1. There is considerable difference in the manner of the writers; some portions contrasting in their brief, fragmentary, chronological character with others which are more full and copious, and (in one part at least) mi- nutely biographical (comp. 1 Sam. v, 1-lG; viii; xx, 15-22; xxiii, 8-29, with 2 Sam. xi-xx).
2. In several places there may be perceived the con- clusion of the original documents, to which additional matter has been attached, yet without being so joined as to api)ear like a natural continuation. In some places the compiler has placed together what he found narrated by different writers respecting the persons whose histo- ries they wrote, without having so worked them up into one narrative as to harmonize all their parts (1 Sam. vii, 15-17; xiv, 47-52; 2 Sara, viii, 15-18; xx, 23-20).
3. Of some events there appear to be double accounts recorded, and occasionally these accounts are different, and sometimes, apparently at least, inconsistent; as, for instance, how Saul became king (1 Sam. ix-x, IG, and X, 17-27); how and why Saul was rejected (xiii, 8-14, and XV, 10-26) ; how David became known to Saul (xvi, 14-21, and xvii, 55-xviii, 2); how David spared Saul's life (ch. xxiv and xxvi) ; how David went over to the Philistines (xxi, 10-15, and xxvii, 1-4); how the proverb "Is Saul also among the prophets?" arose (x, 9-13, and xix, 22-24). It should here be remarked that these alleged discrepant passages, as well as many more which sceptical critics have adduced, need to be ex- plained, whatever opinion maj' be held respecting the authorship of these books. As, for instance, the state- ment that Samuel (vii, 15-17) was all his life long judge over Israel, but according to viii, 1-3 had surrendered the office to his sons (but see xii, 2); the occasion and the motives for demanding a king, as differently stated in viii, 5 and xii, 12 ; the two accounts of Goliath (xvii, 1-10, and 2 Sam. xxi, 19); the double record of Sam- uel's death (1 Sam. xxv, 1 and xxviii, 3) ; the two de- scriptions of the manner of Saul's death (xxxi, 1-6 and 2 Sam. i. 1-10); the twofold account of tlie battle with the Syrians (2 Sam. viii and x), etc. Such different, thougli not therefore discordant, iiorlions of the work may probably be best explained on the assumption that the books consist of materials brought together from various sources. This origin may be granted, however, without admitting tliat tliere is any inconsistency or contradiction among the materials so joined together; just as in the case of tlie (ii)sp(l liistory, which is con- stituted by the separate narratives of four different, but not therefore discordant, writers. It is not the object of this article to erplttiii the alleged inconsistencies, however completely tliat might be done. They are here mentioned only as they l)car upon the (|ucstion of authorship, and as they seem to indicate tlie use of a variety of materials by the autlmr or comi)iler of these books.
4. The relation between tha books of Chronicles and the books of Samuel is thought to point to the same
conclusion. It can scarcely be maintained that the au- thor of the Chronicles has derived from the books of Samuel all the materials for the narratives which are common to both works. There are so many variations between the history as related by the chronicler and as related in Samuel as to render it probable, not that the chronicler derived everything from Samuel, but that he had access to the sources used also by the compiler of Samuel. This may be explained by a comparison of 2 Sam. v, 1-10 and xxiii, 8-39 with 1 Chron. xi, xii. The chronicler has placed in continuous narrative Da- vid's anointing as king of Israel at Hebron, the capture of Jerusalem, the building of the city of David, and the list of David's heroes, with their deeds, probably as he found them connected in the documents which he used; while in Samuel they are detached, the list of heroes being placed separate!}- in the history of the latest pe- riod of the life of David. So in 1 Chron. iii, the list of David's children is given in a form probably drawn from some official register to which the writer of Samuel had access, as he gives the list in two portions to suit the course of his narrative (2 Sam. iii, 2-5; v, 14-16).
5. The hand <jf a compiler is thought to be percepti- ble in certain detached observations here and there oc- curring in the course of the history, in the way of ex- planation of some portion drawn from the documents; as for example, in 1 Sam. ix, 9, the expression riN~n is explained: For "the prophet" of to-day was called formerh' "the seer." 1 Sam. xvii, 14, 15, is regarded as an interposed remark, to connect this history with the account given in the previous chapter of the family of Jesse.
IV. The S.ovrces. — Should these books then appear to be a compilation from several original documents, the interesting question arises. How far may it be possible to resolve the whole work into its constituent ]iarts, so as to obtain some idea of the nature of the sources whence the parts were derived? Thenius has attempt- ed to solve this difficult problem in the following way. On internal grounds he distinguishes five principal sources :