The First Book of Samuel

By David Toshio Tsumura

David and Goliath, the call of Samuel, the witch of Endor, David and Bathsheba — such biblical stories are well known. But the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, where they are recorded, are among the most difficult books in the Bible. The Hebrew text is widely considered corrupt and sometimes even unintelligible. The social and religious customs are strange and seem to diverge from the tradition of Moses. In this first part of an ambitious two-volume commentary on the books of Samuel, David Toshio Tsumura sheds considerable light on the background of 1 Samuel, looking carefully at the Philistine and Canaanite cultures, as he untangles the difficult Hebrew text.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Mar 15, 2007
• ISBN: 9781467422970

David Toshio Tsumura

David Toshio Tsumura is professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo, chairman of the Tokyo Museum of Biblical Archaeology, and editor of Exegetica: Studies in Biblical Exegesis.

Book preview

The First Book of

SAMUEL

---

David Toshio Tsumura

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 2006 David Toshio Tsumura

All rights reserved

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

eISBN 978-1-4674-2297-0

ISBN-10: 0-8028-2359-9 / ISBN-13: 978-0-8028-2359-5

www.eerdmans.com

For

Susan, Michio and Makoto

in memory of

my parents and Jean Hailer

CONTENTS

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

ABBREVIATIONS LIST

INTRODUCTION

I. TITLE

II. TEXT

III. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

IV. HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

V. GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX

VI. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

VII. PROSE AND POETRY

VIII. LITERARY STRUCTURE AND THEMES

IX. THEOLOGY OF 1 SAMUEL

X. PURPOSE OF 1 SAMUEL

XI. OUTLINE OF 1 SAMUEL

XII. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

TEXT AND COMMENTARY

I. STORY OF SAMUEL — WITH THE EMBEDDED STORY OF THE ARK OF GOD (1:1–7:17)

A. Rise of Samuel as Prophet (1:1–3:21)

B. Story of the Ark of God (4:1–7:1)

C. Judgeship of Samuel (7:2–17)

II. — TRANSITION TO THE MONARCHY — (8:1–22)

Appoint Us a King (8:1–22)

III. STORY OF SAUL (9:1–15:35)

A. Saul Made King (9:1–11:15)

B. Samuel’s Address to Israel (12:1–25)

C. Reign of Saul (13:1–15:35)

IV. STORY OF SAUL AND DAVID (16:1–31:13)

A. Introduction of David (16:1–23)

B. David and Goliath: Battle at the Valley of Elah (17:1–54)

C. Saul, Jonathan, and David (17:55–18:5)

D. Saul Becomes David’s Enemy (18:6–30)

E. Saul’s Attempts to Kill David (19:1–21:1)

F. David’s Escape from Saul (21:2–26:25)

G. David in Philistia (27:1–30:31)

H. Death of Saul and Jonathan (31:1–13)

Notes

INDEXES

I. SUBJECTS

II. MODERN AUTHORS

III. SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

IV. FOREIGN WORDS

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

Long ago St. Paul wrote: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth (1 Cor. 3:6, NRSV). He was right: ministry indeed requires a team effort—the collective labors of many skilled hands and minds. Someone digs up the dirt and drops in seed, while others water the ground to nourish seedlings to growth. The same team effort over time has brought this commentary series to its position of prominence today. Professor E. J. Young planted it forty years ago, enlisting its first contributors and himself writing its first published volume. Professor R. K. Harrison watered it, signing on other scholars and wisely editing everyone’s finished products. As General Editor, I now tend their planting, and, true to Paul’s words, through four decades God has indeed graciously [given] the growth.

Today the New International Commentary on the Old Testament enjoys a wide readership of scholars, priests, pastors, rabbis, and other serious Bible students. Thousands of readers across the religious spectrum and in countless countries consult its volumes in their ongoing preaching, teaching, and research. They warmly welcome the publication of each new volume and eagerly await its eventual transformation from an emerging series into a complete commentary set. But as humanity experiences a new century of history, an era commonly called postmodern, what kind of commentary series is NICOT? What distinguishes it from other similarly well-established series?

Its volumes aim to publish biblical scholarship of the highest quality. Each contributor writes as an expert, both in the biblical text itself and in the relevant scholarly literature, and each commentary conveys the results of wide reading and careful, mature reflection. Ultimately, its spirit is eclectic, each contributor gleaning interpretive insights from any useful source, whatever its religious or philosophical viewpoint, and integrating them into his or her interpretation of a biblical book. The series draws on recent methodological innovations in biblical scholarship, for example, canon criticism, the so-called new literary criticism, reader-response theories, and sensitivity to gender-based and ethnic readings. NICOT volumes also aim to be irenic in tone, summarizing and critiquing influential views with fairness while defending their own. Its list of contributors includes male and female scholars from a number of Christian faith-groups. The diversity of contributors and their freedom to draw on all relevant methodologies give the entire series an exciting and enriching variety.

What truly distinguishes this series, however, is that it speaks from within that interpretive tradition known as evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is an informal movement within Protestantism that cuts across traditional denominational lines. Its heart and soul is the conviction that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, written by gifted human writers, through which God calls humanity to enjoy a loving personal relationship with its Creator and Savior. True to that tradition, NICOT volumes do not treat the Old Testament as just an ancient literary artifact on a par with the Iliad or Gilgamesh. They are not literary autopsies of ancient parchment cadavers but rigorous, reverent wrestlings with wonderfully human writings through which the living God speaks his powerful Word. NICOT delicately balances criticism (i.e., the use of standard critical methodologies) with humble respect, admiration, and even affection for the biblical text. As an evangelical commentary, it pays particular attention to the text’s literary features, theological themes, and implications for the life of faith today.

Ultimately, NICOT aims to serve women and men of faith who desire to hear God’s voice afresh through the Old Testament. With gratitude to God for two marvelous gifts—the Scriptures themselves and keen-minded scholars to explain their message—I welcome readers of all kinds to savor the good fruit of this series.

ROBERT L. HUBBARD JR.

Author’s Preface

Writing a commentary, however modest, is a hard task. Only by the grace of God one can complete its work. For a student of the Bible it is certainly a great privilege as well as a heavy responsibility. The task is done by continually learning from the vast information gleaned from preceding commentaries and scholarly works, while facing directly the original text of the book. Among many, I have especially learned from the commentaries of P. K. McCarter and R. P. Gordon, though I often disagree with them.

When dealing with the Hebrew text, training in Semitic philology, especially in Ugaritic, as well as in Canaanite religion by the late Prof. C. H. Gordon has prepared me to make some new suggestions for better understanding of the text of 1 Samuel. Prof. A. Millard of Liverpool University read many parts of the draft, providing valuable information and comments. Prof. T. Ishida, my former colleague at the University of Tsukuba, also gave me a number of significant comments, especially on the introductory section. The series editor Prof. R. L. Hubbard has been most helpful in improving the style and content of this commentary. I am grateful to his patience and encouragement. However, I am fully responsible for what I wrote in this book.

In this commentary I have stuck to the MT as much as possible, without easy recourse to emendation on the basis of the LXX and other ancient versions, not because the MT is perfect, but because it is time again to read the MT straightforwardly and determine whether, with the present knowledge of Hebrew grammar and style, we can make good sense out of the MT itself — the grammar includes, of course, discourse grammar, that is, supra-sentential grammatical analysis, as well as the styles I have discussed.

This is a comparatively literal translation. For instance, waw is translated as and where possible, instead of using various subordinate clauses to express the relationship. Also, where possible, the original word order is reflected in the English translation. On the other hand, some idiomatic expressions and formulae are translated non-literally, for example, and said is left out of expressions like And Hannah prayed and said (1 Sam. 2:1) or answered and said,¹ thus answered: (see 1 Sam. 4:17; 9:12, 19; 16:18; 22:14; 23:4; 29:9). But, see 1 Sam. 26:6. For the translation of perfect verbs, see on 1 Sam. 2:1b.

When citing commentaries, I have noted only the author’s family name with page numbers at the second occurrence. So, McCarter, p. 12 is from P. K. McCarter’s commentary on 1 Samuel in the AB series (1980). The full information on these commentaries can be found in Select Bibliography at the end of this Introduction.

Many persons, family and friends, both in Japan and abroad have prayed for this project and encouraged me. Faculty members and students (many graduates) of Japan Bible Seminary, especially President S. Funaki, Profs. K. Uchida and T. Matsumoto, have encouraged me on various occasions. Hamadayama Church members have also remembered me in their prayers.

Susan and my two sons, Michio and Makoto, have been faithful supporters and have experienced the frustration and joy of writing this commentary with me for more than a decade. Susan’s criticisms, often very sharp but always constructive, helped me to improve content and style, as well as English grammar. To her and my sons I dedicate this book with love.

ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου, ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται (2 Cor. 12:9)

ABBREVIATIONS

* * (Semitic verbal root)

AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae

AB Anchor Bible

ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

AbrN Abr-Nahrain

AdvPh adverbial phrase

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung

AGE K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta (SO 7). Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1938.

AHw W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965–81.

AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology

AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute

AJSL Americal Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

AnBi Analecta Biblica

Andersen F. I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1974.

ANEP J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954, 1968.

ANET J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

AnOr Analecta Orientalia

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

AOS American Oriental Series

ARM Archives royales de Mari

AS Assyriological Studies (University of Chicago)

ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

ATDa Acta Theologica Danica

ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament

AuOr Aula Orientalis

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

AusBR Australian Biblical Review

B-L H. Bauer & P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962 [orig. 1922].

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver & C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.

BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums

BeO Bibbia e Oriente

Berg G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik. I/II. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962 [orig. 1918].

BHK Biblia Hebraica Kittel

BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Bib Biblica

BibInt Biblical Interpretation

Biella J. C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25). Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

BIS Biblical Interpretation Series

BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament

BLS Bible and Literature Series

BMECCJ Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan

BN Biblische Notizen

BR Bible Review

BS Bibliotheca Sacra

BT The Bible Translator

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BToday Bible Today

BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW

CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary

CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament

CB Coniectanea Biblica

CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CH Code of Hamurabi

CML G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.

CML² J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends. New ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978.

COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament

CPTOT J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique

CS W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997; Vol. II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.

CTCA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques. Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1963.

Davidson A. B. Davidson, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. 26th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.

DBSup Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible

DCH D. J. A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew)-. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-.

DDD K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

DJPA M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1990.

DN divine name

DNWSI J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

DOTT D. W. Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.

EA El-Amarna tablets

EB Études bibliques

EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary

EI Eretz Israel

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

ET English translation

ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

EvT Evangelische Theologie

ExTi Expository Times

FB Forschung zur Bibel

GB F. Buhl, Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 17. Aufl. Berlin: Springer, 1915.

Gibson J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax. 4th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994.

GKC E. Kautszch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Second English edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

GMD R. Meyer and H. Donner, Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18. Aufl. Berlin: Springer, 1987.

GN geographical name

GVG Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966 [orig. 1908 and 1913].

HAHE J. Renz and W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, I. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

HAL W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-.

HALOT L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000.

HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HbO Handbuch der Orientalistik

HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

HSAT Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS Harvard Semitic Studies

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IB The Interpreter’s Bible

IBD The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. 3 vols. 1980.

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDBSup Supplement to IDB

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

Iliad 1–12 Homer, Iliad I: Books 1–12. With an English Translation by A. T. Murray, revised by William F. Wyatt. 2nd ed. Loeb Classical Library 170. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Iliad 13–24 Homer, Iliad II: Books 13–24. With an English Translation by A. T. Murray Loeb Classical Library 171. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925 [repr. 1985].

inf. abs. infinitive absolute

Int Interpretation

IOS Israel Oriental Studies

IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

IrBS Irish Biblical Studies

ISBE G. W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88.

ITC International Theological Commentary

J-M Paul Joüon–T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part One: Orthography and Phonetics. Part Two: Morphology. Part Three: Syntax. Subsidia Biblica 14/I-II. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991.

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JANES The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

Jastrow M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Pardes, 1950.

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBQ The Jewish Bible Quarterly

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JDS Judean Desert Studies

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JHNES Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages

JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

JPS Jewish Publication Society

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSS JSOT, Supplement Series

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

K. Ketib

KAI H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962, 1964, 1973.

KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament

KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

KJV King James Version

König E. König, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Litteratur Leipzig: Theodor Weicher, 1900.

KTU M. Dietrich–O. Loretz–J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976.

Lambdin T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973.

Lane E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams and Norgate, 1863 [repr. 1968].

LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient

LB Late Bronze Age

LBH Late Biblical Hebrew

Lesh Leshonenu

LXX Septuaginta

LXXA Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus

LXXB Septuagint Codex Vaticanus

LXXL Septuagint Lucianic Manuscripts

MB Middle Bronze Age

MR Map Reference, based on Student Map Manual: Historical Geography of the Bible Lands. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est. Distributed by Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. E.g., [MR 169–123] = Map Reference to Bethlehem according to the Grid [EW-NS].

MT Masoretic Text

NAB New American Bible

NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires

NAC New American Commentary

NASB New American Standard Bible

NB Neo Babylonian

NCB New Century Bible

NDBT T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (eds.), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

NEA Near Eastern Archaeology

NEAEHL E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993.

NEB New English Bible

neg. negative

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE W. A. VanGemeren (ed.), The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

NIV New International Version

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

NJPS(V) New Jewish Publication Society (Version)

NKJB New King James Bible

NovT Novum Testamentum

NP noun phrase

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NRT Nouvelle revue théologique

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OEANE E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

OL Old Latin

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung

Or Orientalia

OTA Old Testament Abstracts

OTE Old Testament Essays

OTG Old Testament Guides

OTL Old Testament Library

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

OTWSA Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgerneenskap in Suid-Afrika

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

PLMU C. H. Gordon, Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit. Berytus 25 (1977), pp. 5–133.

PN personal name

POS Pretoria Oriental Series

POTT D. J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

POTW A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingly, and E. M. Yamauchi (eds.), Peoples of the Old Testament world. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

PTU F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugrit. SP 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.

Q. Qere

qtl perfect

RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale

RB Revue Biblique

REB Revised English Bible

RIA Reallexikon der Assyriologie

RQ Revue de Qumran

RSO Revista degli Studi Orientali

RSP L. R. Fisher (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels. Vol. 1, AnOr 49. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972; vol. 2, AnOr 50, 1975. S. Rummel (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels. Vol. 3, AnOr 51, 1981.

RSR Religious Studies Review

RSV Revised Standard Version

S subject

SAA State Archives of Assyria

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study

SEL Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul vicino Oriente Antico

SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism

SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East

SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SLOCG E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA 80. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997.

SP Studia Pohl

SSI J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I-III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971–82.

SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica

ST Studia Theologica

STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

StOr Studia Orientalia

SVT Supplement to VT

TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. I-. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-.

Temp-ph temporal phrase

THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971–1976.

TICP Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris

Tiq. soph. Tiqqun sopherim (corrections of scribe)

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

TO A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, I: Mythes et lègendes. LAPO 7. Paris: Cerf, 1974.

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-.

TWOT R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke (eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

TynB Tyndale Bulletin

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

UCOP University of Cambridge Oriental Publications

UF Ugarit-Forschungen

Ug Ugaritica

UMM University Museum Monograph

UnSemQ Union Seminary Quarterly Review

UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1965.

UTS Supplement to C. H. Gordon, UT

VigChr Vigiliae Christianae

VP verb phrase

VT Vetus Testament

w simple waw (we)

W–O B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Watson W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. JSOTS 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.

wayhy waw consecutive + Qal imperfect 3 m s *hyh (to be)

wayqtl waw consecutive + imperfect (yqtl)

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

Williams R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976.

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments

WO Die Welt des Orients

WTJ The Westminster Theological Journal

yqtl imperfect

ZA Zeidtschrift für Assyriologie

ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebräistik

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

ZDMGSup Supplement to ZDMG

ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ZTK Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

Introduction

1–2 Samuel is one of the most fascinating sections of the Bible. Stories such as David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17:1–54), Call of Samuel as a Prophet (1 Sam. 3:1–21), Witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28), and David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2–12:25) are among the most famous from the entire ancient world. Many works of literature and music and art have been produced based on these stories. Figures such as Hannah (1 Sam. 1:11; 2:1–10), Jonathan (14:6), Abigail (25:24–31), Joab (2 Sam. 2ff.), and Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:33–39), though not main dramatis personae like Samuel, Saul, and David, still took a major role in each stage of God’s unfolding plan of salvation. The stories are easy to follow, and even children can appreciate and enjoy reading and re-reading them.

Yet, the books are among the most difficult ones in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew text is widely considered corrupt and sometimes even unintelligible. The socio-religious customs are often strange and seemingly divergent from the Mosaic traditions. To write a commentary on 1–2 Samuel is certainly a hard and never-ending task. The present effort is just a small contribution toward a better understanding and appreciation of the fascinating drama of the Bible.

Before commenting on the individual sections, some general introductory notes are in order. Below we summarize the present state of the study of 1–2 Samuel in the areas of Title, Text, Date and Authorship, Literary Approach, Historiography, Historical and Religious Background, Grammar and Syntax, Discourse Analysis, Prose and Poetry, Literary Structure and Themes, and Theology.

I. TITLE

In the Hebrew Bible, the First and Second Books of Samuel are counted among the Former Prophets (Joshua–2 Kings). The Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX), divides Samuel and Kings into the four Books of Kingdoms (basileiōn A-D); thus 1–2 Samuel are 1–2 Kingdoms — in the Vulgate, 1–2 Kings.¹

1 Chr. 29:29 says, As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer…. It implies the existence of the written records of Samuel on which the Chronicler presumably drew. Of course, Samuel could not have written even the whole of the first book since it refers to his death (1 Sam. 25:1; 28:3) and records the subsequent history of Saul and David. Some parts of 1 Samuel might have been written (see 1 Sam. 10:25) or preserved by the prophet himself or his disciples, however; see below on Date and Authorship.

Nevertheless the Hebrew title Samuel most likely refers to Samuel not as the author, but as the key figure, the one who established the monarchy in Israel by anointing first Saul and then David; Samuel was the king-maker in the history of ancient Israel. Thus, it was reasonable to name the books after him.

II. TEXT

Besides the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) known from manuscripts of the 10th and 11th centuries A.D., various ancient textual traditions for the books of Samuel are known. The three Hebrew texts of Samuel among the Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 3rd century to 1st century B.C.), 4QSama, 4QSamb, and 4QSamc, are extremely important for the textual study of the books.²

Ancient versions are also helpful for understanding the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. Among the versions, the most important is the Greek one, the Septuagint (LXX) of ca. 2nd century B.C., which has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions, the Codex Vaticanus (LXXB), the Codex Alexandrinus (LXXA) and the Lucianic Manuscripts (LXXL).³ Other known ancient versions are the Old Latin (OL),⁴ the Aramaic Targum Jonathan (Targ.),⁵ the Syriac Peshitta (Syr.),⁶ and the Latin Vulgate (Vulg.). Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) also provides useful information.⁷

The MT of 1–2 Samuel has suffered from transcriptional corruption and is in extremely poor condition⁸ because of its peculiar and often unintelligible spellings and grammatical forms. Hence, scholars have corrected it in the light of LXX and other versions, and then later the Qumran biblical texts.⁹

A. HISTORY OF RESEARCH

1. Before the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The first systematic attempt at correction was made by Otto Thenius, Die Bücher Samuelis (1842), who used the LXX to recover the original readings at many points where the MT was taken as corrupt. The major work by Wellhausen10 compared the MT, LXX, and other versions and produced the outline of an eclectic text of Samuel. His work influenced subsequent studies by H. P. Smith, Budde, Dhorme, and others,¹¹ as well as S. R. Driver,¹² who, however, paid more attention to the details of Hebrew grammar and syntax. By 1913 when the second edition of Driver’s Notes …¹³ was published, knowledge of Hebrew language and orthography as well as of the characteristics of the versions and text families had increased. Nevertheless, conjectural emendations continued to be suggested to solve many difficult passages.

The comparative use of the LXX and other versions for clearing up the problems in the MT faced sharp criticisms and questions, for it was questioned whether the LXX readings really reflected the details of a divergent Hebrew original text. One might suggest that it was a strong possibility that the LXX had artificially corrected a difficult text that was close to the MT. P. A. H. de Boer,¹⁴ for example, was completely negative toward the use of LXX to correct the MT.

2. Discovery of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls

With the discovery of the Qumran biblical texts, however, a revolution began in the study of the text of Samuel. These texts are older by a millennium than any extant MT manuscripts. Among them, 4QSama is a large and fairly well preserved scroll, dated 50–25 B.C. It includes parts of much of 1–2 Samuel and has now finally been published.¹⁵ 4QSamb is a group of fragments of a small part of 1 Samuel, that is, 16:1–11; 19:10–17; 21:3–10; and 23:7–17. According to McCarter,¹⁶ it is probably the oldest biblical manuscript found at Qumran, and is dated mid-3rd century B.C. It was published partially by Cross and has now been published fully by Cross and Parry.¹⁷ 4QSamc is a group of small fragments of 1 Sam. 25:30–32 and 2 Sam. 14:7–21; 14:22–15:4; 15:4–15, dated early 1st century B.C. and published by Ulrich.¹⁸

These biblical scroll and fragments diverge widely from the MT and, according to Cross,¹⁹ are consistently close to the one reflected by LXX. So, it has been claimed that the LXX does actually reflect a different manuscript tradition and needs to be taken into account in textual criticism.

3. Cross’s Local Texts Theory

Since these Qumran Samuel manuscripts are closer in detail to the LXXL (Lucian) text20 than to the text of the LXXB, which preserves the oldest Greek translation (OG), Cross assumes the OG was at some point revised in accordance with Hebrew texts from Palestine, which were similar to the Qumran Samuel scrolls. Then the final stratum of the Lucian text tried to bring this text into harmony with the current Hebrew text, a forerunner of the MT.

Thus, he proposes a local texts theory, taking this Palestinian text type to be a third tradition beside the Babylonian (MT) and the Egyptian (OG in LXXB) text types.²¹ However, recent studies by Aejmalaeus,²² Saiz,²³ and Herbert24 certainly cast significant doubt on Cross’s theory that a proto-Lucianic recension was based on a 4QSama-like text.

4. Conventional Textual Criticism of 1–2 Samuel

Following his mentor Cross, McCarter reconstructs the text of Samuel eclectically. He thinks the MT tends to skip text and the Qumran-type tends to expand it.²⁵ However there are strong objections to the validity of such an eclectic text. One major one is that, unlike the case of the NT, there are not enough manuscript witnesses to reconstruct a primitive text of Samuel. Walters notes that at times there is no way to account for the readings based on textual evidence, and so decisions are made ad sensum.²⁶ Especially in the case of the Qumran texts, we really have only one manuscript (scroll), since only in the case of 4QSama can we be reasonably sure that we have what could be called a biblical text. The other two texts are so fragmentary that we cannot rule out that they are some type of paraphrase, similar to other biblical paraphrases that have been found.

As Tov summarizes, there are two theories among scholars concerning the original shape of the biblical text.²⁷ The first is the single original text hypothesis, accepted by the majority of scholars, including McCarter, Tov, R. Klein, and Stoebe. This position accepts the possibility that one of the readings was the original, even if it is often impossible to decide among textual variants. The second is the different pristine texts hypothesis, held by scholars such as Kahle, Barthélemy, Goshen-Gottstein, Talmon, Greenberg, and Walters.²⁸ This approach does not try to reach a single original text.²⁹

When there is so little evidence, it is certainly wise not to jump to hasty generalizations. Nevertheless, the present writer holds that one of the available readings could be nearer to the original than the others. Though there is not enough evidence available now to make final decisions, it is also wise not to give up the possibility of approaching a more original text in the future. See further the commentary on 1 Samuel 11 and 17.

B. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TEXTUAL STUDIES

1. Reconstructing the Qumran Text

In recent years scholars have been engaged in more scientific and objective studies of the text of the Qumran scrolls. Until recently no clear method had been developed for reconstructing the text of scrolls, and scholars had to use their judgment and common sense. However, this scholarly common sense can often be very subjective.

Herbert recently proposed measuring the average column width and the average letter widths for 4QSama in order to reconstruct the text more objectively. The usefulness of this study is clear when one compares Herbert’s work30 with the most recent article by F. M. Cross and D. W. Parry.³¹ While there is no way for a reader to check the latter’s ad hoc remarks such as spacing requires, the reconstruction required by the limited space, there is no room, and this line is long, Herbert’s method is empirical and open to the reader’s scrutiny.³²

2. LXX’s Limitations

One should also not forget that the LXX is a translation and is itself not exempt from textual corruptions.³³ McCarter and others seem to go very easily to the ancient versions when they deal with difficult Hebrew texts. However, in many of the places where the LXX is clear and the MT very difficult, it is probably not because the translators worked from an uncorrupted text, but because the LXX translators were working from an MT-like text which they also found difficult, and they made their own best guess as to what it meant. After all, as translators they felt they had to produce meaningful Greek. Going to the LXX is often against the principle of lectio difficilior, that is, the more difficult reading is to be preferred.

For example, the MT in 1 Sam. 1:24, pārîm šelōšāh, usually translated as three bulls, is emended to mean a three-year-old bull, based on the LXX, 4QSama, and the Peshitta, because three bulls seem to be too much for the dedication of a little boy. However, the term pārîm here probably has the older meaning younglings. So, the animals which Hannah brought to Shiloh were not necessarily adult bulls, but the younglings of cows or sheep; see on 1 Sam. 1:24. If this interpretation is correct, it is incorrect in this case to emend of the MT in the light of LXX and other versions. The primary task of exegetes of ancient texts, whether biblical or extra-biblical, is to interpret data in its original context, not to alter the data so that they can explain it easily.

3. Reevaluation of the MT

While it is often true that the LXX and other versions are sought out only when the MT is unintelligible,³⁴ many textual critics give up seeking solutions to difficult and obscure passages in MT and turn to various ancient versions too soon. In recent years such an overemphasis on the LXX against MT has been criticized by Barthélemy and his followers, notably Pisano, and others.³⁵ The most recent trend is a higher regard for the Masoretic tradition, as can be seen by comparing the recent trends in BHQ with previous editions.³⁶

Compared with the days of S. R. Driver, a century ago, we have much more information about the ancient writing system and its cultural background. However, the correct reading is still lacking for many obscure passages in the MT Samuel. In some cases their obscurity is not due to the corrupted nature of the text but to phonetic spelling.

4. Scribal Errors or Phonetic Spellings?

Textual critics have a tendency to watch carefully the formal aspects of the text (i.e., shapes of letters, words spelt similarly, phrases, etc.) and often suggest that there were deliberate corrections, but they often overlook phonological and grammatical features. The present author believes as a result of his study that many of the scribal errors in 1–2 Samuel suggested by textual critics may be in fact phonetic spellings or Hebrew grammatical constructions that have been misunderstood.³⁷

For example, in 2 Sam. 22:40, the MT wattazrēnî : watte’azzerēnî seems to be the original and normal form, as attested in Ps. 18:40 (MT) and 2 Sam. 22:40 (4QSama), the MT form might be explained as a sandhi spelling, as follows:

watte’azzerēni

• (loss of the intervocalic aleph) → watte+azzerēnî

• (vowel sandhi)³⁸ → wattazzerēnî

• (shorter form) → wattazrēnî

Hence, there is no need to reckon the MT Samuel here as textually defective.³⁹

Another example is the form nemibzāh in 1 Sam. 15:9, which many critics deem unintelligible. However, this form might be explained phonologically as follows:

Ni. ptc. f.s. nišzāh

• (m-glide) → nimbzāh — (anaptyxis) → nimišzāh

• (vowel reduction) → nemibzāh

The form nišzāh, Ni. ptc. f.s. of *bzh (to despise), which is most suitable to the context, experienced a change of form by the insertion of an m-glide (cf. the insertion of a p-glide in Sampson from the original Samson)⁴⁰ and by the subsequent restructuring of the term. Thus, the spelling seems to reflect the actual pronunciation of the word, not a scribal error.

These examples41 warn us against too easily emending the Hebrew texts when they look peculiar or even unintelligible to the eyes of a modern reader. A narrative like 1–2 Samuel could have been written, at least partly, as if it was heard or spoken. Therefore, one should take aural features of the narrative into consideration when spellings seem peculiar or even impossible.⁴²

5. Idiomatic Expressions

A textual irregularity is also sometimes due to an idiomatic expression. For example, usually the verb *npl appears in the idiomatic phrase Cast the lot(s) *npl (Hi.) + gôrāl. But in 1 Sam. 14:42 happîlû decide (lit. cause to fall) is used without the object noun. McCarter thinks that MT suffered a long haplography here. Such text-critical solutions miss the characteristics of linguistic phenomenon such as brachylogy, which is an ellipsis of the noun (here, lots) in an idiom (see below [VII, D]); so, the verb (here, happîlû) by itself retains the idiomatic meaning (here, to decide).⁴³ Thus, students of the Hebrew text should be prepared to seek phonological and grammatical explanations of any unusual Hebrew forms, not just orthographic explanations.

When there is not enough evidence to draw the solid conclusion that the text is corrupt, the best thing to do is to leave the MT, an ancient artifact, unaltered, and to explain it with minimal speculation.

While there are still passages where the MT still seems unintelligible in 1 Samuel, as 13:21 and 17:12, and several where the meaning seems strange, as 9:24; 13:1, 8; and 20:14, the present author feels he has shown that the majority of proposed emendations are needless.

III. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

Scholars have long studied the problem of the authorship of the books of Samuel. To state the conclusion first, we do not know who wrote the books of Samuel. There is no explicit and objective evidence indicating the author. Since Samuel’s death is mentioned in 1 Sam. 25:1 (also 28:3), the name Samuel was not intended to imply authorship. As discussed below, the books of Samuel seem to have been composed and edited in several stages. The Story of the Ark of God (1 Sam. 4:1–7:1) could have originated very early, even from the pre-Davidic era; others, such as the Story of Saul and David (1 Samuel 16–31) and the Story of King David (2 Samuel 1–20), must have been composed later, at the earliest during the early part of David’s reign in Jerusalem and during the later part of David’s rein or the Solomonic era, respectively. The final editing of 1–2 Samuel, with minor adjustments, was probably made no later than the late 10th century B.C. in view of 1 Sam. 27:6 (Therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day). See below for details.

A. THREE PUTATIVE SOURCES

In modern critical study,⁴⁴ some earlier scholars (e.g., Cornill 1885, 87, Budde 1890) saw two strata in the books of Samuel, an early, pro-monarchic source associated with the Pentateuchal J and a late, anti-monarchic source associated with E, while the others, such as Smend and Eissfeldt,⁴⁵ saw also a third, L (= Lay). However, the difference between the pro-monarchic and anti-monarchic passages has been somewhat overemphasized (see on 1 Sam. 8:4–6a), and the existence of J and E sources in the Pentateuch, hence also in the Historical books, has become suspect these days.⁴⁶

However, H. Gressmann’s fragmentary hypothesis, which claims that various short narrative units were eventually combined by an editor, has remained influential among scholars.⁴⁷ Rost’s Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (1926)⁴⁸ also advocated the composite nature of the older materials. He isolated distinct and originally independent narrative sources within the early stratum — especially an old history of the succession to David in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2 and an even more ancient ark narrative in 1 Sam. 4:1b–7:1 and 2 Samuel 6.

It is widely accepted that there were originally three major compositions before the final editing of 1–2 Samuel, though there are some differences in detail. However, whether these blocks ever existed as single works is still in doubt. See below.

1. Ark Narrative

The so-called Ark Narrative (AN),⁴⁹ according to Rost, followed by many scholars, consists principally of 1 Sam. 4:1b–7:1 together with parts of 2 Samuel 6. However, the similarity in vocabulary and style between the two sections is not decisive to support his theory, as Miller and Roberts observe.⁵⁰ The same geographical place is referred to both as Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam. 6:21) and as Baalah of Judah (2 Sam. 6:2), and thus one can question whether 2 Samuel 6 was originally part of this narrative.⁵¹ Moreover, in the latter story Yahweh and the ark are no longer the major actors; David takes the initiative for transferring the ark to Jerusalem.⁵² So, it is difficult to prove that these sections originally constituted a single story.

The story in 1 Samuel 4–6 is probably among the oldest compositions in the books of Samuel, because it does not envisage a royal cult in Jerusalem. It is possible that 1 Sam. 4:1–7:1 is from a source that was contemporary with Samuel, while 2 Samuel 6 is taken from a later, that is, early Davidic, source.

As Alter holds, the story has to be read in the context of the comprehensive literary structure into which it has been integrated, whether by editorial ingenuity or by the allusive artistry of the author of the David story.⁵³ Certainly, the story of the Ark of God (4:1–7:1) is embedded into the Story of Samuel (1:1–7:17), while the other story of the ark, that in 2 Samuel 6, is placed there so as to fit in the context both chronologically and thematically. However, it has still not been proved that the AN as such ever existed as an independent composition.

2. History of David’s Rise⁵⁴

Many scholars believe there was originally an independent narrative History of David’s Rise (HDR),⁵⁵ which is generally held to begin in 1 Samuel 15 or 16 and continue until 2 Samuel 5 or 7. Some think that this history itself is a composite. Most commentators say its purpose was to legitimatize King David, that is, to show that David’s succession to Saul’s throne was lawful. Certain passages such as David’s sparing of Saul’s life (1 Samuel 24 and 26), his reaction to the news of Saul’s death (2 Samuel 1), and the deaths of Abner (ch. 3) and Ishbosheth (ch. 4) seem written or selected to emphasize that David was guiltless of murderous intentions towards Saul’s house.

This might suggest that it was composed at a time when David’s rule was being challenged, perhaps soon after the death of Solomon when the northern tribes were challenging Davidic national sovereignty.⁵⁶ Comparing it with the 13th century B.C. Hittite Apology of Hattušiliš, McCarter even dates the earliest versions to the reign of David himself, that is, during the early part of the 10th century B.C., especially in the context of Shimei’s rebellion (see 2 Sam. 16:7) and pro-Saulide sentiment.⁵⁷

It is certainly possible that the section or story was written as political justification for the Davidic kingship during the time of David himself, especially since a defense of the Davidic dynasty is conspicuously lacking.⁵⁸ However, this author would take 1 Samuel 16–31, rather than 1 Samuel 15/16-2 Samuel 5/-7, as a literary unit:⁵⁹ that is, the Story of Saul and David, in which Saul is still a reigning king while David is rising toward his throne. To this, the Story of King David (2 Samuel 1–20) is linked by means of an episode about the report of Saul’s death and David’s elegy (2 Samuel 1), which functions as a of the A/aB pattern of the transitional technique; see below (Section VI, B). As Alter holds, to posit an independent story HDR may be to do palpable violence to the beautiful integrity of the story as the probing representation of a human life.⁶⁰ In fact, in a recent study, Dietrich and Naumann support Ficker’s view that HDR probably never existed as a single work on its own but was conceived as an additional layer to the Succession Narrative.⁶¹

3. Succession Narrative or Court History?

Among the three putative extended sources, the Succession Narrative (SN),⁶² that is, 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 K. 1–2, has received the most scholarly scrutiny and acclaim on account of its high literary quality and presumed homogeneity and historical value.

Rost advocated the view that this section was a pro-Solomonic succession narrative written by an eyewitness not only to validate the Davidic monarchy but specifically to defend the accession of Solomon to the throne. However, scholars like Eissfeldt have taken it to be rather a Court History (CH).⁶³ They point out that the story of David and Bathsheba and the court intrigue scene in 1 Kings 1 hardly seem designed to prove Solomon’s legitimacy as a successor.⁶⁴ In addition, there is no prophetic announcement of God’s choice of Solomon in this section.

For Gunn65 the CH is neither a succession narrative nor propaganda nor wisdom. It is a novel whose purpose is serious entertainment.⁶⁶ Similarly, from literary analytical perspectives, Ackerman says the CH was written by a true artist showing the complexity of life, with good and evil mingled in the characters, a profound meditation on how life works, envisioning an intricate balance between human freedom and divine sovereignty.⁶⁷ Alter also questions whether the succession to the throne is actually the central concern of this sequence of episodes.⁶⁸ He notes the works of J. P. Fokkelman, R. Polzin, and S. Bar-Efrat, which illuminate the fine and complex interconnections among the various phases of the story of David, Saul, and Samuel.⁶⁹

Yet those who take the narrative as succession narrative or court history usually treat the final four chapters of 2 Samuel, that is, chs. 21–24, as Appendicies, which interrupt the flow of historical narrative from 2 Samuel 20 to 1 Kings 1. To be sure, those four chapters provide materials that are not in a chronological order. 2 Samuel 21 mentions the incident of the sacrifice of Saul’s seven sons for his blood-guilt against the Gibeonites (vv. 1–14) as well as David’s encounters with the Philistine heroes (vv. 15–22). Chapter 22, a slightly different version of Psalm 18, is a thanksgiving psalm of David. 2 Sam. 23:1–7 is the last words of David, while vv. 8–39 are a list of David’s heroes, the three and the thirty. The final chapter, 2 Samuel 24, refers to David’s census and the subsequent plague as well as to the purchase of the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite for building an altar to Yahweh.

However, generally speaking, while an appendix implies a later addition to the main part, an epilogue constitutes a structurally integral part of the entire story. In fact, the final episode of purchasing Araunah’s threshing floor prepares for the subsequent story of Solomon, who will build the temple for Yahweh at the very same place. As discussed later in Section VIII, Literary Structure and Themes, the epilogues in 2 Samuel 21–24 nicely correspond to 1 Samuel 1–2. It is most reasonable to take 2 Samuel 1–20 as a unified Story of King David, with 2 Samuel 1 as the link to 1 Samuel

In any history writing (i.e., historiography) the author must certainly select sources of information and put them in order for his own purpose. The author of Samuel must have had sources of information when he edited and wrote the historical narrative of 1–2 Samuel. However, he seems to present the entire book as a unified and cohesive piece of literature concerning the establishment of David’s kingly throne. Thus, the issue is when the editing or redacting of this unified and cohesive piece of historical narrative was performed.

B. TWO RECENT APPROACHES

1. Noth’s Hypothesis

In his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien M. Noth advocated that a single person or persons compiled a continuous history of Israel from the time of the settlement of Canaan to the Babylonian exile, that is, the books of Joshua-Kings. He was not merely an editor, but the author of the history which is usually designated as the Deuteronomistic history (DH). According to Noth,⁷⁰ the Deuteronomistic historian(s) (Dtr) took over extensive collections of traditions available to him (them), such as the three narratives (AN, HDR, and SN/CH) mentioned above and traditions concerning Saul. Surprisingly, Noth considered Dtr’s contributions in the case of 1–2 Samuel to be limited to 1 Samuel 7–8, 12, part of ch. 10, 2 Sam. 5:6–12, and some chronological notes. Noth’s view and the recent emphasis on the holistic approach are taken up in Polzin’s study,⁷¹ in which he takes the entire 1–2 Samuel as written by one author/redactor during the exilic period.

Against Noth, Cross advocates two editions of the Deuteronomistic history, mainly based on the treatment of Josiah in the books of Kings. He says that since Josiah is portrayed as a second David who reactivates the dynastic promise, the first edition originated in the reign of Josiah (ca. 640–609 B.C.), and the second, in the Exilic era (ca. 550 B.C.).⁷² Other scholars also have suggested two or more stages for compiling the Deuteronomistic history.⁷³ Some scholars posit a stage of a prophetic revision before the Deuteronomic redaction(s).⁷⁴ Still more recently, Caquot and de Robert, who doubt the existence of a prophetic redaction, have proposed three stages of composition, that is, one by Abiathar, one by a Zadokite author, and one by an exilic Deuteronomist.⁷⁵

But on what grounds are parts of Samuel considered to have been written or redacted by a Josiah or post-Josiah Deuteronomist (circle) or by others? One ground is the use of language considered to be Deuteronomistic. However, when we look at the individual phrases, we have no reason to suggest that they are so late. Just because a phrase occurs in certain unquestionably later passages does not automatically mean it could not have been used earlier.

For example, the phrase to this day is often taken as Deuteronomistic in 2 K. 8:22 and 16:6. However, the phrase is used in 1 Sam. 6:18b,

As for the great platform of Abel on which they laid the Ark of the Lord, it is in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemeshite until this day.

which probably goes back to the pre-Davidic time, for the Ark of God was carried into Jerusalem during David’s time; see 2 Samuel 6. On the other hand, 1 Sam. 27:6 (Therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day) seems to have been written early in the Divided Monarchy, probably during the early days of Rehoboam’s era, not later than the late 10th century B.C., for after Shishak’s campaign (925 B.C.) the city would not have belonged to Judah; see the commentary on this verse. Therefore, the use of the phrase to this day should not automatically be taken to mean that the passages are Deuteronomistic.

In Gen. 47:26 as well as in 1 Sam. 30:25, certain legal customs were said still to be in force at the time of the narrator. The phrase from the day when I brought them up from Egypt to this day (1 Sam. 8:8) refers to the entire past history of Israel, from their beginning as the covenant people until now, that is, to the time of Samuel. In fact this phrase is a widely used expression in the Bible and appears most often in historical narratives including Chronicles.⁷⁶ The Israelites surely used such an expression in reviewing their own history from time to time ever since they settled in the present location. So, if the Deuteronomist could have used this expression, Samuel himself could have also. It should be noted that the phrases adi inanna, adi anni, adi enna, adi akanni, adi udīna until now are frequent in Akkadian literature from Old Babylonian times.⁷⁷ See also the commentaries on 1 Sam. 7:3; 29:3, 8.

Some other expressions, such as to abandon Yahweh and to serve other gods, though sometimes argued as being instances of Deuteronomistic interpolation,⁷⁸ are not necessarily characteristically Deuteronomistic expressions. For one thing, to abandon (‘zb) and to serve (‘bd) are a word pair in the Hebrew Bible,⁷⁹ like the pair to abandon (*‘zb) and to worship (Hišt. *ḥwh), which appears in Judg. 2:12; 1 K. 9:9; 11:33; 2 K. 17:16; Jer. 1:16; 16:11; 22:9; 2 Chr. 7:19, 22. These word pairs could have been used by any biblical author.

Moreover, some expressions that had been considered typically Deuteronomistic occur also in other parts of the Old Testament and have turned up in the ancient Near Eastern literature from much earlier times. For example, the expression *ntn byd to give (deliver) into the hand (of) as in 1 Sam. 14:12 appears frequently in the Deuteronomistic history but also appears in other parts of the Old Testament: for example, Gen. 14:20; Ex. 23:31; Num. 21:34; Ezek. 7:21; Ps. 106:41; Neh. 9:27; 2 Chr. 16:8. The same expression appears also in the Amarna letters (14th century B.C.) and in a building inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II (6th century B.C.).⁸⁰ So, any biblical author from any time could use the expression, and there is no reason why it could not have been used early. For the early terms in Samuel, see below (Section III, C, 5).

Thus, the conventional theories of redaction rest on questionable assumptions concerning the nature of language, often overlook the real situation of languages and styles, and treat the language of the Bible too mechanically. Much of the reasoning seems circular. Certain passages are taken as normative and late, and any similar ideas or words in apparently earlier works were written or interpolated at that later time. What is really needed is more research into the methods of composition and recensions and the historiography of the ancient Near Eastern and Greek historians.⁸¹ Before surveying the recent development on historiography and making tentative conclusions on authorship and date, let us survey the recent history of the holistic literary approaches.

2. Holistic Literary Approaches

During the second half of the 20th century, and especially since the 1970s, scholarly interest has been moving away from historical-critical study.⁸² Instead of isolating units and tracing compilation and redaction processes, scholars are more and more concerned with the themes and final forms of the canonical text and with the relationship between the texts and the social world that yielded them. In fact, the trend has moved so far that many scholars who are engaged in literary-rhetorical study have almost no interest in history at all.

This shift initially came about under the influence of linguist F. de Saussure’s emphasis on synchrony and by the application of structuralism to literary criticism, which resulted in an anti-historical tendency and an emphasis on holistic, as opposed to analytical, interpretation of texts. Such literary approaches are therefore not very concerned with date and authorship problems, since literary analyses by themselves cannot date sources or determine their historicity, that is, spatio-temporal reality. However, we cannot fully understand a text unless we know the starting point for the authors and redactors, their languages, conventions, and genres, and our knowledge of these depends upon historical research.⁸³

a. The So-called New Literary Criticism

Dissatisfied with the historical critical attempts to account for discrepancies by postulating different sources or editorial additions, scholars since the 1970s have emphasized the close reading of the biblical text as it stands. Gunn,⁸⁴ Jobling,⁸⁵ Fokkelman,⁸⁶ Sternberg, Eslinger, and others87 focus solely on the text of Samuel in its final form, though they use different perspectives and methods to approach the text.

Gunn’s work on the Saul story The Fate of King Saul is one of the most important of the earlier works which apply literary criticism to biblical narrative and emphasize a closer look at the biblical story. While many of the scholars of this type come up with interpretations completely separated from the original historical-cultural setting, Gunn does try to combine the literary and historical spheres. But he probably moves too far away from the writer’s world. With the publication of R. Alter’s Art of Biblical Narrative in 1981, the literary approach reordered priorities so that biblical texts were examined in their final context as a literary whole,⁸⁸ without rejecting diachronic methods. Alter is not completely free from the assured fact resulting from the diachronic approaches, as seen in his treatment of two different creation stories in Gen. 1:1–2:4a (P) and 2:4bff. (J).⁸⁹ However, it is the axiom of the structural linguistics and literary studies since de Saussure’s work that a synchronic approach, which deals with the text as it stands, should have a priority over a diachronic approach.

Fokkelman’s massive four-volume work on 1–2 Samuel is a formalistic and fully synchronic approach to the text as it stands, without trying to go behind the text. He too emphasizes holistic interpretations of the text, but with some psychologizing and an allegorizing tendency, occasionally suggesting, in Polzin’s words, what is supposed to be happening within Saul’s sub- or unconscious.⁹⁰ Sternberg also takes a similar position, according to which all texts are structured with coherence and every utterance presupposes a speaker who has in mind an implicit addressee and a goal to be achieved by the address.⁹¹ These scholars are, broadly speaking, taking a structuralist approach, in which, as Longman summarizes, the meaning of a text is found not in the author’s intention but in the text’s conventional code.⁹²

b. Post-modern/post-structuralist Approach

In the late 1980s and 1990s, studies in 1–2 Samuel were not immune to influence by post-modern hermeneutics, which has declared authors irrelevant and meaning meaningless. What is important is what the readers past and present have made of the text.⁹³

Miscall94 takes a typically post-modern approach to the biblical narratives and accepts the multivocal and polysemous quality of the text and hence does not admit any correct interpretation. This post-modern approach is characterized by deconstruction and intertextuality.⁹⁵ According to him, one aim of deconstruction is the questioning of metaphysical thought — the attempt to undermine it and its founding concepts, particularly the ubiquitous use of conceptual dyads (Gasché) or dichotomies that present themselves as hierarchies, that is, one pole is granted privilege and primacy, while the other is considered secondary and irrelevant.⁹⁶ At the same time, he sees almost any similarity as significant. For example, he sees in Jonathan’s warning to David to stay in a secret place (1 Sam. 19:2) an intertextual association with 2 Sam. 12:12, a foreshadowing of the relationship between David and Bathsheba in a secret place (2 Sam. 12:12).⁹⁷ His approach to the text well illustrates the deconstructive analysis associated with the work of J. Derrida.

Derrida, the formulator of post-modernism,⁹⁸ emphasizes the intertextual associations among the elements of the text and the literary traditions in the society where it was produced, with the post-modern claims for relativity, multivalency, and indeterminacy. According to Lyke, interpretation is not attained by univocal readings, that is, what the author or redactor intends the texts to mean, but by multiple readings which accrue over an extended period of time, since the texts represent the social and communal process of articulating core idioms and conceptualizations.⁹⁹ However, while intertextuality can be intended by later writers or editors, it should be distinguished from diachronic approaches such as typology and allusions. It is fully synchronic without any intention of discussing the text’s author or origin.¹⁰⁰

If this is carried to its logical conclusion, however, one might wonder how one is supposed to know what other people have thought of a certain text, or indeed of anything, if when one reads what they said about it one cannot determine what they intended to say. But in biblical studies, intertextuality ignores how the author intended his text to be understood, an all-significant

Reviews for The First Book of Samuel

[stephenbarkley · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Tsumura's entry in Eerdman's NICOT commentary series is strong. Here is where it's most useful:1. Ancient Hebrew: The core of this commentary is Tsumura's ability to bring out the meaning of the original language. Interconnections within the text and play-on-words come to life in English under Tsumura's hand.2. Geography: There are many military exploits in 1 Samuel where the geography is taken for granted. Tsumura describes the relationship between towns and how the landscape would either benefit or imperil a military assault.3. Modern Translation Discrepancies: If you read 1 Samuel in a variety of English translations, you discover a number of different interpretive options. This is especially noticeable in a small group setting, where each participant has their own favored translation at hand. More than most Old Testament books, there are a number of differences between the MT and the LXX, which in turn leads to a plethora of English interpretations. Tsumura's an expert guide at navigating the MT and LXX options.My only real issue with Tsumura's book was his lack of narrative perspective. The significance and theological implications of many events were passed over quite quickly. If you're looking to wrestle with the implications of the narrative, read Brueggemann's First and Second Samuel from the Interpretation commentary series alongside the NICOT offering. (Conversely, Brueggemann passes over a lot of the technical information that Tsumura has mastered.)David Tsumura's commentary is an excellent resource for any pastor or serious parishioner who wants to dive deeply into the Samuel, Saul, and David stories.