Stiihclin {Einleit. § 25, etc.) conjectures that a large portion of Samuel was written In' the author of the Pentateuch and of the books of Joshua and Judges. But continuity of history in the same form does not prove identity of authorship, nor are the similar phrases found in these books sufficient in number or character- istic idiom to support the theory. Nay, Samuel is free from the so-called Clialdaisms of Judges and the archa- isms of the Pentateuch. The peculiar theory of Jahn, on tlie other liand, is that tlie four books of Samuel and Kings were written bj' the same person, and at a date so recent as the iiOth year of tlie Babylonian captivity. His arguments, however, as well as those of Eichhorn (Kiiikit. § 4C8), and Hcrbst {FAiikil. ii, l-i;59), who hold a similar view, are more ingenious than solid (in- troduction, § 4(5). The fact of all the four treatises being named " Books of Kings" is insisted on as a proof that they were originally uudividcd and formed a single work — a mere hypothesis, since the similarity of their contents might easily give rise to this general title, while the more ancient appellation for the first two was The Book-K of Samuel. Great stress is laid on the imi- formity of method in all the books. But this uniformity by no means amounts to any proof of identity of author-
ship. It is nothing more than the same Hebrew his- torical style. The more minute and distinctive features, so far from being similar, are very different. Nay, the books of Samuel and Kings may be contrasted in many of those peculiarities which mark a different writer :
(o.) In Kings there occur not a few references to the laws of j\Ioses; in Samuel not one of these is to be found.
(6.) The books of Kings repeatedly cite authorities, to which appeal is made, and the reader is directed to the "Acts of Solomon," "the book of the Chronicles of Kings of Israel," or "Judah." But in the books of Sam- uel there is no formal allusion to any such sources of in- formation.
(c.) The nature of the history in the two works is very different. The plan of the books of Samuel is not that of the books of Kings. The books of Samuel are more of a biographical character, and are more limited and personal in their view.
{(L) There are in the books of Kings many later forms of language. For a collection of some of these the reader is referred to De Wette {Einleit. in das A . T. § 185, note e). Scarcely any of those more recent or Chaldaic forms occur in Samuel. Besides, some peculi- arities of form are noted by De Wette (§ 180), but they are not so numerous or distinctive as to give a general character to the treatise (Hirzel, De Chalduismi Bill. Orif/ine, 1830). Many modes of expression com- mon in Kings are absent from Samuel (Kcil, Einkit. § 53). See Kings, Books of.
(e.) The concluding chapters of the second book of Samuel are in the form of an appendix to the work — a proof of its completeness. The connection between Samuel and Kings is thus interrupted. It appears, then, that Samuel claims a distinct authorship from the books of Kings. Stiihelin, indeed, supposes that the present division between the two treatises has not been correctlj' made, and that the two commencing chapters of 1 Kings really belong to 2 Samuel. This he argues on philological grounds, because the terms ^n^IiTl Tbsm (1 Kings i, 38), L'£D 'ch-Q (i, 12), and ni3 T!J£D (i, 29) are found nowhere in Kings but in the first two chapters, while they occur once and again in Sam- uel, There is certainly something peculiar in this affin- ity, though it may be accounted for on the principle that the author of the pieces or sketches which form the basis of the initial portions of 1 Kings not onlj' com- posed those which form the conclusion of Samuel, but also supervised or published the whole work which is now called by the prophet's name.
Thus the books of Samuel have an authorship of their own — an authorship belonging to a very early pe- riod. While their tone and style are very different from the later records of Chronicles, they are also dissimilar to the books of Kings. They hear the impress of a hoary age in their language, allusions, and mode of composition. The insertion of odes and snatches of po- etry, to enliven and verily the narrative, is common to them with the I'entateuch. They abound in minute sketches and vivid touches. As if the chapters had been extracted from a diary, some portions are more full}' detailed and warmly colored than others, according as the original observer was himself impressed. Jlany of the incidents, in their artless and striking delinea- tion, would form a fine study for a painter.
VII. The Ohject. — So far as the compiler of these books might t)e conscious of a direct aim in his work, producing it, as doubtless he did, under the impulse and guidance of the Holy Spirit, it might be his endeavor to continue the history of tlie chosen people, and especially to record the remarkable change wliieli was effected in tlie method of the divine government, when the (Jod of Israel ceased to rule the people bj' judges, and per- mitted them to be governed by kings, as were the otlier nations of the earth. In pursuing this object the writer took care to point out tlie important distinction which