:^ uminTthe kiSgly office, "«/PP-^"|'T^^°3''" t^^T "sum^ thev can be threatened Willi death in ll'^- 1" . yet it is presum Ib?^ on their account that the election of Saul requires cofi,
fe r '.'i^h^ r L7Sre\t ^clol^^Tof s^oS
i„ fV,„ «mo hand are 822b. gsb ' from his shoulders and upward ^e It ^"^tfl^yo. the people • (introduced frorn^^^^
?etr,a:^KfTh?Utt;^^f seTwr^a?^i|s partly^^^^^^^
rpan Jo9 24) partly with the redaction of J^'^^'^^v ^^"/^^J' (^esp. JOS ''^^ f*'" ■'r^mfl^ i77f\ With this agrees the strong
Rmlflf /;v«A(er u Sdm. p. 184 f.). That the narrative is, how- e"er pre Deutlronomic, £ showi(l)by themanner in «hich the
expansion are to be found in 12» (t? cc« 12?'.!), v." (0= 3." y^-~) tIU-C""?-"? nnc): to the Deuteronomic redactor must aJo'be ^iimpd'the' mention of Samuel by himself (12"), and toe men?KJf?t the invasion of Naha^h dS'^) '^„"'e motw^^or the demand for a king; this disagrees «'t''8«, and further oresucposes a knowle<ige of the earlier narrative («!• ID- Ane I^^itraritvbothin tan./^je and in point o/ ww between the ?a?eohe°e two narratives (E) and the redaction of the Book of Judges h^ been already referred to, and shown to agree with the nrobable origin ot that narrative. Both works are pre- DeutMononac,3 interpret history from the point of view of HosS and toe prophets rather toan from that of Jeremiah and toeDeu?eronomist: the formula which is ^^Pf '^"y ,<= '.'^Sf ^ iatic of Judges (cf. Jg 12' 102-3 et«. is applied to Eli (4i»), and Tl moS form U, Samuel (7.15), while the use of the word Mud^e' is entirely analogous to its sense in Judges, lurther, .1 M^^rpr/SdoM D xxiiif.)haa pointed out, 'Samuel's speech ^h 1?) wSco'u^in^a retrospect of toe neriod of toe judges Cl nj and solemn words of warning for t^ie futore under the n7wlv-ekSbliBhed kingdom, is precisely the conclusion which we de^ef^r the book of'toe Histories of the Judges correspond- in? admirably to the parting discourse of Joshua (Jos -4) at tol cl^S the period o^f toe conquest' (so Graf, «wA. Bach p. 97l!Budde, D,?ver). We may thus, assume with considerable Drobability that these chapters or.gini.lly formed part of Es Estor^- of the Judges, and that they were afte™''r4« /■'M^ted by RJ E M forming a smtable introducl ion to toe history of the monarchy.
(5) 13. 14 (J with the excei.tion of 13'^-'*-.''-" (Jo) 14*'-" (R°))- Saul's struggle with the Fhilis- tines. These chapters describe the revolt of the Israelites under Saul against their Philistine oppressors. The signal for revo t is S^^^.^y Jonathan, who destroys the pillar (?) of the Philis- tines at Giheah (see Gibeahi ; the Philistines, who had doubtless heard of Saul's election as king, at once assemble their forces at AUchinash on the M. side of the Wftdy Suweinit over against Geba (see Geba and Gibeah). Alarmed by the size of the Philistine army, the followers of Saul, who had re- treated to Gibeah, gradually melt awajr until only six hundred are left (13"»>) ; the Philistines in the meantime overrun the country in three directions. Jonathan once more takes the initiative, and by a bold stroke succeeds in overcoming the PhUistme garrison at Michmash (14'-»). This success is at once followed by a general attack m which SaiU completes the rout of the Philistines Jonathan unwittingly disobeys the command of his father bv eating food, and is with difficulty rescued by the people from death. Apparently Saul was not in a position to foUow up his victory, but snfiered the Philistines to retreat to their own land (v«). The section concludes with the remark that there was sore war against the PhUistines aU the days of Saul."
These chaptere form the continuation of the earlier narrative (J)coTt^neS m 9i-10.».^n,-u.i.l», «h°»^"i h"" Sairi ^ned iut the object for which he wa3 appomted (918). That they do
not form the immediate sequel of those chapters ie evident. J>om t™ description of Saul in ch. 9"^ we should not expect to find him described as the father ot a fuU-gro»;n warnor such M Jonattan is here represented to be, and, further, the introduo. tion of Jonathan (iV^) is very, sudden, P;^"^,^"^; «;|[^ "'^ the redactor has omitted the intervening ""'^''7iP5T^^6U favour ot ch. 12), unless we suppose, with Kuenen (Viia.' ^ t>l), that he habere incorporated a still earher amount of Saul •
fTll ?ta"r,'intrrr i^ eS^ariy^' Tate insertion J^. vteton's (£XX) here ascribed to Saul ^.«) are bo„owed^rom the similar summary of David's reign m 2 S 8 . »P»" ''°™ ™ campaign against Nahash (ch. 11) and »e»'°!t '''^^^f-'^^'r,^ mT ^t\ Siml's reign was spent in constant warfare with tne &stiAe9 In TeviTwof RD the account of Sau s reip, flni hes here, and is followed by "lat of the history o David. The most probable view of toe account "'Saul s rejection pre served in 108 i37b-lt. is that of Budde and H. P Smith (Aamwl, n^V who regard it as a later addition inserted m the narra- &vro'7beforftoe union of J and E. ,9° '»? one hand the verses cannot belong to toe origmal narrative • '°/,(.l ./'fj,^'*/,,
SaysTo^) i-learly inconsistent with toe exhor^^^^^^^ ^s rtfrtt fVl^ Ji^chm^h^S'oi'be'^hl'^'thTt'ha^inlr.
k?nc°e^tr;irn^iu3:,'w^r>?e^u^^^^^^
interrup?^toe connexion, and appear to be somewhat exagger- ated ; the text is very corrupt.
(6) Ch. 15 (E). The rejection of Saul. . The new kin^ is bidden by Samuel to ex ermmate the Amalekites ; but he and the people spare Aeag tlie kin- and the best of the spoil, and Samuel is therefor''e commanded to announce to him the DMne sentence of rejection. The king e^deavof^ to minimize his fault, but in vain. The senteuce^ pronounced, and Samuel himself slays the Amale- kite king.