In nearly all these cases (to which others might be added) both accounts have been preserved afmost entire, and the redactor has "o.^ aUempted to connect them by other than the si i^ ttst o links- in a few instances, however, he «onl.l sum to have shortened or condensed the one narraUve while transcribing the other in full ; in no case hals he wedded thS two together in such a manner ns to rendc;r analysis inipos.sihle.
It remains, therefore, to inve8tigato these two sources, and to consider their probable ongin and
m! St lav siO^tro clea/ly marked that wo hav^^o d'ii^^iilty in determining the relative ages of the two narratives. On the one hand, in what
384
SA]\IUEL, I. AND II,
SAMUEL, I. AND II.
we may provisionally call the older narrative, we have a simple, straightforward history, which, froiu its graphic style, and its vivid description, as well as from its religious conceptions, manifestly belongs to a period of great antiquity. In other words, we have a natural representation of the state of society and of religion which existed in the early days of the monarchy, closely akin to that which we find in the earlier portions of the Book of Judges. The later narrative tliroughout is obviously coloured by the religious teaching of a later age, and the standard by which the various incidents are judged is that of a period svibsequent to the prophetic teaching of the 8th century.
Kuenen (Hist. ■ Krit. Einleitung, I. ii. p. 46 f.) and Wellhausen (Composition, p. 238 f.), who are followed, at least as regards 1 S 7. 8. 10'"«- 12, by Lohr, held that this later narrative was derived from a Deuteronomic source ; but Cornill and Budde have shown conclusively that it is marked, at any rate in part, by a close affinity to E. The great similarity of this narrative, both in language and style, to the E of the Hexateuch, has led these critics to regard it as a continuation of that source. Budde, indeed, goes further, and assigns the earlier narrative to the older source J, supposing that the two sources were welded together by R^^, and afterwards edited by a Deuteronomic redactor. Antecedently, no doubt, this theorj', wliich presup- poses that the HeKateuchal sources J and E did not cease with the conquest of Canaan, but con- tinued the history dov.Ti to a later date, if not to their own day, has much to commend it (see Moore, Judges, p. xxvf.), but a closer examination of the resemblances between these two narratives and the Hexateuchal sources does not establish their identity.
The question at issue may be briefly described as follows : — Excluding for tlie time being 2 S 9-24 (see Analysis), we find that the main bulk of the history contained in 1 S l'-2S 8 has been preserved in a Jouble series of narratives, which practically cover the same ground. These two narratives are obviously independent of one another, and are clearly distinguished by their ^oui^ of view, and in part also by theiv literary style. The latter feature, liowever, is more especiallj' prominent in the first incident (the election of Saul, 7-12), which is pre- served in common by both narratives. Hero, as Cornill and Budde have shown (see, however, Lohr, p. xxiif.), the later narrative (7. 8. lO"'- 12) presents noticeable affinities with E, and has accordingly been assigned by them to that source. But it is to be noted (1) that this resemblance to E is by no means so strongly marked in the latter portions of the history, wTiich present the same point of view, and clearly belong to tlie same source as ch. 7f. ; and (2) that the affinity does not exclude non-Elohistic features, notably the aversion of Samuel to the monarchy. Budde, to a certain extent, evades the latter difficulty by assigning the larger portion of the later narrative to a later recension of E (En), which, as he rightly recoOTizes, has been largely influenced by the prophetic teaching of the 8th cent., more especi- ally by Hosea. It is clear that both Cornill and Budde go too far in identifying the later narrative with E. That it is nearly related to E in language and thought cannot be denied, but at the most we can only conjecture that its author (or authors, for in the later narrative we can distinguish certainly two hands) belonged to the school of E, and that in writing the histories of Saul and David he was animated by a similar spirit and similar ideas. Budde's identification of the older narrative with J is closely connected with his view of the source of the later narrative. The points of contact are not so strongly marked ; but if we are right in
regarding the later narrative as the work of ■ follower of E, we may assume with considerable
{irobability tliat the older narrative was composed ly a writer belonging to the school of J.
The okler nanative may be assigned approxi- mately to tlie 9th cent., while the earlier stratum of E (Budde's EJ, which, though old, yet treats tlie histor}' from a more subjective standpoint, dates probably from tlie following century. The later stratum (or strata) of E (Ej) has, as we have seen, been influenced by the teaching of the propliets of the 8th cent., and will belong to the end of the 8th or to the beginning of the 7th cent. As in the Hexateuch and in Judges, these sources were combined and welded together by a later editor (R-"^), who has, however, carried out his work in a less tliorough manner. His work is in an3' case prior to the reforms of Josiah (B.C. 621) and to the influence of Deuteronomy, and must be placed in the 7th cent. The present form of the Books of Samuel is largely due to an author of tlie Deuteronomic school, whose hand may be clearly traced in the concluding summaries (I 14"", II 8), and in various chronological notices (I V 13', II 2'°*- " 5*- °). To him also we probably owe I 2^"*" and II 7, while he has expanded other passages (mainly belonging to E2) which lent them- selves to this treatment, e.g. I 3. 12, II 8. 12'"'-. Lastly, he appears to have omitted II 9-20 as in- compatible with his view of the history (compare tlie very simUar action in the Book of Judges*), though these chapters undoubtedly belong to the older narrative of J. The older work of JE, how- ever, was not entirely superseded by the later recension ; hence a later editor of the 5th or 4th cent, was able to utilize the earlier form of the two books, and, as might be expected, restorea those parts of JE which D had excluded. He not improbably also transposed II 3-'° S'''"'"' from their original position after II 8". The obviously late insertions I I6I-" 17"- " lO'*"** 21"-i« may have been added at this time, or possibly even later. Finally, tlie Appendix (II 21-24), a collection of miscel- laneous fragments belonging to dill'erent periods, and the Sung of Hannah (I 2'""), were added after the separation of the Books of Samuel from the Books of Kings.