Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala, Eds. (2013). is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists (SBLAIL 16) Atlanta,...

7/23/2019 Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala, Eds. (2013). is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists (SBLAIL 16) Atlanta, SBL.

1/381

IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?


2/381

Ancient Israel and Its Literature

Tomas C. Rmer, General Editor

Editorial Board

Suzanne BoorerVictor H. Matthews

Benjamin D. SommerNili Wazana

Number 16


3/381

IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?

CURREN VIEWS ON HE PLACE OF SAMUEL

IN A DEUERONOMISIC HISORY

Edited by

Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala

Society o Biblical LiteratureAtlanta


4/381

Copyright 2013 by the Society o Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part o this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any ormor by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or bymeans o any inormation storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing rom the publisher. Requests or permissionshould be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Offi ce, Society o BiblicalLiterature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? : current views on the place of Samuel in a Deu-

teronomistic history / edited by Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala.

p. cm. (Ancient Israel and its literature / Society o Biblical Literature ;

volume 16)Includes bibliographical reerences and index.ISBN 978-1-58983-638-9 (paper binding : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-58983-639-6(electronic ormat) ISBN 978-1-58983-774-4 (hardcover binding)1. Samuel (Biblical judge) 2. Bible. O.. DeuteronomyCriticism, interpretation, etc.

I. Edenburg, Cynthia editor. II. Pakkala, Juha editor.BS580.S2I82 2013222'.406dc22 2013004551

Printed on acid-ree, recycled paper conorming toANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994

standards or paper permanence.


5/381

C

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................vii

Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists?Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala .......................................................1

Te Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: Te Man behindthe Green CurtainRichard D. Nelson ....................................................................................17

Te Layer Model o the Deuteronomistic History and theBook o SamuelWalter Dietrich .........................................................................................39

Te Book o Samuel within the Deuteronomistic HistoryJacques Vermeylen ...................................................................................67

Reading Deuteronomy afer Samuel; Or, Is Deuteronomistica Good Answer to Any Samuel Question?

A. Graeme Auld ........................................................................................93

1 Samuel and the Deuteronomistic HistoryPhilip R. Davies ......................................................................................105

Is the Scroll o Samuel Deuteronomistic?K. L. Noll .................................................................................................119

Samuel among the Prophets: Prophetical Redactions in SamuelErnst Axel Knau ....................................................................................149

Te Distinctness o the Samuel Narrative raditionJrg Hutzli ...............................................................................................171


6/381

vi IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?

1 Samuel 1 as the Opening Chapter o the Deuteronomistic History?Reinhard Mller .....................................................................................207

1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomistic Edition o SamuelChristophe Nihan ...................................................................................225

Long Live the King!: Deuteronomism in 1 Sam 10:1727a inLight o Ahansali Intratribal MediationJeremy M. Hutton ...................................................................................275

Te Numerous Deaths o King SaulHannes Bezzel .........................................................................................325

Contributors ...................................................................................................349Index o Ancient Sources..............................................................................353Index o Authors ............................................................................................367


7/381

A

AASF Annales Academiae scientiarum ennicae

AB Anchor BibleABG Arbeiten zur Bibel und Ihrer GeschichteAnt. Jewish AntiquitiesAOA Alter Orient und Altes estamentAOS American Oriental SeriesAOC Apollos Old estament CommentaryAmA American AnthropologistAE American Ethnologist

Annales Annales: conomies Socits CivilisationsABE Asociacin Bblica EspaolaAAN Abhandlungen zur Teologie des Alten und Neuen esta-

mentsAD Das Alte estament DeutschBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBASOR Bulletin o the American Schools o Oriental ResearchBBB Bulletin de bibliographie biblique

BBKL Biographisch-bibliographisches KirchenlexikonBEAAJ Beitrge zur Erorschung des Alten estaments und desantiken Judentum

BBE Beitrge zur biblischen Exegese und TeologieBEL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBHS Biblia Hebraica StuttgartensiaBVB Beitrge zur Verstehen der BibelBev Beitrge zur evangelischen Teologie

Bib BiblicaBibInt Biblical InterpretationBLH Biblical Languages: HebrewBE Biblische Enzyklopdie

-vii-


8/381

viii IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?

BIOSCS Bulletin o the International Organization or Septugaintand Cognate Studies

BJS Brown Judaic StudiesBKA Biblischer Kommentar, Altes estamentb. Meg. Bablyonian almud, tractate MegillahBN Biblische NotizenBS Biblical SeminarBWAN Beitrge zur Wissenschaf vom Alten and Neuen esta-

mentBZAW Beihefe zur Zeitschrif r die alttestamentliche Wissen-

schafCahRB Cahiers de la Revue bibliqueCBC Cambridge Bible CommentaryCA Commentaire de lAncien estamentCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph SeriesConBO Coniectanea biblical: Old estament SeriesDSB Daily Study Bible Series

DJD Discoveries in the Judean DesertNEchtB Neue Echter BibelEdF Ertrge der ForschungE English translationES Erurter theologische StudienFA Forschungen zum Alten estamentFB Forschung zur BibelFOL Forms o the Old estament Literature

FRLAN Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten undNeuen estamentsHA Handbuch zum Alten estamentHBM Hebrew Bible MonographsHeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient IsraelHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHKA Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen estamentHR Harvard Teological Review

ICC International Critical CommentaryIEJ Israel Exploration JournalJMVL Jahrbuch des Museums r Volkerkunde zu LeipzigJANES Journal o Ancient Near Eastern StudiesJBL Journal o Biblical Literature


9/381

ABBREVIAIONS ix

JHS Journal o Hellenic StudiesJNES Journal o Near Eastern Studies

JHS Journal o Hebrew ScripturesJNAS Journal o North Arican StudiesJRAI Journal o the Royal Anthropological InstituteJPS Jewish Publication SocietyJSJ Journal or the Study o Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic,

and Roman PeriodsJSJSup Journal or the Study o Judaism Supplement SeriesJSNSup Journal or the Study o the New estament: Supplement

SeriesJSO Journal or the Study o the Old estamentJSOSup Journal or the Study o the Old estament: Supplement

SeriesKA Kommentar zum Alten estamentKHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten estamentKKA Kurzgeasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schrifen: Alten

und Neuen estamentes

KUB Keilschrifurkunden aus BoghazkiL.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarumLDiff Lectio Diffi ciliorLSS Library o Second emple Studies SeptuagintMES Middle Eastern StudiesMdB Le Monde de la Bible Masoretic ext

NEA Near Eastern ArchaeologyNICO New International Commentary on the Old estament New Revised Standard VersionOBO Orbis biblicus et orientalisBS sterreichische biblische Studien Old Greek Old LatinOE Old estament Essays

OL Old estament LibraryOS Old estament StudiesPFES Publications o the Finnish Exegetical SocietyRB Revue bibliqueRevQ Revue de Qumran


10/381

x IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?

SBAB Stuttgarter biblische AusatzbndeSBLAIL Society o Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Litera-

tureSBLDS Society o Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLStBL Society o Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical LiteratureSBLSCS Society o Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Stud-

iesSBLBE Biblical Encyclopedia SeriesSB Studies in Biblical TeologySE Svensk exegetisk rsbok

SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture o the Ancient NearEast

SJO Scandinavian Journal o the Old estamentS. Olam Rab. Seder Olam RabbahSR Studies in ReligionS Studia theologicaSDJ Studies on the exts o the Desert o JudahSubBi Subsidia biblia

SNR Sudan Notes and RecordsSyr. SyriacA el AvivB Teologische Bchereiranseu ranseuphratneRu Teologische RundschauUB Uni-aschenbcherVF Verkndigung und Forschung

V Vetus estamentumVSup Vetus estamentum SupplementsVulg. VulgateWBC Word Biblical CommentaryWMAN Wissenschafliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

estamentWUN Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen sum Neuen estamentZABR Zeitschrit r Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsge-

schichteZAW Zeitschrif r die alttestamentliche WissenschafZBK Zrcher BibelkommentareZDPV Zeitschrif des deutschen Palstina-VereinsZK Zeitschrif r Teologie und Kirche


11/381

I S D

Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala

. I

According to Martin Noth, all the books rom Deuteronomy to 2 Kingswere written by one author or editor, who combined various traditionsinto a coherent literary work that presented the history o Israel and Judahrom Moses till the destruction o the Judean monarchy. Although Deuter-onomistic redactions had been recognized in many books o the Hebrew

Bible since early critical research in the nineteenth century, Noth arguedthat the same author was behind all the Deuteronomistic redactions1oradditions in the books rom Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. Tis redactionaimed to create unity and continuity o the traditions that were includedin the composition, but it also provided a coherent theological interpreta-tion o these traditions. Noth explained the apparent contradictions andinconsistencies in the complete composition as deriving rom the use oa variety o traditions that unctioned as sources or the Deuteronomist.

Most o the Deuteronomists editing is concentrated in some key passagesand turning points in Israels history, while elsewhere he mainly adoptedthe sources as they were without any major changes.

Noths Deuteronomistic History hypothesis has been highly influen-tial; others developed and modified it urther, but it has also been subjectto criticism.2Te criticism has become increasingly vocal in recent schol-

1. In this volume, redaction primarily reers to a comprehensive revision o anolder literary work. races o a redaction may be ound in several parts o the work sothat they orm a coherent literary layer with certain ideological conceptions and goals.A single addition does not orm a redaction unless it can be connected with other lateradditions that were probably added by the same redactor.

2. For a clear and brie description o the research, see Tomas Rmer, Te So-

-1-


12/381

2 IS SAMUEL AMONG HE DEUERONOMISS?

arly discussion, although the general theory still finds active proponents,as also seen in this volume. Paradoxically, the refinement o Noths theory

has undermined it. As the ollowers o Noths theory ound more and moreDeuteronomistic redactions, some o which contradicted each other,3the original idea o a coherent redaction was weakened. Te picture hasbecome even more complex as different scholars have ound that some lateadditions employ Deuteronomistic language without advancing Deuter-onomistic ideology (or even when countering Deuteronomistic ideology).Tese types o revisions are best considered post-Deuteronomistic and/or non-Deuteronomistic redactions.4Scholarship is aced with the ever

more difficult question o what is Deuteronomistic, and this is directly rel-evant or the hypothesis. While scholarship has made other advances inthe books under discussion, it has become apparent that there are manyvariables in determining the validity o the theory o the DeuteronomisticHistory. Scholars approach the issue rom different perspectives, which donot necessarily converge. Nonetheless, the debate about the relevance oNoths theory has continued unabated in recent years. Rather than tryingto include a discussion about the entire Deuteronomistic History and its

unity, this volume seeks to ocus on one section o the proposed composi-tion, the book o Samuel, ofen characterized as a weak link in the theoryo the Deuteronomistic History.5

Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction(London: & Clark, 2007), 1343.

3. For example, imo Veijola, Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomis-tischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung(AASF B, 198; Hel-sinki: Suomalainen iedeakatemia, 1977), 11522, argued that the relationship o theDeuteronomists toward monarchy was partly contradictory. Te original Deuterono-mist would have been positively disposed towards the monarchy (and its reestablish-ment), the later Deuteronomists would have been more critical.

4. See, or example, Tilo Rudnig, Davids Tron: Redaktionskritische Studien zurGeschichte von der Tronnacholge Davids(BZAW 358; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), andReinhard Mller, Knigtum und Gottesherrschaf: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentli-chen Monarchiekritik(FA 2/3; bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

5. Te relationship between the book o Samuel and the Deuteronomists wasrecently discussed in Christa Scher-Lichtenberger, ed., Die Samuelbcher und dieDeuteronomisten(BWAN 188; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010). However, the pres-ent volume is more ocused in perspective and mainly presents contributions byother scholars.


13/381

EDENBURG AND PAKKALA: INRODUCION 3

It is apparent that the book o Samuel uses less Deuteronomisticidiom and appears to be less influenced by Deuteronomistic ideology

than the rest o the books that comprise Noths Deuteronomistic History.Some scholars have noted that the thematic and idiomatic contrast withthe book o Kings is particularly evident.6Here one should mention, orexample, the contradiction concerning cult centralization. While the loca-tion o the cult is a central theological moti in the book o Kings (andDeuteronomy), it is not only ignored in the book o Samuel, but manypassages imply that local sacrifices were a common and accepted practice(e.g., 1 Sam 9:1825). Many passages in Kings are immersed in Deuter-

onomistic language (e.g., 1 Kgs 11; 2 Kgs 17 and 23), but such languageis rare or lacking in Samuel. In any case, Deuteronomisms seem to belimited in the book o Samuel. Noth solved these problems by assumingthat in the book o Samuel the Deuteronomist adopted most o his sourcesunchanged and made only some minor additions. Nevertheless, somescholars, such as imo Veijola, have argued that the book o Samuel ismore Deuteronomistic than Noth assumed. Veijola ound several layers oDeuteronomistic redactions that would connect with those ound in the

other books o the Former Prophets. Despite its challenge to the coherenceo the Deuteronomistic redaction, this was assumed to corroborate Nothscore theory.7

More recent scholarship, however, has shown that post-Deuteron-omistic or non-Deuteronomistic redactions are more common in thebook o Samuel than what earlier proponents o the DeuteronomisticSamuel assumed. Here one should mention, or example, investigationsby Tilo Rudnig and Reinhard Mller, who have ound successive redac-

6. For example, Jrg Hutzli, Die Erzhlung von Hanna und Samuel: extkri-tische und literarische Analyse von 1. Samuel 12 unter Bercksichtigung des Kontextes(AAN 89; Zrich: Teologischer Verlag Zrich, 2007), 22265; Juha Pakkala, Deu-teronomy and 12 Kings in the Redaction o the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, inDeuteronomy in the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Ray Person andKonrad Schmid; FA 2/56; bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 13363 (14753).

7. See imo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastienach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B.193; Helsinki: Suomalainen ie-deakatemia, 1975), and Das Knigtum. Nevertheless, even Walter Dietrich, a propo-nent o the Deuteronomistic History, has criticized Veijola o exaggerating the Deu-teronomistic redactions in the book o Samuel. See endenzen neuester Forschungan den Samuelbchern, in Scher-Lichtenberger,Samuelbcher und die Deuterono-misten, 917 (10).


14/381


tions in these books.8Although solutions differ, the redaction history othe book o Samuel now appears more complicated than what Noth, Frank

Moore Cross,9or Veijola assumed.Furthermore, text-critical approaches, by scholars like Jrg Hutzli and

Philippe Hugo, have shown that part o the redactional activity is reflectedin the textual witnesses. Tese findings have ar-reaching implications,since they show that editing continued in the last centuries ... andperhaps even beyond. In many cases the Masoretic text (henceorth )contains later additions, while the main Greek witnesses or some Greekmanuscripts preserve an older textual stage. Te importance o the Greek

is highlighted by the manuscripts o the book o Samuel rom Qumran,which ofen agree with a Greek witness against the . At the same time,some o the later additions in the seem to reflect theological concep-tions attributed to the Deuteronomists.10Tese relatively recent develop-ments within textual criticism o the book o Samuel undermine manyconventional theories and complicate the comparison between Samueland the other books o the Former Prophets. One has to ask, were theconnections between Samuel and the rest o the Former Prophets already

created by the original author or editor, or were they established by latereditors? Are the Deuteronomistic elements integral to the book o Samuel?Or, were they added at a late stage, perhaps in the last centuries ...,under the influence o other more Deuteronomistic books o the Hebrew

8. Rudnig, Davids Tron, andMller, Knigtum und Gottesherrschaf.For exam-ple, Mller finds no less than eleven different literary layers in 1 Sam 1011 (see 261);

some o them are connected to the traditional Deuteronomistic layers.9. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History othe Religion o Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 27489.

10. See Jrg Hutzli, Erzhlung von Hanna und Samueland Mgliche Retuschenam Davidbild in der masoretischen Fassung der Samuelbcher, in David und Saul imWiderstreitDiachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit: Beitrge zur Auslegung des erstenSamuelbuches (ed. Walter Dietrich; OBO 206; Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg,2004), 10215; Philippe Hugo, Te Jerusalem emple Seen in Second Samuel accord-ing to the Masoretic ext and the Septuagint, in XIII Congress o the InternationalOrganization or Septuagint and Cognate Studies Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. Melvin K. H.Peters; SBLSCS 55; Atlanta: Society o Biblical Literature, 2008), 18396. For example,in 1 Sam 1:9, 14, the idea that Hanna entered the temple and stood beore (the statueo) Yahweh has been omitted in the Masoretic text, while the Greek text preserved themore original reading. For a detailed discussion o the textual witnesses, see Hutzli,Erzhlung von Hanna und Samuel, 14145.


15/381


Bible, particularly Deuteronomy and the book o Kings? At any rate, whileearlier research primarily considered the as the starting point o inves-

tigation, it has become increasingly difficult to neglect text-critical consid-erations in discussing the relationship between the book o Samuel and therest o the Former Prophets.

Te book o Samuel has enjoyed increased attention in the past decade,as demonstrated by the number o edited volumes,11literary- and redac-tion-critical investigations,12commentaries,13 text-critical studies,14 andother approaches15that have been published on the book, mostly in Euro-pean languages. Te publication o the Samuel scrolls rom Qumran Cave

4 has certainly contributed to the rise in textual approaches.16Althoughliterary- and redaction-critical investigations have primarily been con-ducted by continental European scholars and are ofen written in German,the authors o this volume believe that interaction between the Continen-tal and Anglophone scholarship is essential. Te selection o articles inthis volume includes contributions rom American and British scholars,

11. For example, Dietrich, David und Saul im Widerstreit; Scher-Lichtenberger,Samuelbcher und die Deuteronomisten; Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker, eds.,

Archaeology o the Books o Samuel: Te Entangling o the extual and Literary History(Leiden: Brill, 2010).

12. E.g., Jacques Vermeylen, La loi du plus ort: Histoire de la rdaction des rcitsdavidiques de 1 Samuel 8 1 Rois 2 (BEL 154; Leuven: Leuven University Press,2000); Mller, Knigtum und Gottesherrschaf; Alexander A. Fischer, Von Hebron nach

Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzhlung von Knig David in IISam 15(BZAW 335; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); Rudnig, Davids Tron; Klaus-Peter

Adam, Saul und David in der judischen Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zu 1 Samuel162 Samuel 5(FA 51; bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).13. Walter Dietrich, 1 Samuel 112 (BKA 8.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-

ener, 2011).14. E.g., Hutzli, Erzhlung von Hanna und Samuel.15. E.g., A. Graeme Auld, Samuel at the Treshold: Selected Works o Graeme Auld

(Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2004); Klaus-Peter Adam, Saul und David in der judischenGeschichtsschreibung; John Van Seters, Te Biblical Saga o King David(Winona Lake,Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009); Andr Heinrich, David und Klio: Historiographische Ele-mente in der Austiegsgeschichte Davids und im Alten estament (BZAW 401; Berlin:de Gruyter, 2009).

16. Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 12 Samuel (DJD XVII;Oxord: Clarendon, 2005). Te Samuel scroll rom Cave 1 was published already byDominique Barthlemy and Joze . Milik, Qumran Cave 1(DJD 1; Oxord: Claren-don, 1955).


16/381


along with essays in English rom Continental scholars, and demonstratesour commitment to enhance this encouraging development. Te articles

reflect the narrowing o the gap between different approaches. Literarycritics are increasingly taking text-critical evidence into consideration,and text critics are developing their approaches towards the traditionalquestions raised by literary and redaction critics.

. C V

Te first three essays o this volume all accept the notion o a comprehen-

sive Deuteronomistic History as a working hypothesis that best accountsor the narrative and thematic continuity between the book o Samuel andthe other books rom Deuteronomy to Kings. Richard D. Nelson notesthe paucity o Deuteronomistic language, ideology, and editorial structurein the book o Samuel, and yet he argues that the Deuteronomist is pres-ent behind the scenes, manipulating sources, themes, overarching struc-tures, and plots. Te Deuteronomists work was directed towards impart-ing compositional unity to the whole o the Deuteronomistic History and

more importantly towards driving home the lesson to be learned rom thehistory o Israel rom premonarchic times to the demise o the northernkingdom. Nelson traces a network o cross reerences that firmly anchorsSamuel in place between Judges and Kings. His views o the intrinsic unityo the Deuteronomistic History and o the Deuteronomist as the masterat work behind the scenes are probably the closest within this volume tothose o Noth.

So, too, Noth provides the starting point or Walter Dietrich, and he

agrees with Nelson that the book o Samuel interacts with the other sec-tions o the Deuteronomistic History and plays a key role in developing itsplot. However, in contrast to Noth and Nelson, he narrows the scope o thework that should be attributed to the author o the History. Dietrich, likeothers who work within the ramework o a layer model, thinks that theDeuteronomistic Historians composition was revised by later generationso Deuteronomistic scribes who incorporated the concerns o their periodinto the History, namely, the themes o prophetic authority (DtrP) and

obedience to law (DtrN). At the same time, Dietrich moves back in thedirection o Noths position regarding the extent o prior sources and tra-ditions that were at the disposal o the initial Historian. Dietrichs dialoguewith the late imo Veijola sharpens the criteria or distinguishing sourcematerial rom Deuteronomistic composition and once more brings the


17/381


criterion o Deuteronomistic idiom to the ore. Most significantly, Diet-rich returns to the earlier view o the Deuteronomists negative estima-

tion o the monarchy, a step that has important consequences or how weperceive the purpose and motivation o the Deuteronomist as a historian.

Jacques Vermeylen also traces the interconnections between the com-positional layer in the book o Samuel that may be attributed to the earlyDeuteronomistic scribe and the other sections o the DeuteronomisticHistory. He thus validates Nelsons and Dietrichs conclusions, namely,that the story o the initiation o the monarchy and its first two kings wasan integral part o the Deuteronomistic History. Vermeylen also adopts

Noths explanation or the perceived inconsistencies in the work, namely,that the Deuteronomist did not revise his sources, but interpolated hisown views alongside the source material. He finds a concentric structurethat imparts unity to the whole o the basic historical narrative. But sincestructures may be imposed upon material at a very late stage, Vermeylenworks to explain the thematic diversity o the different parts o the com-position that is particularly evident in the book o Samuel. Accordingly, hetraces the lines o interaction between the original Deuteronomistic layer

in Samuel and the rest o the Deuteronomistic History, while distinguish-ing between the initial DtrH and the later layers (DtrP and DtrN).

Te next group o essays takes a critical view o the Deuteronomis-tic History hypothesis, both with regard to the place o Samuel withina larger narrative ramework stretching rom Deuteronomy to Kings,as well as with regard to the notion that there is anything Deuteron-omistic about Samuel. For Graeme Auld, the correct point o departureis not Noths thesis, but the comparison between Samuel (along with

Kings) and Chronicles. Aulds thesis, which he has developed extensivelyelsewhere,17is that Chronicles and SamuelKings developed separatelyout o a common ancestor and that this common source is representedby the synoptic material shared by both SamuelKings and Chronicles.Much o what is commonly considered Deuteronomistic in Samuel hasno parallel in Chronicles, and thereore Auld holds that it derives rom amuch later context than usually thought. Here Auld examines a numbero presumed Deuteronomistic characteristics in Samuel in order to show

that they do not reflect the influence o Deuteronomy or other supposed

17. A. Graeme Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story o theBibles Kings(Edinburgh: & Clark, 1994).


18/381


Deuteronomistic texts and that it is likely that these Deuteronomismsspread to Deuteronomy through the influence o Samuel.

Philip Davies continues an ongoing dialogue with Graeme Auld overthe original shape o the book o Samuel. Aulds supposition that the sourcebehind SamuelKings is the synoptic material shared with Chroniclesmeans that the oldest recoverable narrative in Samuel begins with Saulsdemise and that virtually all o 1 Samuel is beyond the scope o the origi-nal composition. Davies approaches this question rom a different startingpoint, that o cultural memory, and asks how communities in changingcircumstances constructed views o a past that would be meaningul to

their times. Te past constructed in the text is tied to a distinct historicalreality, that o the historical author, and thereore inquiry needs to startwith trying to identiy the first target audience o the different texts: orwhom were the different representations o the past constructed, withwhat purpose, and or whom were they meaningul? In contrast to Auld,Davies finds that the narratives in 1 Samuel about the eponymous oundero the Judean dynasty belong the early layer o the book and that these areat home in the historical context o the late eighth century, while the Saul

narratives probably reflect the concerns o the mid-sixth century, whenJerusalem lay in ruins and Mizpah was the center o government. Only ata later stage were the two narratives joined togetherto Sauls detrimentand this move was accompanied by considerable exertion on the part othe author-editor to represent David as the legitimate successor to Saulskingship. Already here it is possible to see how Daviess approach chal-lenges the role attributed to the book o Samuel within the Deuteronomis-tic History hypothesis. Davies finds a more serious challenge to the notion

o a unified Deuteronomistic composition in the utopian pan-Israel visiono Deuteronomy through Judges that is at odds with the representationin 1 Samuel o two separate entitiesIsrael and Judah. In this case, theconcept o a unified twelve tribe Israel that is presumed by Deuteronomyand the rest o the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges (in its canonic orm) isseparated by one to two centuries rom the early core narratives o Samuel.For Davies, Deuteronomism is at home in the Persian period and madelittle impact on the ormation o the book o Samuel.

K. L. Noll rejects rom the outset the structural criteria employed byNoth (as well as by Nelson, Dietrich, and Vermeylen in this volume) inaffirming the role o the book o Samuel within the postulated Deuter-onomistic History. He also rejects the criteria o theme, since conflict-ing themes have at times been attributed to the Deuteronomistic agenda.


19/381


Instead, he limits Deuteronomistic composition solely to instances inwhich a text employs idioms derived rom Deuteronomy. Furthermore,

he requires that the idiom be employed in a ashion consonant withDeuteronomistic ideology. extual criticism also shows that many o theDeuteronomisms derive rom a very late stage o scribal transmissionand are not represented by the earliest textual witnesses. Noll contendsthat the very small amount o Deuteronomistic idiom ound in the booko Samuel is not evidence o Deuteronomistic composition, but wasplaced in the mouths o characters within the narrative or ironic effect,since their words and actions in effect undermine Deuteronomistic ide-

ology. At the same time, he does not view the book as either an ideo-logical document, historiography, or even Daviess constructed culturalmemory, but rather as a good story that was composed as a piece osophisticated entertainment.

In contrast to Noll, Axel Knau affirms the historiographic interest othe book o Samuel (along with Kings) and reminds us that the narrativesequence in which it appears was understood as such at least since the thirdcentury ... Knau agrees with Dietrich, that the book o Samuel was

revised in order to impart to it a prophetic orientation. However, Knaudiffers not only on the substance o this redaction and its even later date(ourth century or Knau compared to mid-sixth century or Dietrich)but also on the question whether it is even Deuteronomistic. In Knausopinion, only the books o the Kingdoms (Samuel and Kings) comprised aDeuteronomistic History, but this hypothetical entity was much smaller inscope than the canonical books o Samuel and Kings. Furthermore, mucho the material that usually is considered prime examples o Deuteron-

omistic composition in Samuel, such as 1 Sam 23, 8, 12 and 2 Sam 7, isrelegated by Knau to the late prophetic redaction that is more proto-Chronistic in outlook than Deuteronomistic. Knau avoids the pitalls ocircular argumentation, that A is late because it presumes B which is apriori early, by pointing to characteristics o Late Biblical Hebrew that canbe ound in several o the texts he relegates to his late prophetic redactionin Samuel.

Jrg Hutzli argues that the book o Samuel developed separately rom

the books comprising the Deuteronomistic History. He agrees with Nollthat Deuteronomism should be defined on the basis o the vocabulary,style, and ideology o the book o Deuteronomy and that a text should notbe mechanically classified as Deuteronomistic on the basis o idiom, sinceidiom can be employed in a subversive or ironic ashion as well. Accord-


20/381


ingly, Hutzli identifies eight main Deuteronomistic themes that appearto be lacking in Samuel (or example, cult centralization, polemic against

other gods, the promise and conquest o the land, and obedience to thelaw). Moreover, some o the themes o Samuel run counter to Deuteron-omistic ideology. On this basis, Hutzli concludes that Samuel was not pro-duced by Deuteronomistic scribes. However, the substance o the book isfirmly rooted in the period o the monarchy as evinced by toponyms thatell out o use later on, as well as by details regarding early cult proceduresand sanctuaries like Shiloh. Hutzli argues that the paucity o reerencesto events in Davids lie in the book o Kings indicates that the book o

Samuel was not known to the Deuteronomistic author o Kings. In Hut-zlis opinion, the best explanation or all these findings is that the book oSamuel originated as oral literature that was transmitted outside the Deu-teronomistic circles and that the stories were compiled and achieved fixedwritten orm only afer the composition o the book o Kings.

Te third group o essays ocuses on specific passages within the booko Samuel as a means to approach the question o the Deuteronomisticcharacter o the book. Reinhard Mller takes 1 Sam 1 as a test case or

examining the place o a text within the Deuteronomistic History when thattext displays no vestige o Deuteronomism. He proposes that the Samuelbirth narrative derives rom a collection o stories that also included Judg13, 17, and 1 Sam 9, since all these stories share the same incipit ormula.Tis indicates that the bridge between the period o judges and the begin-ning o the monarchy dates back to a pre-Deuteronomistic collection thatwas taken over by the Deuteronomist and anchored in place with the helpo editorial comments that reverberate elsewhere within the History.

Te story o the oundation o the monarchy is widely viewed as oneo the major contributions o the Deuteronomist in the book o Samuel.Christophe Nihan undertakes to examine the role that 1 Sam 812 playsin establishing this perception. Nihan finds that the negotiations betweenthe people and Samuel over appointing a king in 1 Sam 8 do draw uponthe law o the king in Deut 17:1420 and accordingly should be character-ized as Deuteronomistic, but that the antimonarchic response o YHWHin 1 Sam 8:78 is a late expansion, set off by a repetitive resumption (vv.

7a, 9a). A late addition in a similar antimonarchic vein is also ound in10:1819. Nihan argues that 1 Sam 12 presumes the expanded orm oboth these chapters and that it works to resolve the tension in the previouschapters between the harsh antimonarchic additions and the view o king-ship in the pre-Deuteronomistic narrative. Unlike Mller, Nihan does not


21/381


think that traditions regarding a period o judges were combined in a pre-Deuteronomistic stage with the story o the inception o the monarchy;

this merging o traditions and related periodization were the contributiono the Deuteronomist(s) in the early Persian period. First Samuel 12, inparticular, is closely related to phraseology and ideas o the late supple-mental conclusion to the book o Joshua (Josh 24) that might even stemrom a postpriestly stage.

Jeremy Hutton also deals with the question o Deuteronomistic editingin the story o the inauguration o the monarchy. He ocuses on the centralepisode in which Saul is designated as king by lot (1 Sam 10:1727) and

employs anthropologic comparison as a means to supplement and validatethe results o literary and redaction criticism. Hutton agrees with otherrecent scholars that the dichotomy o pro- and antimonarchic tendenciesis too simplistic a criterion or ruitul analysis o 1 Sam 812, since theearly sources are not completely avorable towards the monarchy, nor thelater sources totally opposed to it (on this, see also the contributions oDietrich and Nihan in this volume). Underneath 1 Sam 8 and 10:1727,Hutton finds an earlier narrative that already displayed an ambiguous atti-

tude towards human kingship, and within this earlier narrative the des-ignation o a king by lot is the direct continuation o YHWHs directivein 8:22 to appoint a king. Te means or electing tribal leaders among theBerber Ahansal tribe provides Hutton with a model or explaining thenature and the origin o the lot narrative in 1 Sam 10:1727 and allowshim to assign its underlying pre-Deuteronomistic layer to the late ninthmid-eighth century ... Hutton intriguingly opens the question whetherthis narrative was crafed to issue in the inauguration o the monarchy or

to cap an earlier collection o deliverer narratives represented in the pres-ent book o Judges.Finally, Hannes Bezzel employs close reading o the narratives dealing

with the death o Saul in order to trace the literary history o the tradi-tions regarding the house o Saul within the book o Samuel. His analysisleads to our (or five) stages in the evolution o this material. Te numbero layers Bezzel uncovers is best amenable to a compositional model oFortschreibung in which an original text undergoes revision and expan-

sion on several different opportunities. As Bezzel points out, none o thetexts dealing with the death o Saul display Deuteronomistic characteris-tics, even though the Deuteronomist could have taken advantage o theopportunity to remark on his demise. However, lack o Deuteronomis-tic idiom or ideology does not necessarily indicate pre-Deuteronomistic


22/381


origin. Bezzel concludes that the theology arising rom the narratives oSauls death is closer to the Chroniclers than that o the Deuteronomist.

. I F I

Tis survey o the contributions to this volume clearly demonstrates howvaried are the approaches to the question o the place o the book o Samuelwithin the Deuteronomistic History. Many o the contributions also dem-onstrate an ongoing dialogue within the scholarly community that trans-verses continents and schools o thought. Te act that the participants in

this volume mostly chose to ocus on 1 Samuel raises questions or uturediscussion regarding the second hal o the Samuel scroll. Was any accounto Davids kingship available to the Deuteronomist? Is the bulk o 2 Samuelpost-Deuteronomistic? I so, then how do we explain the web o intercon-nections demonstrated by Nelson that anchor both parts o the book to itsplace within the Deuteronomistic History?

Te essays also drive home the need or a careul definition o Deu-teronomism. Previously, many thought that the Deuteronomistic liter-

ary corpus was the product o a scribal circle that was active or a limitedperiod o about one hundred years, rom the time o Josiah to the middleo the Babylonian period. However, Deuteronomism apparently continuesin Deuterocanonical and other later literature, but the implications arisingrom this have not yet been adequately considered in studies o the rootsand history o the Deuteronomistic scribal tradition.18Tis longevity oDeuteronomistic idiom and concepts challenges the earlier views regard-ing the historical setting o the Deuteronomistic literary production in the

book o Samuel.Furthermore, recent studies have shown that many o the divergenttextual readings in Samuel are more than transmission variants and areindicative o lengthy ongoing revision and editing o the book. As severalo the contributors point out, at least some o the Deuteronomisms con-tained in the are missing in the (as well as other witnesses) andare thus probably later additions, which may derive rom the last centuries... Accordingly, it is necessary to bring the text-critical evidence to the

18. For Deuteronomism in later literature, see the contributions by Beentjes, Bor-chardt, Marttila, Pajunen, Voitila, and Weeks in Hanne von Weissenberg et al., eds., Changes in Scripture(BZAW 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011). Deuteronomism can beound, or example, in Baruch, Ben Sira, Judith, 1 Maccabees, and the emple Scroll.


23/381


ore in the discussion about redactions. Tese caveats highlight the di-ficulties in identiying the precise stage in which the basic narrative o

the book o Samuel was introduced into the historical account that beginsin the premonarchic times and ends with the demise o Judah. ext andredaction criticism should also pay close attention to the Chroniclers par-allels with Samuel. Why are the Chroniclers parallels closer to the text inKings than in Samuel? When does divergence in Chronicles stem romthe Chroniclers tendencies with regard to his sources? And when can theChroniclers parallels be used as documented evidence or the type o textthat was available or the Chronicler?

O course, structural considerations also play a crucial role in decid-ing this matter. How does Samuel relate to the overall structure o thenarrative rom Deuteronomy to 2 Kings? Is it an integral part o this nar-rative, without which the rest o the composition would be lame, or isit a thematic, ideological, and/or structural anomaly between Deuteron-omyJoshuaJudges and the book o Kings? Te potential thematic ten-sions will also have to be addressed in any solution to the question. Forexample, one needs to explain why cult centralization plays a central role

in the book o Kings when the book o Samuel seems to ignore the theme.Similarly, why are the other gods a major theme and a concern o succes-sive redactors in Deuteronomy and Kings, while in Samuel the other godsare criticized in isolated verses ofen assumed to be late additions (e.g.,1 Sam 7:34; 12:10, 21)?

Te way scholarship addresses the question whether the book oSamuel underwent Deuteronomistic editing or revision or originallybelonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic work that included other books o the

Former Prophets colors our perception o many aspects o this book (ando the other books in question). Several issues would be viewed differentlyi the main redaction did not intend Samuel to be read along with Deuter-onomy and Kings. A book o Samuel, independent o the Deuteronomists,would have a different social and religious background rom a book oSamuel that was essentially composed and transmitted within Deuteron-omistic circles. Te book o Kings without a Davidic prelude would alsoprovide a different perspective to the origins o the monarchy.

In closing, wethe editorswish to thank all those who participatedin the SBL sessions on What Is Deuteronomistic about Samuel? that ledto this volume and to those who responded to our subsequent invitation tocontribute to this collection. We hope that this volume will spark more con-tinued dialogue on the question, Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists?


24/381


B

Adam, Klaus-Peter. Saul und David in der judischen Geschichtsschreibung:Studien zu 1 Samuel 162 Samuel 5. FA 51. bingen: Mohr Siebeck,2007.

Auld, A. Graeme. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story othe Bibles Kings. Edinburgh: & Clark, 1994.

. Samuel at the Treshold: Selected Works o Graeme Auld. Aldershot,U.K.: Ashgate, 2004.

Barthlemy, Dominique, and Joze . Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1.

Oxord: Clarendon, 1955.Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the His-

tory o the Religion o Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1973.

Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene C.Ulrich. Qumran Cave 4.XII: 12 Samuel. DJD XVII. Oxord: Claren-don, 2005.

Dietrich,Walter.1 Samuel 112. BKA 8.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirch-

ener, 2011.Fischer, Alexander A. Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschicht-

liche Studie zur Erzhlung von Knig David in II Sam 15. BZAW 335.Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.

Heinrich, Andr.David und Klio: Historiographische Elemente in der Au-stiegsgeschichte Davids und im Alten estament. BZAW 401. Berlin: deGruyter, 2009.

Hugo, Philippe. Te Jerusalem emple Seen in Second Samuel accord-

ing to the Masoretic ext and the Septuagint. Pages 18396 in XIIICongress o the International Organization or Septuagint and CognateStudies Ljubljana, 2007. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. SBLSCS 55.Atlanta: Society o Biblical Literature, 2008.

Hugo, Philippe and Adrian Schenker, eds. Archaeology o the Books oSamuel: Te Entangling o the extual and Literary History. VSup132. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Hutzli, Jrg.Die Erzhlung von Hanna und Samuel: extkritische und lit-

erarische Analyse von 1. Samuel 12 unter Berucksichtigung des Kon-textes. AAN 89. Zrich: Teologischer Verlag Zrich, 2007.. Mgliche Retuschen am Davidbild in der masoretischen Fassung

der Samuelbcher. Pages 10216 in David und Saul im Widerstreit:Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit: Beitrge zur Auslegung des


25/381


ersten Samuelbuches. Edited by Walter Dietrich. OBO 206. Fribourg:Academic Press Fribourg, 2004.

Mller, Reinhard. Knigtum und Gottesherrschaf: Untersuchungen zur alt-testamentlichen Monarchiekritik. FA 2/3. bingen: Mohr Siebeck,2004.

Pakkala, Juha. Deuteronomy and 12 Kings in the Redaction o the Pen-tateuch and Former Prophets. Pages 13363 in Deuteronomy in thePentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History.Edited by Ray Person andKonrad Schmid. FA 2/56. bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Rmer, Tomas. Te So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological,

Historical, and Literary Introduction. London: & Clark, 2007.Rudnig, Tilo. Davids Tron: Redaktionskritische Studien zur Geschichte

von der Tronnacholge Davids. BZAW 358. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.Scher-Lichtenberger,Christa, ed. Die Samuelbcher und die Deuterono-

misten.BWAN 188. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010.Van Seters, John. Te Biblical Saga o King David. Winona Lake, Ind.:

Eisenbrauns, 2009.Veijola, imo.Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen

Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. AASFB.198. Helsinki: Suomalainen iedeakatemia, 1977.

. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nachder deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF B.193. Helsinki: Suoma-lainen iedeakatemia, 1975.

Vermeylen, Jacques. La loi du plus ort: Histoire de la rdaction des rcitsdavidiques de 1 Samuel 8 1 Rois 2. BEL154. Leuven: Leuven Uni-versity Press, 2000.

Weissenberg, Hanne von, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, eds. Changesin Scripture. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.


26/381


27/381

D H S: M G C

Richard D. Nelson

Te first time Dorothy and her companions are permitted an audiencewith the Wizard o Oz, he appears amid smoke and flames as a disem-bodied head speaking in a booming voice. On their return to the Wizardsaudience room, however, Dorothys dog oto pulls open a green curtainconcealing a small booth. Te Wizard turns out to be an ordinary manrom Kansas, speaking into a microphone and rantically manipulating

dials, switches, and levers to control an awesome projected image. For amoment, he tries to carry off the deception. Covering up with the cur-tain he bellows: Te Great Oz has spoken. Pay no attention to that manbehind the curtain the Great er Oz has spoken. But his hiddeninvolvement is revealed.

. D H S:B G C

Te hypothesis o a Deuteronomistic History in anything like the versionproposed by Martin Noth may be in the last stages o decay.1Undoubtedly,

1. A sample o those with grave doubts: A. Graeme Auld, Te Deuteronomistsand the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic? inTose Elusive Deuteronomists: Te Phenomenon o Pan-Deuteronomism(ed. Linda S.Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie; JSOSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1999), 11626; Ernst A. Knau, Does Deuteronomistic Historiography (DtrH)Exist? in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in RecentResearch(ed. Albert de Pury et al.; JSOSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,2000), 38898; K. L. Noll, Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomic Debate? (ATought Experiment),JSO31 (2007): 31145; Hartmut N. Rsel, Does a Compre-

-17-


28/381


the book o Samuel presents a serious challenge to the notion o a uni-fied history tracing Israels lie in the land stretching rom Deut 13 to the

end o 2 Kings. Deuteronomistic language and ideology are rare in Samuel.Questions about the existence, scope, and dating o presumed sourcesabound. In contrast to Joshua, Judges, and Kings, Samuel lacks a distinctiveeditorial structure. Samuel in its present orm has its own structural andthematic integrity. rajectoriesreversal o ortune, kingship, Yahwehsvictory over enemieslaunched in the poetry o the Song o Hanna areexplored in the ollowing narratives and then find resolution in the poetryo the last chapters (2 Sam 22; 23:18).2

Noths arguments about redaction by the Deuteronomistic Historianin Samuel were largely thematic and structural in nature. Tereore, hesaw no problem with the paucity o unambiguous Deuteronomistic inter-vention. o him, it was obvious that Samuels arewell address in 1 Sam12 constituted one o the Deuteronomistic Historians organizing editorialspeeches. Later, Dennis McCarthy made it apparent to likeminded schol-ars that the Nathan Oracle o 2 Sam 7 should be added to the catalogueo the Deuteronomistic Historians end o era speeches.3 In Weinelds

classic list, clear-cut examples o Deuteronomistic language in Samuel areconfined almost entirely to those two chapters.4Again, or Noth the nearabsence o Deuteronomistic language presented no problem, because heconceived o the Deuteronomistic Historian as an author who was willingto let his sources speak or themselves, even i they did not mirror Deuter-onomistic orthodoxy. Noths descriptions o the Deuteronomistic Histo-rians activity in Samuel are characteristic: letting the old accounts speakor themselves and the existence o this traditional material absolved

hensive Leitmotiv Exist in the Deuteronomistic History? in Te Future o the Deu-teronomistic History(ed. Tomas Rmer; BEL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 195211;Claus Westermann, Die Geschichtsbcher des Alten estaments: Gab es ein deuteron-omistisches Geschichtswerk?(B 87; Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1994).

2. Randall C. Bailey, Te Redemption o YHWH: A Literary Critical Function othe Songs o Hannah and David, BibInt3 (1995): 21331.

3. Dennis J. McCarthy, 2 Sam 7 and the Structure o the Deuteronomistic His-tory,JBL84 (1965): 13138. I owe the phrase end o era speech to my teacher RonaldM. Hals.

4. Moshe Weineld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School(Oxord: Clar-endon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 320, 323, 327, 332, 334,339 (1 Sam 12:10, 20, 21, 22, 24); 32529, 331, 343, 350 (2 Sam 7:1, 13, 16, 22, 23,24, 25).


29/381

NELSON: HE DEUERONOMISIC HISORIAN IN SAMUEL 19

Dtr. rom the need to organize and construct the narrative himsel.5TeDeuteronomistic Historians willingness to concede that it was reasonable

or the people to sacrifice at high places and or Solomon to sacrifice atGibeon (1 Kgs 3:24), even though there was already a sacrificial altar inJerusalem (1 Kgs 1:5051, 53; 2:2829), would seem to be a clear exampleo this.6

From a methodological perspective, producing convincing argumentsabout a supposedly sel-effacing, hidden authorial presence is challeng-ing. However, as in the Land o Oz, the creative activity o the Deuteron-omistic Historian, hidden behind a green curtain o nonintererence in

transmitting traditional texts, is revealed by the essential role that the booko Samuel plays in the overall composition, structure, and plot o Joshuathrough Kings. Once we peek behind the curtain, we find the Historianmanipulating editorial dials, switches, and leverseven in Samuel.

5. Martin Noth, Te Deuteronomistic History (2nd ed.; JSOSup 15; Sheffield:JSO Press, 1991), 77, 86; trans. o berlieerungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sam-

melInden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten estament(3d ed.; bingen:Max Niemeyer, 1967), 54, 62. imo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Ent-stehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung(AASF B.193; Hel-sinki: Suomalainen iedeakatemia, 1975) postulates a much more active and extensiveDeuteronomistic Historian in Samuel, along with two later editorial layers. John VanSeters envisions the Deuteronomistic Historian as an active author who constructedrather than inherited the extended narrative about Davids emergence, to which theCourt History was added later as a supplement, most recently in Te Biblical Saga oKing David(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

6. Neither Sauls altar (1 Sam 14:35) nor his consultation with a orbiddenmedium (1 Sam 28:325) is condemned, and the medium hersel is actually presentedin a rather positive light (vv. 2125). Gideon is commanded to build and sacrifice onan altar at Ophrah (Judg 6:2426). Elijahs reconstructs an altar on Carmel (1 Kgs18:30). Apparently the Deuteronomistic Historian assumed that the requirement toenorce the centralization demanded in Deut 12 did not become operative until therest stipulated in Deut 12:911 had been achieved (2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kgs 8:56). It is amistake to assume that the Deuteronomistic Historian read and understood Deuter-onomy in exactly the way we do. Tat the Deuteronomistic Historian could blandlyrecite Josiahs ailure to ollow the policy o Deut 18:68 in denying priestly offices tothe priests o the high places (2 Kgs 23:9), a lapse that appears so obvious to modernscholars, seems to indicate that he interpreted matters differently rom the way we do.Te Deuteronomistic Historian shows no evidence o being a undamentalist aboutthe tit-or-tat relationship between sin and punishment that many see as the centralideology o Deuteronomy.


30/381


Tree categories o argument suggest that at least large portions oSamuel were part o the Deuteronomistic Historians composition. First,

the two sections generally attributed to the Historian on the basis o lan-guage and theology (1 Sam 12:615; 2 Sam 7) are tightly integrated intothe structure and themes o the Deuteronomistic History as a whole andrequired to fill them out. Second, other texts in Samuel, some without dis-tinctive Deuteronomistic language, provide thematic bridges that stretchbackward and orward and demonstrate that Samuel unctions as an indis-pensable element in a larger editorial concept. Tird, without Samuel,important elements o the Deuteronomistic History in Joshua, Judges, and

Kings prove to be unanchored, incomplete, or inexplicable.

. E E S S N

Te strongest argument or the existence o a comprehensive history oIsrael based on Deuteronomistic theology is the structure provided by thecomprehensive summary texts o Deut 13; Josh 1; 23; 1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7;1 Kgs 8; and 2 Kgs 17.

2.1. 1 S 12

First Samuel 12 marks the point o a transition rom the era o judges tothat o kings. It is set strategically between 1 Sam 11:15, they made Saulking, and the accession ormula or Saul (1 Sam 13:1). Samuel takes noteo the transition o era in 1 Sam 12:1, 3: I have made a king over you his anointed. He then deends his career as leader and reviews Yahwehs

saving deeds rom Egypt until the present. In verses 910, he describesIsraels story in the same way as the Deuteronomistic Historian does inJudges. Israel orgot Yahweh so Yahweh sold them into the hand oSisera, commander o the army o Hazor (v. 9; compare Judg 3:7; 4:2).Ehuds enemy, the king o Moab, and the Philistines, the oe o Samsonand Samuel, are also mentioned. Israel cried out that they had sinned, or-saking Yahweh by serving the Baals and Astartes, and asked Yahweh todeliver them (v. 10; a summary o Judg 10:1016). In verse 11, the line o

judges is sketched out with Jerubbaal, the possibly corrupt Bedan (:Barak, see also Syr.), Jephthah, and Samuel himsel ( and AB; Lreads Samson). Te summary lists o enemies and judges are abbreviatedas prcises that plainly assume reader acquaintance with the whole pre-ceding story. Te deeds o the heroes are described with the characteristic


31/381


phraseology o the Deuteronomistic Historian: delivered you out o thehand o your enemies on every side (v. 11; Judg 8:34).7Ten ollows an

interchange reviewing the events o 1 Sam 811. Significantly, the reviewis contextually inaccurate with respect to the previously recounted storyo the peoples request or a king, but entirely characteristic o the per-spective o the Deuteronomistic History in Judges. Tat is to say, it looksto the danger presented by Nahash as the primary trigger event or therequest or a king (1 Sam 12:12). What comes next in verses 1325 iswidely viewed as the Deuteronomistic Historians compromise positionabout kingship, one that subsumes the antimonarchy material he has pre-

sented into a conditional theology o kingship.8Yahweh agrees to the kingthe people have chosen, but his ate will depend on the obedience o bothking and people to the commandment o Yahweh (vv. 14, 15). In turn,this prepares the way or the downall o Saul (You have not kept the com-mandment o Yahweh, 13:13; I have transgressed the commandment oYahweh, 15:24). o summarize, 1 Sam 12 is a section in Deuteronomisticlanguage that takes account o the context into which it has been set andlooks back to Judges and orward to Kings.9

Te positioning o 1 Sam 12 fits the Deuteronomistic Historians largerauthorial horizon. History has moved rom the era o judges to the erao kings, and in 1 Sam 13:1 the Deuteronomistic Historian provides thefirst o those ormulaic royal accession introductions, pointing orwardto the chronological interests o 2 Sam 2:1011 and 5:45 (Davids acces-sion notice) and, significantly or our purposes, the pattern o the book oKings. First Samuel 12 orms with chapter 8 an inclusioaround the noto-

7. O course, it is possible to undercut this argument by denying the relevant por-tions o Judges to the Deuteronomistic Historian (as is ofen done with Judg 10:1016)or demanding a rigid correspondence between the end o era summary and the storyline o Judges, as is done by Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. OBrien, Unoldingthe Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present ext (Minneapolis: Fortress,2000), 24647. Tis sort o argumentation is not illegitimate, but points to the uncer-tainty o all diachronic composition theory. How does one know when one is demand-ing too much consistency rom an author?

8. imo Veijola, Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Histo-riographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung(AASF B.198; Helsinki: Suoma-lainen iedeakatemia, 1977).

9. Veijola assigned chapter 12 to his DtrN (Knigtum in der Beurteilung, 8399).Anthony F. Campbell also sees it as insertion into the Deuteronomistic History, mostrecently in 1 Samuel(FOL 7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 12024.


32/381


riously incoherent stories o Sauls achievement o kingship in chapters911. Te language o chapter 12 coordinates with trace elements o Deu-

teronomistic language in 1 Sam 8:8, 18 (orsaking me and serving othergods; you will cry out because o your king, whom you have chosen).More importantly, there is a tight connection between 1 Sam 8:22 and12:1 (listen to their voice and make a king or them and I have listenedto your voice and have made a king over you). Whether or not theintervening, ungainly sequence o lost donkeys, choice by lot at Mizpah,and the Nahash crisis was assembled by the Deuteronomistic Historian, itis clear that it is set into a raming device that must be attributed to him.10

Tus, 1 Sam 12 is thematically well integrated into its context. Techapter also marks a change in the portrayal o Samuel. Up until this point,he unctions as both prophet and judge; or the remainder o the book, heis only a prophet.

2.2. 2 S 7

Nathans Oracle in 2 Sam 7 is an equally important argument or the Deu-

teronomistic Historians authorial role in Samuel. Certainly this chapterhad a previous history, but through judicious additions (vv. 1, 11, 13, 16,or example), the Historian has converted it into an end o era summary.Te storyline has arrived at a three-old point o transition, the themes owhich are highlighted in the Nathan Oracle. First, afer the victory o 5:25,Yahweh has given David restrom all his surrounding enemies (2 Sam7:1; see also v. 11; Judg 21:44; 23:1). Second, the transer o the ark in chap-ter 6 would raise the question o a central sanctuary or any reader ori-

ented to Deuteronomy. Tird, because Yahweh has chosen David over Sauland all his house (2 Sam 6:21) and Michal remains childless (v. 23), theissue o succession is now put on the table.

Tere is a backward look to earlier events: (1) the leaders o the pre-monarchy period are termed judges (v. 11; Judg 2:1619; 2 Kgs 23:22).(2) A tent shelters the ark (v. 6; 2 Sam 6:17).11 (3) Yahweh has chosen

10. Tis inclusiostructure rames positive stories about kingship with negativecommentary. Te middle section, 1 Sam 10:1727, is both negative and positive. SeeTomas C. Rmer, Te So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historicaland Literary Introduction(London: & Clark, 2005), 143.

11. Te final clause o 1 Sam 2:22 is a expansion rom Exod 38:8, absent rom and 4QSama.


33/381


David, who once had tended sheep, to become a royal shepherd (1 Sam16:1112; 2 Sam 5:2) and has been with him (a recurrent theme in the

story o Davids rise; see 1 Sam 18:1412and especially 2 Sam 5:10). At thesame time, the theme o a great name (v. 9) points orward to 8:13; 12:28;and 1 Kgs 1:47.

Other orward-looking concerns o 2 Sam 7 could easily serve as atable o contents or the ollowing book o Kings: Solomons succession (v.12), temple building (v. 13), Solomons sins (vv. 1415), and the theologi-cal role o the Davidic dynasty (vv. 13, 16). Successive reerences in Kingsto Yahwehs dynastic promise to David (1 Kgs 2:24; 5:19 [E v. 5]; 8:20;

the three lamp promises o 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; and 2 Kgs 8:19) requirethe reader o Kings to have knowledge o 2 Sam 7.13Te same can be saidor the associated dynastic promise passages in 1 Kgs 8:25 and 9:45. Ahi-jahs words to Jeroboam promising a sure house (1 Kgs 11:38) likewise canmake no sense without a previous acquaintance with 2 Sam 7. NathansOracle is evidence o an editorial horizon that reaches back into Judges,recognizes the Ark Story, incorporates some sort o story o Davids rise,and then points orward into the unolding book o Kings.

. B O S

Among the highlighted themes o the book o Samuel are housein its vari-ous meanings (1 Sam 23; 2 Sam 7),14ark(1 Sam 46; 2 Sam 6; 15:2429),and Jerusalem(2 Sam 56).15Tese three topics coordinate closely withinterests o the Deuteronomistic Historian outside o Samuel: DavidicdynastyandJerusalemthroughout Kings and the arkin Joshua and Kings

(Josh 36; 1 Kgs 8). Several other thematic bridges in Samuel point back-ward to Judges and orward to Kings.

12. First Samuel 18:12b is a expansion.13. First Kings 2:24a Deuteronomistic insert (see Deut 31:7; 23 Jos 1:67, 9;

23:14) into the context o Davids last wordslikewise expects the reader to knowabout 2 Sam 7.

14. Compare, or example, house o Eli, house o David, houses o Israel andJudah (1 Sam 7:2, 3; 2 Sam 2:4, 7, 10, 11; 6:5, 15; 12:8), and house as temple.

15. David deposits Goliaths head in Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54, part o the older,pre- recension). Tis is similar to the odd anachronism ound in Josh 6:24.


34/381


3.1. 1 S 2:2736: I will raise up or mysel a aithul priest.

In describing the replacement o Abiathar by Zadok in 1 Kgs 2:27, theDeuteronomistic Historian reers back to 1 Sam 2:36. First Samuel 2:27initiates a classic authorial device o the Historian. An anonymous man oGod comes to Eli just as one did to Samsons mother (Judg 13:6) and willdo to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 13:1; 2 Kgs 23:1618).16Yahwehs earlier promiseto the priestly house o Elis ancestor is withdrawn. Only one o Elis housewill survive a massacre by the sword. In the place o Elis amily, God willraise up a aithul priest who will be granted a sure house (compare 2

Sam 7:16 and 1 Kgs 11:38, texts composed by the Historian) and serveorever beore the king. Whoever is lef o Elis amily will beg or charityand a priestly appointment rom the aithul priest. Te redactional natureo this section is evident, because it asserts that the deaths o Elis sons hap-pened as a sign to confirm this prophetic message. Tis contrasts with theollowing Ark Story, where their death is used to indicate the seriousnesso the loss o the ark (1 Sam 4:1718, 19). Te text o Samuel emphasizesthis oracle by returning to the subject a second time in the story o Samu-

els call (1 Sam 3:1114, reerring directly to 2:2236).17Te text complex in which the Deuteronomistic Historians interest in

Elis house appears (1 Sam 2:2736 and 3:1114) displays a well-defineddouble inclusio structure. Tis structure has the effect o enolding thematerial attributable to the Deuteronomistic Historian tightly into the sur-rounding narrative. Te outer elements o the inclusioconsist o:

2:21b

[and the young man Samuel grew up with [in the presence o

Yahweh

3:19ab

and Samuel grew, and Yahweh was with him

16. Yahweh also sends an anonymous prophet in Judg 6:710 (absent rom4QJudga), but to no one in particular.

17. Weineld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic School,351, proposes Deuteron-omistic language in v. 11.


35/381


Tese phrases bookend the episodes o Eli warning his sons (1 Sam 2:2225), the oracle o the man o God (2:2736), and Samuels prophetic call

along with Elis response to it (3:218). Note that while Elis sons do notlisten (2:25b),18on the third try Samuel does listen (3:10).

Within this outer pair o bookends appears a second, related set thatpicks up on the phrase (the young man Samuel) rom 1Sam 2:21. Tis interior inclusiois ormed by participle sentences in 2:26and 3:1:

2:26

and the young man Samuel continued to grow

3:1

and the young man Samuel was ministering

Tis interior inclusio incorporates and highlights the Deuteronomistic

Historians narrative o the oracle o the anonymous man o God (1 Sam2:2736). Te burden o Samuels announcement o judgment to Eli istied to the earlier threat o the unnamed man o God when 3:14 repeatsthe words sacrifice and offering rom 2:29 (my sacrifices and my offer-ings). Tis connection is strengthened urther by a repetition o house(3:12, 13, 14; multiple reerences in 2:2736) and your/his house orever in 2:30 and 3:13 (orever is also used in v. 14). It would seemincontestable that the Deuteronomistic Historian had a hand in structur-

ing this textual unit.Te narrative horizon o this judgment speech integrates Samuel andKings. It reers initially to the death o Elis two sons (1 Sam 2:34; 4:11) andthen to the massacre at Nob (1 Sam 2:3132; 22:1623), which Abiatharalone survived (1 Sam 2:33). But beyond this, it also predicts Solomonsreplacement o Abiathar by Zadok, the aithul priest (1 Kgs 2:2627,35). Yet even beyond this, the threat o an appeal or support and priestlyappointment looks orward to the effects o Josiahs reorm on bypassed

priestly amilies (2 Kgs 23:9). Even the detail o the entreaty or a crust

18. It may be redactionally significant that the final words o 1 Sam 2:25 share threewords with Judg 13:23: .((Yahweh + desire + to kill them/us/


36/381


o bread (1 Sam 2:36) is picked up in the unleavened bread o hospital-ity eaten by Josiahs unemployed priests (2 Kgs 23:9; c. Gen 19:3; 1 Sam

28:24).

3.2. 1 S 7:34: Baals and Astartes

Beore Samuels victory over the Philistines in his role as judge (vv. 6, 15),he decries oreign gods, Baals, and Astartes, and the people put them awayto serve Yahweh alone. But these gods have no antecedent reerence inSamuel. Te reader has to go back to Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7; and 10:6, 10, 16 to

find out what this is about.

3.3. 1 S 7:1011: Yahweh threw them into a panic.

Te sacral war description o Josh 10:10 (see also Judg 4:15) is echoed inthese verses: Yahweh thundered with a mighty sound that day against thePhilistines and threw them into a panic, and they were routed beore Israel.And the men o Israel went out rom Mizpah and pursuedthe Philistines

and struck them, as ar asbelow Beth-car.

3.4. 1 S 13:1: Saul was years old when he began to reign.

Te chronological notice or Saul is unnecessary in Samuel, but it is parto the Deuteronomistic Historians chronology system that structuresKings and plays a role in Judges.19Similar royal chronology notices occurin 2 Sam 2:10 (Ishbaal) and 5:45 (David),20 again indicating a horizon

o interest that stretches into Kings. Likewise the tenure length or Eli asjudge (1 Sam 4:18) and the time spent by the ark in cold storage (1 Sam

19. Te deective nature o 1 Sam 13:1 is best understood as evidence o a dam-aged source document. Te verse is absent rom AB. It is present in Lwithplausible data supplied. For a deense o the , see Dominique Barthlemy and Alex-ander Hulst, Critique textuelle de lAncien estament: Rapport nal du Comit pourlAnalyse extuelle de lAncien estament Hbreu institute par lAlliance Biblique Univer-selle: Josu, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Nhmie, Esther (OBO 50;Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 1982), 17576.

20. Verses 45 are lacking in 4QSamaand (see also 1 Chr 11:3, 6), but appearin Band . probably preserves .


37/381


7:2) show a continuation o interest in the chronology system o Judges,although exactly how the math is supposed to work out is puzzling.

3.5. 1 S 13:1314: Yahweh would have established your kingdomover Israel orever.

Tis prepares the reader or subsequent offers o permanent kingshipmade next to David and then to Jeroboam (2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 11:38). Tispromise is enclosed by a ramework in Deuteronomistic language: Youhave not kept the command o Yahweh your God. you have not kept

what Yahweh commanded you.21

3.6. 1 S 15:3: Strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have.

Te story o Sauls ailure to impose total h eremon the Amalekites andtheir king presumes amiliarity with Deuteronomys laws about the ban(Deut 13:1218 [E vv. 1319]; 20:1618) and Amalekites (25:1719). Teh ereminventory o 1 Sam 15:3 (and 22:19!) is similar to that o Josh 6:21.22

3.7. 2 S 1:18: It is written in the book o Jashar.

Tat the Deuteronomistic Historian was an active authorial editor inSamuel provides the best explanation or the three quotations rom thebook o Jashar: Josh 10:1213; 2 Sam 1:18; and 1 Kgs 8:1213 .

3.8. 2 S 3:2230: Joab stabbed [Abner] in the stomach.

Second Samuel 3:2829 (I and my kingdom are orever guiltless beoreYahweh or the blood o Abner the son o Ner. May it all upon the head oJoab and upon all his athers house) anticipates Solomons statement in 1Kgs 2:3133 reerring to the murders o Abner and Amasa (Yahweh willbring back his bloody deeds on his own head. So shall their blood comeback on the head o Joab and on the head o his descendants orever).

21. Weineld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic School, 336.22. On h eremand the h ereminventory, see Richard D. Nelson, Heremand the

Deuteronomic Social Conscience, in Deuteronomyand Deuteronomic Literature: Fest-schrif C. H. W. Brekelmans(ed. Marc Vervenne; BEL 133; Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 1997), 3954.


38/381


Other reerences to Joabs criminal past in 1 Kgs 2 point to events in theCourt History (2 Sam 17:25; 19:1115; 20:410), but this one points to

an incident earlier in Samuel in what many scholars would call the Riseo David.

3.9. 2 S 5:45: At Hebron [David] reigned over Judah seven yearsand six months.

Te computation o the years o Davids reign in Hebron and Jerusalem isrepeated in 1 Kgs 2:11. It is not really consistent with its context in Samuel,

where one would expect the reigns o David in Hebron and Ishbaal (twoyears; 2 Sam 2:10) to be about the same length.

3.10. 2 S 5:11: Hiram o yre sent messengers to David.

Hiram, king o yre, makes an unexpected single appearance when Davidskingship is established, sending messengers (with no message cited) andhelp or building a palace. Te mention o Davids house is needed to pre-

pare or 2 Sam 7:1. But Hirams messengers, cedar beams, and artisans alsolay a oundation or the longstanding relationship between him and Davidthat is presupposed in 1 Kgs 5:1524 [E vv. 110]: Hiram alwayslovedDavid (v. 15 [E v. 1]).

3.11. 2 S 8:1518 (20:2326): Jehoshaphat son o Ahilud wasrecorder.

Scholars have generally thought o these parallel lists o Davids officials asderiving rom some sort o official source. However, a realistic appraisal othe level o sophistication one might expect rom a newly emerged mid-tenth-century state makes this unlikely. Te more likely explanation isthat they are creative revisions o the list o Solomonsofficials in 1 Kgs4:16. Solomons list (rom the book o the Acts o Solomon?) was strippeddown and moved backward in time to fit what was supposed to be Davidssituation. Tus Joab, known to be liquidated by Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35),

was added at the beginning. Jehoshaphat son o Ahilud was kept, as wereZadok and Abiathar as characters in the David stories.23Benaiah son o

23. In 2 Sam 8:17, these two appear as Zadok, the son o Ahitub, and Ahimelech,


39/381


Jehoiada was given a prehistory in Davids time, but as commander o theCherethites and the Pelethites (perhaps on the basis o 1 Kgs 1:38, 44),

since Joab was Davids commander o the army. Adoniram/Adoram overthe orced labor is kept in the 2 Samuel 20 list to prepare or his upcom-ing role in 1 Kgs 5:14; 12:18. Azariah and Zabud, the sons o Nathan, andAzariah, son o Zadok, are eliminated in order to move back a generationin time. Te two sons o Shisha are eliminated in the same ashion, leav-ing the apparently corrupt or variant name Sheva or Seraiah ( Shau-sha) behind to represent the period o David. Ahishar over the palace issimply eliminated. Perhaps adding Davids sons were priests, the 2 Sam 8

version was intended to provide verisimilitude, but in chapter 20 this musthave seemed inappropriate as the dynastic struggle moved to its conclu-sion, so they were replaced by an unknown Ira the Jairite.

3.12. 2 S 12:712: he sword shall never depart rom your house.

Te sword that shall never depart (v. 10b) contrasts conspicuouslywith the promise in 2 Sam 7:15 that Yahwehs h esedwill not depart rom

Davids successor. In the context o Samuel, the metaphorical sword willstrike down Amnon, Absalom, and (in Kings) Adonijah. However, in thecontext o the Deuteronomistic History as a whole, the sword also pointsorward to the death o Ahaziah, king o Judah, by Jehus arrow (2 Kgs9:27), the royal victims o Athaliahs purge (2 Kgs 11:1), and the assassina-tion o Amon by his own courtiers (2 Kgs 21:23). It may even prefigure theviolent death o Josiah (23:29). As a retributive response to Uriahs death,the sword shall never depart is apt to be read in terms o death by treach-

ery, something that appears in the context o each o those deaths.24

the son o Abiathar. Te second ather-son pair is obviously an erroneous reversal onames, as suggested by the Syr. and 1 Sam 22:20; 23:6; 30:7; 2 Sam 20:25.

24. Uriahs death is the result o treachery by David and Joab. reachery is con-nected to sword by the accusation o 2 Sam 12:9 (You have struck down with thesword and have killed him with the swordo the Ammonites) and Davids cynicalmessage to Joab in 2 Sam 11:25 (the sword devours now one and now another).Necos killing o Josiah was apparently an act o treachery against an allied vassal; seeRichard D. Nelson, Realpolitik in Judah (687609 B.C.E.), in Scripture and ContextII: More Essays on the Comparative Method(ed. William W. Hallo et al.; Winona Lake,Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 17789. Te first edition o the Deuteronomistic Historycould date rom immediately afer Josiahs death as encouragement or his successorsto continue his policies.


40/381


. M S C C J K

Without certain materials in Samuel, themes and plot elements o Judgesand Kings remain incomplete or disconnected.

4.1. P J

Te book o Judges ends with the theme o the deeat o the Philistineslef hanging in the air. Tis topic permeates the Samson narrative. Te

Philistines will dominate or orty years (Judg 13:1), but Samson duringhis twenty-year tenure as judge will only beginto deliver Israel rom them(13:5). Te storyline simply cannot be lef with the situation described inJudg 15:20 (and 16:31): He judged Israel in the days o the Philistinestwenty years. Reader expectations have been raised but not satisfied. Tenarrative arc is only completed when the Ark Story and the subsequentvictory o Samuel are recounted.25

Indeed, the resolution o the Philistine problem in Samuel fits perectly

with the theology o apostasy and repentance characteristic o Judges. It isinstructive to compare 1 Sam 7:36 with Judges:

Verse 3: I you are returning to Yahweh with all your heart,then put away the oreign gods and the Astartes rom amongyou and direct your heart to Yahweh and serve him only, andhe will deliver you out o the hand o the Philistines (c. Judg10:16).

Verse 4: So the people o Israel put away the Baals and theAstartes, and they served Yahweh only (c. Judg 3:7; 10:6; 1Sam 12:10).

Verse 6: So they gathered at Mizpah and said there, Wehave sinned against Yahweh (c. Judg 10:10, 15).

It is hard to imagine a more appropriate wrap-up to the orecast made atSamsons birthIt is he who shall begin to save Israel rom the hand o

25. One notes that beore Dagon appears as Yahwehs adversary in 1 Sam 5:25, he(and perhaps his temple) have already been introduced in Judg 16:23.


41/381


the Philistines (Judg 13:5)than the promise o 1 Sam 7:3: He [Yahweh]will deliver you out o the hand o the Philistines.

4.2. S J

Samuel operates as a judge, cast in the mold o the heroes o Judges. Tisis particularly true in the story o the preparations or battle against thePhilistines in 1 Sam 7:217. Samuel begins with an accusation o apostasyin verses 34 that echoes language rom Judges (10:1116). Te Deuteron-omistic Historians structured outline o Judges is not present, but its ideol-

ogy is. Context provides the peoples apostasy and Yahwehs abandonmento them to the Philistines. Te people ast and coness, leaving the cry toYahweh to Samuel (1 Sam 7:9). First Samuel 7:10, 13, and 15 could havebeen lifed directly rom Judges: Yahweh as Divine Warrior thunderedwith a mighty sound that day against the Philistines and threw them intoconusion [see Judg 4:15]. So the Philistines were subdued [see Judg3:30; 4:23; 8:28; 11:33]; the hand o Yahweh was against the Philistines[see Judg 2:15] all the days o Samuel [see Judg 2:18]. Samuel judged

Israel all the days o his lie. Tere is no period o rest, because Saul andDavid must continue the struggle.

Te expression Samuel judged Israel in 1 Sam 7:15 exactly repeatsthe verbal pattern o the so-called minor judges and Judg 3:10; 15:20; and16:31 (and 2 Kgs 23:22). Tis same expression is ound in 1 Sam 7:16 and17. A urther echo o the conception o leadership rom Judges comes inthe request o the people in the next chapter: a king to judge us (1 Sam8:56, 20). Elis rule is also described in terms o judging Israel in 1 Sam

4:18.Noth theorized that the Deuteronomistic Historian inherited the ideao the office o the judge rom a source list o minor judges and applied it tothe hero figures in Judges in order to turn them into national leaders.26Ocourse the term judge was applied to civil rulers and administrative offi-cials at Mari and Ugarit, as well as in Phoenician and Punic inscriptions.27However, the conflation o the office o judge as both civil unctionary

26. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 6972 (berlieerungsgeschichtliche Studien,4750).

27. Herbert Niehr, Herrschen und Richten: Die Wurzel spt im Alten Orient undim Alten estament (FB 54; Wrzburg: Echter, 1986), 2578, 8488; omoo Ishida,SOFE: Te Leader o the ribal League Israel in the Pre-Monarchic Period, in


42/381


(Deborah in Judg 4:45; the minor judges; Samuel in 1 Sam 7:1617) andcharismatic war leader is a distinctive concept o the Deuteronomistic

Historian. It is entirely possible that Samuel even appeared in the originallist o minor judges, as suggested by language embedded in 1 Sam 7:1517;25:1: Samuel judged Israel year by year and he judged Israel. AndSamuel died and they buried him in his house at Ramah.28

4.3. P S S

Te continuation o the Deuteronomistic Historians particular concept o

the judge into the book o Samuel explains the striking parallelism betweenthe stories that introduce Samson and Samuel. Teir birth stories bothbegin in the same way, Tere was a certain man o whose name was.Samsons mother and Hannah are the active and appealing protagonistsin each narrative. Most striking, however, is the common theme o thededicated Nazirite or quasi-Nazirite child. Tis fits perectly into Samsonsbiography (Judg 13:5) but seems utterly out o place in that o Samuel.29

4.4. L J

Judges lays out as an unfinished theme the crisis o inadequate leadership.Tis theme continues in the narratives o Saul and David and is finallyresolved with Davids accession. Othniel, Ehud, and the Deborah/Barakpair provide effective leadership, but matt

Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala, Eds. (2013). is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists (SBLAIL 16) Atlanta,...

Documents

Transcript of Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala, Eds. (2013). is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists (SBLAIL 16) Atlanta,...