Monarchy (i Sam 7:2-15:35) Saul and David (i Sam 16:1— 2 Sam 1:27) The Kingship of David (2 Sam 2—8)
2. One approach to this question is to argue that at a preDeuteronomistic stage of the tradition the narratives were placed together to form a 'prophetic history'. Noth's (1981) idea of a Deuteronomistic editor, who for the first time
201 I AND 2 SAMUEL
Succession to David's Throne (2 Sam 9-20) Appendices (2 Sam 21—4)
Embedded in these traditions is Hannah's song (2:1-10), which, like other Hebrew psalms, celebrates a victory granted by God. As noted from NRSV's footnotes, the MT is not satisfactory and the LXX and 4QSama must be consulted to obtain a better version. The theme is clear: the singer has been exalted by God and exults in this good fortune. To emphasize God's work comes a series of contrasts: the mighty and the feeble (v. 4), the full and the hungry (v. 5), the barren and the mother of children (v. 6), the faithful and the wicked (v. 9). God's absolute power is celebrated (w. 6—8, 10). It is appropriate in its context, for the reference to the barren bearing children in v. 5 connects it with Hannah, and the reference to 'king' and 'anointed' in v. 10 links it with its wider context in which the rise of Samuel was to lead to the anointing of Israel's first king.
i Samuel
Samuel (1:1-4:10.)
(1:1—2:10) Samuel's Birth and Dedication Samuel, the last of the judges and the maker of Israel's first two kings, is presented as a significant person in this account of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding his conception and birth. Although his father came from an old, prestigious stock in Ramah (v. i) in the land of Zuph (see 9:5—6), Elkanah's first wife was childless and he had decided to take a second wife (cf Gen 16:1-4). There was inevitable tension and rivalry between the two women, with Hannah being constantly provoked and distressed; this provided a perfect scene for a miraculous intervention and the subsequent contrast between her humiliation and ultimate triumph. These events are connected with Shiloh, where Elkanah and his family attended annually for a feast (Judg 21:19—24), and where Hannah, whose plight was made more obvious when she received only one portion of the sacrifice (v. 5), came into contact with Eli the high priest. Worship at Shiloh, one of the most important sanctuaries and the home of the ark (3:3), was regulated by Eli and his two unworthy sons. The second main contrast introduced in the narrative is that between the corrupt priesthood of Shiloh and the ideal prophet Samuel. Although the narrator emphasizes the themes suggested by these two contrasts, his account contains obvious legendary elements (as in the accounts of the births of Isaac and Samson).
The reference to 'king' in v. 10 raises the question of date. The song itself betrays a number of affinities with early premonarchial Hebrew psalmody (Deut 32; Ex 15; Judg 5; 2 Sam 22; and Ps 113). See Albright (1968), Willis (1973), and Wright (1962). Possible ways of dealing with this reference are: to find here an allusion to early rulers, such as Abimelech; to date the song to the late years of Samuel when Israel had a king; to regard v. lob as a later addition. Whichever solution is accepted, a reference to 'king' suits a narrative depicting the decline of Shiloh and the rise of the Samuel-Saul-David regime. Like 2 Sam 22, it truly represents Israel's royal ideology.
(2:11-36) The Depravity of the House of Eli After describing the total depravity of Hophni and Phinehas (w. 11-26), this section describes the visit of a man of God to Eli to deliver an oracle of doom (w. 27—36). Like other levitical priests, Eli's sons bore Egyptian names. But the main interest is in depicting their evil ways, which stand in contrast to Samuel's exemplary behaviour. Several short statements about Samuel are introduced (w. n, 18, 19, 26); he is ministering before YHWH and gaining in maturity and favour. But the sons of Eli are unfaithful ministers. This is a further development of the theme introduced in ch. i, the contrast between the corrupt priesthood of Shiloh and the ideal prophet Samuel.
Another element introduced into the narrative is Hannah's vow to dedicate the son requested as a nazirite (v. n). The MT refers to only one feature of the nazirite vow, leaving the hair uncut, but the longer text of the LXX, to some extent supported by 4QSama, includes an undertaking to abstain from strong drink (Num 6:1—21; Judg 13:5, 7). The actual dedication is reported in w. 21-8. On his annual visit to Shiloh Elkanah paid his vow, which may have been related to Samuel's birth, but Hannah delayed her visit until the child had been weaned and then took him to Shiloh to 'abide there forever'. 4QSama
The malpractices at Shiloh are noted in w. 13-17. The priests took more than their share of the offering. Although receiving only what was forked from the pot suggests trust in providence, it is clear that they took more than their due. A reconstructed text based on 4QSama suggests that they took meat in addition to 'the breast for wave-offering and the right thigh', which belonged to them by right (Lev 7:31,32). Another malpractice was their insistence, on taking by force if necessary, a piece of meat before the fat was burnt off, for the fat belonged to the Lord (Lev 7:22-5).
makes it quite clear that she was dedicating him as a nazirite. Votive offerings were brought, a 'three-year old bull' (with 4QSama and LXX in preference to the MT's 'three bulls') accompanied by flour and wine (Num 15:8—10). See Willis (1972).
There is a repeated wordplay on s-'-l—(to ask, request)— 'what you have asked of him' (v. 17 REB), T have asked him' (v. 20), 'what I asked' (v. 27 REB), 'he is given' (v. 28). Although such wordplays appear in birth narratives, it is obvious that what occurs here is more appropriate to Saul (cf. la' ul, v. 28) than to Samuel, which is taken to suggest that the story about the birth and dedication of a nazirite belonged originally to
Whereas his sons were corrupt, Eli himself was old and unable to check them. They were guilty of prostitution with female sanctuary assistants, and were possibly resorting to a Canaanite practice of cultic prostitution (Num 25:6-15). It is interesting that the reference to prostitution is absent from the LXX and 4QSama, which may suggest that it was a later addition. They did not respond to the pleading of their aged father, who accepted that they were beyond human intercession.
Saul but was secondarily applied to Samuel. Saul is closer than Samuel to another nazirite, Samson (Judg 16). See more fully Dus (1968), and for an opposite view Gordon (1984: 234). The account of Samuel's birth is thus a combination ofthe Shiloh/Eli traditions with the nazirite/Saul traditions.
Samuel in contrast was gaining in favour and maturity, for his ministry was acceptable to God (w. n, 18). According to priestly custom he wore a linen ephod (i Sam 22:18), and his
I AND 2 SAMUEL 202
(w. 9—10). But once God had spoken and given Samuel the oracle of w. 11—14, Samuel became more powerful than Eli and spoke the oracle of doom over his house. It is an oracle that confirms the words of the man of God in 2:27-36: the house of Eli will fall because of the iniquity of his sons and his own inability to check them. Eli accepted God's verdict (v. 18). Samuel was no longer a boy, but a powerful person whose words were fulfilled and whose position as a prophet was acclaimed. For a time Samuel was associated with Shiloh, but before long that centre was to be stripped of its preeminence.
mother used to make him an outer garment. Hannah was rewarded for her faithfulness with a family of five children. Although the narrative brings out clearly the contrast between the Elides and Samuel, it may not have been originally intended to describe Samuel's rise. Possibly it was an introduction to the ark narrative and showed why YHWH rejected
Shiloh and departed from Israel (Willis 1971).
An oracle against the house of Eli was spoken by 'a man of God' (w. 27-36), an anonymous figure (i Kings 13:1-13), who took the role of a prophet and pronounced words of doom. It may be that the introduction of an anonymous spokesman was a literary device whereby the Deuteronomistic historian gave his own judgement. The Aaronide house of Eli is about to fall, despite the self-revelation of God in Egypt to his family (Moses) and the election of this house to perform all priestly duties, such as offering incense, wearing the ephod, and accepting gift-offerings. It is rejected on the basis of the charges brought in w. 15—16; the choicest parts of the sacrifices, belonging to the Lord, had been taken and Eli had shown himself unable to prevent this. God's promise of a perpetual priesthood to the house of Eli is now rescinded because the conditions had not been met. Although Eli himself will be spared the ultimate downfall, the death of his two sons will give him a sure sign of what is coming (v. 34). Allusions to the fate of the priesthood are seen in w. 33-5: the slaughter of the house of Eli refers to the massacre of the priests of Nob; the one spared was Abiathar (i Sam 22:20); the faithful priest given a sure house is Zadok (i Kings 2:35); the impoverished priests were the non-Zadokites living outside Jerusalem and playing only a minor role after the Josianic reform (2 Kings 23:9). See McCarter (1980).
The Ark Narrative (4:^-7:1) The narrative now focuses on the ark; Samuel disappears from the scene, Eli and his sons are mentioned only briefly (4:4/7, 12-22) and there is little interest in Shiloh. It is generally accepted that the ark narrative (4:1/7—7:1; 2 Sam 6) is a selfcontained literary entity recording the fortunes of the ark until its installation in Jerusalem (Rost 1926); there is no need to attach to it sections about the sons of Eli from chs. 1-3 (as by Willis 1979 and Miller and Roberts 1977). The main theme of this theological narrative is the power of YHWH as it was invested in 'the ark of the covenant of God'; this point is missed if it is interpreted only as a cult myth showing how the Shilonite cultic object was transferred to Jerusalem (Rost), or as a polemic against the Assyrian plague-god NergalResheph (Schicklberger 1973), or a reflection on the end of an epoch in Israel's history (Campbell 1975). As noted above (0.4-7), there is reason to date the narrative soon after the events described, sometime in the tenth century BCE. For a fuller discussion see Gordon (1984: 30—9).
Although the narrative in i Sam 1-2 presents a contrast between Samuel and the house of Eli, the oracle in w. 27-36 introducesanothermajorthemebelongingtothe Deuteronomistic History, namely that the true priesthood was the Zadokite one of Jerusalem.
(4:1^-22) The Capture of the Ark The Philistines appear on the scene without introduction (see OCB). According to the longer Greek text they were responsible for engaging Israel in battle, and the position of the two camps at Ebenezer and Aphek in the southern end of the plain of Sharon indicates that they were intent on gaining land further north, which was also of interest to the Israelites in their movement westwards. This reflects a recurring position until their ultimate defeat by David. Israel was conquered twice; on the first occasion the enemy's success was due to God's decision 'to put us to rout today' (v. 3), and on the second occasion it occurred despite God's presence in battle (v. 7). The ark is also introduced into the narrative without explanation (see OCB), but it is known from such passages as Num 10:35—6 and 2 Sam 11:11 that it was given an important place in Israel's battles. It was the visible sign of God's presence and designated his covenant with his people and his enthronement in majesty on the cherubim. Although it was brought out to secure victory and was greeted with a battle-cry (v. 5), Israel was defeated. No explanation is given for such calamity, but v. n (recalling 2:34) attributes it to the degenerate priesthood of Shiloh.
(3:1-4:10) Samuel is Called Samuel is now set within the tradition of the great prophets, for this narrative, despite some formal variations, belongs to the genre of propheticcall narratives (Isa 6; Jer 1:4—10; Ezek 1:1—3:16). Samuel will now be acting as God's mouthpiece (see Newman 1962). Dream theophanies were not uncommon in the ancient Near East, and elements from that genre have been preserved here (Gnuse 1982).
However, the narrative in its present context elaborates the contrast between Samuel and the house of Eli and brings it to a climax. It was in a period when divine oracles were infrequent and visions out of the ordinary that Samuel received his call-vision. Thus is introduced the theme of the whole chapter, namely the difference between the old regime and the new (Fishbane 1982). Under the former, Samuel was a boy assistant in the temple, where he lived night and day in order to perform his duties; he was under Eli's supervision, for despite his failing physical condition he was still in charge. But these respective positions were changed dramatically with the callvision, which shifted the seat of power. Even then Eli was presiding for a limited period, for Samuel 'did not yet know the LORD' and mistook his voice for that of Eli. It was Eli who instructed Samuel and gave him the right words of response
Two speeches are included in the narrative, both acknowledging the power of YHWH. After the first defeat the elders of Israel advised the people to bring the ark 'that he may come among us and save us' (v. 3). When the ark came the Philistines felt helpless against 'the power of these mighty gods'
(w. 7-9). Although the Philistines, according to this account,
203 I AND 2 SAMUEL
Although they are called 'guilt offering' ('asam), they had a double function: as sacrifice they would ensure that YHWH would 'lighten his hand', and as gifts they were regarded as a compensatory tribute to YHWH. The Exodus tradition teaches the people not to be obstinate and prevent the return of the ark (v. 6).
regarded the Israelites as worshippers of several gods, they were aware of the Exodus tradition.
News of Israel's defeat was brought to Eli (w. 12—23), wh° was more concerned about the ark than anything else (v. 13). It was the fate of the ark, mentioned as a climax to a triad of calamities, that killed him (w. 17—18). News about the ark (v. 19) also made Phinehas's wife give premature birth leading to her untimely death. The name of her son, Ichabod ('where is glory?' or 'alas (for) glory'), and her death-cry both allude to the loss of the ark.
The second concern belonged to the realm of divination (w. 7-9), and they sought confirmation that it was YHWH who had humiliated them. They were to select untrained cows, separated from their calves and therefore inclined to return home, and not to give them guidance which way to take. If the cows went in the direction of Beth-shemesh, the Philistines would know that it was YHWH who had harmed them. The cows had a second function. Because they were to be sacrificed in order to remove contamination, they and the cart had to be new, unused, and therefore ritually clean (cf. Num 19:2). The rituals described in w. 3-9 are found elsewhere among the Israelites and more generally in the ancient Near East (McCarter 1980).
(5:1—12) The Ark among the Philistines The clash between Israelites and Philistines moves to another plane; the struggle for possession of territory became a contest between the gods of the two peoples. As was customary in the ancient Near East, idols of the gods of those who had been vanquished (in this case 'the ark of God') were carried to the temple of the victors and placed beside the idols of their gods as an indication of the latter's supremacy over the former. Thus the ark was taken to the temple of Dagon, a Semitic deity identified in Ugaritic texts as the father of Baal and possibly a vegetation deity (cf Heb. dagan, 'grain'). The Philistines on their arrival in Canaan probably adopted such deities.
The narrative proceeds in w. 10-18 to record the outcome. The direction taken by the cows confirmed that YHWH had been responsible forthe plagues, and itis evident that the gifts sent by the Philistines were acceptable (w. 16-18). The Israelites celebrated the return of the ark by sacrificing the cows on a 'large stone' in the field of an unknown Joshua. A secondary, later addition in v. 15 introduces the Levites to be responsible for sacrifices and changes the function of the stone by making it a resting place for the ark.
The narrative's main theme is the power of YHWH, which is illustrated in the contest with other deities (w. 2—5) and in the plagues which he brought upon his foes (w. 6-12). Dagon was twice humiliated in his own temple in Ashdod; on the first occasion he was thrown down in front of the ark, and on the second his head and hands were cut off and were lying on the threshold. Thus an aetiological motif is introduced into the narrative to explain the sacred character of the threshold which was not trodden by the Ashdodites. In displaying his power against the Philistines God humiliated them in three of their five cities, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron. The plagues sent by God are referred to as 'tumours', which some, on the basis of the reading 'mice' in the LXX, have identified as bubonic plague, and which others have taken to be an attack of dysentery (cf. Josephus, Ant. 6f 3).
The ark was equally dangerous for Israelites if they did not pay it due respect, either by not celebrating its return (LXX), or by looking into it (MT). Possibly a plague had spread from Philistine territory to Beth-shemesh, and in seeking to give a reason for it this narrative again connected it with the ark. Consequently the ark was moved to Kiriath-jearim ('city of the forests'), which had probably been connected previously with Baal-worship (cf. 'city of Baal', Josh 18:14 and 'Baalah', Josh 15:9, 10); its custodian was Eleazar, son of Abinadab, both bearing names that appear frequently in levitical lists.
It may be that the aetiological narrative in w. 2-3 and the report of the plague in w. 6—12 were not connected with real events. However, there are several significant features in their emphasis on the power of YHWH: 'the hand of YHWH' is given prominence (w. 6, 7, 9, n); striking the Philistines with tumours is reminiscent of the Exodus tradition (Ex 9:15—16); the supremacy of YHWH over other gods is a recurring theme in the OT; overcoming humiliation is not only a reminder of 2:1-10, but also forms a bridge between the conquest of the ark (ch. 4) and its return (ch. 6). (6:1^7:1) The Return of the Ark Having realized that the ark had to be returned (v. 2, cf. 5:11), the Philistines took consultation on the manner of its return to avoid further humiliation
Moving towards a Monarchy (7:2-15:35) i Sam 7—15 reports the rise of the monarchy and gives an account of the first years of King Saul. As already noted (c.g), it is probable that many of the sections included in these chapters originated independently at different centres, such as Ramah and Mizpah. It is a complex section, and, as is commonly recognized, contains two accounts that betray strikingly different attitudes towards the monarchy. A promonarchial strand (A) is intertwined with an antimonarchial one (B): 8:1-22 (B), 9:1-10:16 (A), 10:17-27 (B), 11:1-15 (A)> 12:2-25 (B)- Th£ main features noted are: the accounts are placed together without any attempt to suppress or to harmonize; an arrangement which opens and closes with antimonarchial sections gives a dominant antimonarchial emphasis to the whole; the antimonarchial stance is now thought to be early rather than late, and may reflect the same opposition to this innovation as was present in the time of David and Solomon (Criisemann 1978); the message of the A strand, that God himself was involved in the establishment of the monarchy, is preserved (see Childs 1979).
(w. 1-9). Priests and diviners were consulted, but it is not known if they were Philistines or outsiders hired for the purpose. Attention focuses on the double issue raised in v. 3 (Campbell 1975). The first matter of concern was the appropriate offering to accompany the ark. It was recognized that gifts had to be sent (cf. the Exodus tradition, Ex 3:21); they were chosen on the basis of value ('gold'), correspondence with the victims ('five' for the five lords of the Philistines), and representation of the plagues suffered ('tumours' and 'mice').
I AND 2 SAMUEL 204
unfit to succeed him (v. 5). Perverting justice in Beersheba, which was more southerly than Samuel's normal circuit, gave sufficient grounds for supporters of the monarchy to press for a different succession. Their more explicit reason was that they wished to be governed 'like other nations' (cf. Deut 17:14), which had military advantages (v. 20). Thus the elders requested a king rather than a new line of judges.
(7:2-17) Samuel's Victory at Mizpah Although this chapter is not directly concerned with the establishment of the monarchy, it is not to be separated from the events of chs. 8—12. First, it portrays the background against which the monarchy arose, namely the threat to Israel from the Philistines (cf. 9:16) and other peoples (11:1—15). Secondly, it subscribes to the view that a monarchy became a necessity when Israel was unfaithful to God; theocracy, based on Israel's faithfulness to the covenant, brought success against enemies.
The antimonarchial stance of the chapter is brought out in three different sections. First, in w. 6—9, where the proposal displeased Samuel (v. 6) and was regarded by YHWH as a rejection of himself and of Samuel. It is a rejection that in a truly Deuteronomistic statement is placed in the context of Israel's propensity towards idolatry from the time of the Exodus. Secondly, in w. 10—17, which give Samuel's view of'the ways of the king', it is shown that a monarchy will have to be supported by the conscription of personnel for military duties (w. n-i2a) and to provide labour (w. 12/7-13), submitting to the confiscation of property and provisions for maintaining a court (w. 14-15), and even accepting slavery and the confiscation of stock (v. 16, reading 'cattle' with LXX in preference to 'young men' in the MT). The origin of this list of a monarch's oppressive measures is debatable. On the one hand it is claimed that it reflects the common practices of Canaanite kings as known to Samuel and his contemporaries. Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra testify to many of the practices listed in w. 11—17 (so Mendelsohn 1956 and Criisemann 1978). On the other hand, the similarity of the list to the practices of Solomon as described in i Kings 10-11 suggests that it must have its origin there; it is claimed that the Deuteronomistic historian's criticisms of Solomon were transferred to i Sam 8 in order to censure Saul and to show that the monarchy from its very foundation was corrupt (cf. Clements 1974). Other kings followed the same practices, and it is more likely that this passage recalls some bitter experiences of the abuse of royal power by Israelite monarchs. The concluding verse of the passage (v. 18) echoes the language of Judges: under oppression the people cried to YHWH, but on this occasion he would not deliver. Thirdly, in w. 19—21, it is stated that the kingship was reluctantly permitted because of Israel's determination; it was tolerated rather than approved (cf. v. 7). In this way the narrative successfully combines two opposing views: on the one hand, the monarchy was an undesirable development and was not approved by YHWH, and on the other, YHWH himself was responsible for selecting the first kings of Israel. (9:1-10:16) Saul Becomes King This narrative, which is strikingly different in character from the preceding chapter, has some features of the popular folk-tale: a young man setting out to find lost asses returns as designated king. Originally it may have related how Saul visited an unnamed seer, and may well have the same function as the birth legends associated with other notable characters (Ishida 1977). The original folkloric material has been incorporated in this biblical narrative which subscribes to the view that Saul was chosen by God. However, several inconsistencies show that it does not fit smoothly into its present context (cf. Birch 1971). According to 9:6—10 Saul was persuaded to visit a nameless seer who was unknown to them (cf. 9:18); but as the narrative proceeds we learn that Samuel was well-known 'from Dan to Beersheba'
The Philistines, despite being forced to return the ark, were still a threat, and Samuel decided to give the people a lead. His assembly at Mizpah (v. 5) is preceded by an address in v. 3, which must be regarded as an intrusion (McCarter 1980); it contains Deuteronomistic phrases, such as 'returning to the LORD with all your heart', and many expressions taken over from the editorial framework of the book of Judges (cf. Judg 10:6-16 for 'remove foreign gods', 'serve him only', 'the Baals and Astartes'). For Baals and Astartes see OCB. Mizpah, identified as Tell en-Nasbeh a few miles north of Jerusalem, was important as a tribal centre and the scene of much prophetical activity. Prayer was on this occasion accompanied by two rites. The significance of the first, drawing and pouring water, is not clear; since water is the source of life, it may have been connected with a fertility rite, but more probably, in view of its association with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement, it was a purification rite. Fasting was a sign of penitence (see OCB).
Consequently, when the Philistines attacked Israel, they suffered a decisive defeat. The account in w. 7-11 bears the marks of the holy war tradition: an enemy assault causing panic among the Israelites; petition by Samuel, accompanied by sacrifice; YHWH himself enters into battle and by a thunderstorm causes utter confusion among the Philistines; the Israelites pursue the disarrayed Philistines as far as Beth-car (probably to the west of Jerusalem in the direction of Philistine territory). These elements, found also in war reports such as Josh 10, emphasize the basic claim of the holy war tradition: victory belongs to YHWH alone (von Rad 1951). To conclude the section it is claimed, again using a formula well-known from the book of Judges (cf. Judg 4:23-4), that the Philistines were completely subjugated with Israel repossessing towns and territories formerly lost to the Philistines. The position as it was before an earlier battle at Ebenezer (ch. 4) was now restored; a 'Stone of Help' reminded Israel that 'thus far the LORD has helped us'.