•Cook ingeniously emends 1727 'and ShobI the son of Nahash' (B'rij'p '^Pi) to 'and Nahash, etc., brought' (1K!3;i C'rtj), thus supplying (according to his view of the chronology) a motive for David's embassy in lun-.
SAXAAS
SANCTIFICATION
391
ttittonshtp between Judiib and Israel (or Bcnjaintn) previous to thiR union are due to a redactor (HJE ?), and, in several cases at li-ast. seem to be derived from an Kphralinite source.'
Tlie evidence, however, on wbicU these conclusions are based is obtained in many eases by a very subjective treatuieut of the text, an<l cannot be said to outweij;h the (general impression conveyed by chs. 1*^20 as a whole. It is probable that t'ook is rinht in certain cases (especially in the story ol" Ahithopliel lij*'-i r^) in tracing the dirticnlties 'of the narrative Ut the com- bination of two sources ; but he certainly goes too far when he condemns all the interviews recorded, viz. those with Zibn, Meribbaal, bhimei, and Uarzillai, as the work of the redactor.
(d) 21-24. The Appendix.
'i'hese four chapters contain a number of hetero- peneoiis fragments, viz. : (ai the famine in Israel fxpiiited by the death of the sons of .Saul at the liands of the Uibeonites (21'-'-'); (6) a series of exploits asivinst the Philistines (21'*--); (c) David's llyuin of Triumph after tlie defeat of his enemies (ch. 22 = I's la) ; {tl) David's ' Last Words' (2:3'-") ; (e) further exploits against the Philistines, and list of David's lieroes (23'^«') ; (/) David's census of the people, and its result (cb. 24).
These chapters interrupt the main narrative of chs. 9-20, whicli IS continued in 1 K l-'J, and must therefore have been inserted in their present position alYcr the division of the Books of Samuel a!id Kings. It is notieeable that (/) is closely related In style and manner to («) : '24' clearly continues '21", while ln.th' narnitives have a .similar conclusion (21t*'> ■24^'*). The two narratives were apparently first separated by (/*) and (c), the contents of which are very similar, and between these again were inserted the two INalins chs. 22 and 2.S'-'.
The incident narrated in 21"- evidently belongs to the begin- ning of Davlil's reign, atrd seems to be alluded to by Shitnei (Hi"- 8) and .\leribbiuil (1*.|28), but is entirely ignored by ch. !1. fh. 24 is very similar to 21t-'*. <(f which it is clearly the sequel: in each case the Divine wrath is kindled against the people owing to the action vf the king, and they are punished with a plague, vv.'" and '' (David's repentance and his prayer) are out of place, and mav linve been inserted later: Hudde arranges the verses as follows: t''. Ub. IS. 13b. Ilk. Vim. iie. 14. u. lea. 17. 140^ lie (see above) assigns both sections to .1, and places them belore ch. 9 : on his view ch. 24 should precede 21'*'*, and ho therefore omits 24'* as a Deuteronomic gloss ; 21-'' ho assigns to tiu- mlactor, and rejects 21' as a bite insertion caused by the ilis[ilaceinent of the passage. He suggests that the gloomy nature t f tiieir content.s caused the sections to be removed l)y the comniler, and that they were atterwiirds added by the etlilor. The character of these and of the other sections is, however, very different from that of chs. 9-20. with which they exhibit no atiinity : hence, though '21'-'* and ch. 24 undoubtedly conljiln old traditions, we can only conjecture that they were adiled by a later hand after the completion of the main narra- tive. 2i'4-23 and 2Ji*-^ likewise contain olil material, ami belong to the early period of David's reign (see 5""-^): possibly they may be derived from the register of the ' reconler,' as Driver suggests iLOT'* pn, !><), IsT). Budde, who regards them as part iff the original narrative, places them after 'fi'^: his trans- liosltlon of 2:il3-l^* to the end of the chapter Is prolmbly correct. The two I'sulms chs. 22 (= I's IS) and 'lH'-' (David's 'Last Words') arc atlmittediy later additions to the book. The Da- vidic authorship of ch.22 has been maintained by Kwald, Hitzlg, etc., but the Internal evidence points to a later author. Tlio * Ijist Words' of David are obviously out of place ; the majority of cHtics agree that they are the work of a later hand : the text is in ]»arts very corrupt.
LiTKnATt;RR. — For the text seeThenius. />/> lificher Samtteh (in Krj/. Fathi. //r/)ii/fc.),>ls4;i. sis7:J, '(LohrllMis; Wellhausen, T^rtil. HuLhtr Sinn. 1-.71 ; Driver, /Mi. Text itf Sum. ISIIO; Klostermann, I>U ftnrtter Sum. it.der Ki'tuifjey^n K',tf. h'omm.), \^^1; Kelt, Die Bitchfv Sitm.* Is7.%; II. P. Smith,' .^r»(»c/ (In Iittfrnal. I'rit. I^(nnin.\ lsui»; Peters, Reitriinf e. Tevt- ii. Lilfriirkritikdfr ItucJifr ±Sitm. 18it9. For the critical analysis see esperiallv Wellhausen, Camp. 1889, pp. 2:iH-260 ; Kuenen, Ilint.Krit. 'Khilrituug{\^9»). l.li.np. !)7-l'i2 ; Mudde. Itiflittr H. ,^im. 1S90. pp. Iii7 2"n, and S/lOT\iii. ; Driver, /.OT" (1S97), pji. 172-iH.'>; i:oridll, Xlnclir./. A: WiHHrnnch. n.k. LfOtti, IHS'i, !• ll:itT., Kmiig„li. .•<liirl. Iss7, [.. 2,'.ir., XATW, ISSIO. p. 9(1 If.. Khilfilii}i:i ill A T; 1n9() ; Klllel, .^A', lh92. p, 44 IT., Genrli.iler Ihl.r.iir 1 1~92». il. li. 22 ff. (Krig. tr.) vol. ii. p. 22 IT. ; Chevne, hr roiil .•il Hil ij i:f rrilicimn ,\i\>,\-Vlf>\ Slndc, ^I7M'<S'9,1. 19711.; l.'.iir, \'i>rh,'mfrktiiiyfii in Mr4l ed. of Thenills'/ 'of/(wj. (see above); S. A. Cook, AJSI.{ = llehr,iica), 1900, p. I4,')f. ; II. A. Wliltc, art. David In present work. J. F. STKNNINO.