COVENANT RENEWAL
AT GILGAL
A Study of I
Samuel 11:14-12:25
J. ROBERT VANNOY
MACK PUBLISHING
COMPANY
Digitized
by Ted Hildebrandt in appreciation to author, who, as my former
professor, opened my understanding
to the Old Testament.
For of him, and
through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory
for ever. Amen.
Romans 11:36
To my
mother
Margaret B.
Vannoy
In memory of my father
Wesley G.
Vannoy
February 28, 1900—September
3, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGM
NTS xi
INTRODUCTION
1
PART I
TRANSLATION
WITH EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25
WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS
ON
JURIDICAL
AND COVENANT TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS
I.
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 12:1-25 9
II.
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-15 61
PART
II
LITERARY CRITICAL AND GENRE-HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS OF I SAMUEL
11:14-12:25
III.
I SAMUEL 11: 4-12:25 AS A COMPOSITE UNIT 95
Section 1. A Survey of the Literary
Criticism of I Samuel
11:14-12:2 95
A. I Samuel 12:1-25 96
1. I Samuel 12 as an
original unity 98
a. I Samuel 12 as
a reliable historical record 98
1) Representatives
of "conservative biblical
scholarship" 98
2) E.
Robertson 99
b. Samuel 12 as
the composition of a "deutero-
omistic historian" 100
1) J.
Wellhausen 100
2) H. P.
Smith 100
3) M.
Noth (H. J. Boecker) 101
4) R. H.
Pfeiffer 102
c. Samuel 12 as an independent tradition unit 103
1) H.
Gressman 103
2) A.
Weiser 103
2. I Samuel 12 as an
original unit modified by
redactional reworking 104
a. K. Budde 104
b. S. R. Driver 105
c. O. Eissfeldt 106
d. G. B. Caird 106
e. M. Buber 106
f. G. Wallis 108
g. B. C. Birch 109
h. N. Gottwald 110
i. H. J. Stoebe 111
3. I Samuel 12 as a
composite of disparate material 112
a.
vi Table
of Contents
b. H. Seebass 113
4. Provisional conclusion 114
B. I SAMUEL 11:14-15 114
1. I Samuel 11:14 as a
redactional introduction to I
Samuel 11:14 115
a. Entirety of I
Samuel 11:12-14 as redactional 115
1) J.
Welihausen 115
2) H. P.
Smith 115
3) H.
Gressman 116
4) H.
Wildberger 117
5) G.
Wallis 118
b. The phrase
''renew the kingdom" (v. 14) as
redactional 119
1) S. R.
Driver 119
2) R.
Press 119
3) K. Möhlenbrink
119
4) M.
Noth 120
5) A.
Weiser 120
6) H. W.
Hertzberg 121
2. I Samuel 11:12-14 (15) as
a part of an originally
separate tradition 121
a. Th. C. Vriezim 121
b. H. Seebass 122
c
d. H. J. Stoebe 124
e. E. Robertson 125
3. Provisional conclusion 126
Section 2. The Structure of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 127
A. The Relationship of I Samuel
11:14-15 to I Samuel
12:1-25 127
B. Structural Elements of I Samuel
12:1-25 131
IV.
THE COVENANT FORM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND
I
SAMUEL 11:14-12:25 132
Section 1. The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 132
A. The Covenant-Treaty Analogy 132
B. Characteristic Features of the Old
Testament
Covenant Form 138
C. Extent and Variety of Utilization
of the Old
Testament Covenant Form 142
D. Sitz
im Leben of the Old Testament Covenant
Form; Historical Implications of Its Presence 144
1. The nature of the
covenant form and its
origin—cultic or historical? 146
2. The evolution of the
treaty form and its
implications for the date of the book of
Deuteronomy 150
Table of
Contents
vii
a. The vassal
treaties of Esarhaddon compared
with the Hittite suzerainty treaties 151
1)
Absence of a historical prologue 151
2)
Absence of a Grundsatzerklarung 152
3)
Absence of blessings 153
4)
Conclusion 153
b. The Aramaic
treaties from Sefire compared
with the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and
with the Hittite suzerainty treaties 154
1)
Similarities of the Sefire treaties to the
2)
Similarities of the Sefire treaties to the
Hittite treaties 155
3)
Conclusion 156
c. Implications of
the treaty-covenant analogy 156
for the date of Deuteronomy
Section
2. The Covenant Form in I Samuel 11:14-12:25
A. Characteristic Features of the Covenant
Form in
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 160
1. Appeal to antecedent
history (I Sam. 12:6-12) 161
2. The challenge to the
basic covenantal obligation
of undivided allegiance to Yahweh
introduced by
the transitional "and now" (I
Sam. 12:13a, 14a,
15a, 20-21, 24) 164
3. Blessing and curse
sanctions (I Sam. 12:14b, 15b,
25) 167
4. Theophanic sign (I Sam.
12:16-18a) 168
B. Implications of the Covenant Form
in I Samuel
11:1 -12:25 for its Interpretation and Unity 169
1. Implications for its
Interpretation 169
a. Elucidation of
the covenantal character and
purposes of the Gilgal assembly 170
b. Elucidation of
the covenantal background for
various statements and terms occurring in
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 179
1)
"Renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14) 179
2)
(I Sam. 12:17, 20) 179
3)
"Peace offerings" (I Sam. 11:15);
"righteous acts of Yahweh" (I
Sam. 12:7);
"good and right way" (I Sam.
12:23) 182
2. Implications of the
covenant form of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 for its unity 184
a. Clarification
of the relationship between
I Sam. 11:14-15 and I Sam. 12:1-15 184
b. The covenant
form and the structural integrity
of I Samuel 12 185
viii Table of
Contents
1)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as an original unity
modified by redactional reworking 185
2)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as a composite of
disparate material 188
3)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as an independent
tradition unit 188
4)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as the composition of
a "deuteronomistic historian" 189
APPENDIX
192
V.
THE LITERARY CRITICISM OF I SAMUEL 8-12 IN THE
LIGHT OF THE COVENANTAL CHARACTER OF
I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25 197
Section 1. A Survey of the History of
Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 198
A. The Documentary-Source Approach 198
1. J. Wellhausen 198
2. K. Budde 199
3. H. P. Smith 200
4. S. R. Driver 201
5. O. Eissfeldt 201
B. The Fragmentary Approach 203
1. H. Gressmann 203
2. M. Noth 205
3. H. J. Boecker 207
C. The Tradition-History Approach 209
1. W. Caspari 209
2. Th. C. Vriezen 210
3. A. Weiser 211
4. B. C. Birch 216
5. H. J. Stoebe 217
6. D. J. McCarthy 219
D. The Approach of "Conservative
Biblical Scholarship" 223
Section 2. An Assessment of the Criticism
of I Samuel 8-12
in the Light of the Covenantal
Character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 225
A. The Ambivalent Attitude Toward
Kingship in the
Narratives of I Samuel 8-12 in the Light of the
Covenantal Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 227
B. The Narrative Sequence of I Samuel
8-12 in the Light
of the Covenantal Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 232
Table of
Contents ix
C. "Deuteronomic Influence"
in the Narratives of
I Samuel 8-12 in the Light of the Covenantal
Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 235
D. Concluding Remarks 239
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
ABBREVIATIONS 241
BIBLIOGRAPHY
245
SUMMARY 259
TRANSLATIONS 262
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with praise to God for his
enablement and thanks to
many
individuals for their encouragement and assistance that
this
study is published.
The writer is particularly grateful to
Prof. Dr. Nic. H.
Ridderbos
for his example of careful scholarship, and the
readiness
with which he gave generously of his time and
expertise
in the supervision of the writing of this dissertation.
This
writer has benefited in more ways than can be enumer-
ated
here from the tutelage of Prof. Ridderbos. I also express
my
appreciation to Dr. Allan A. MacRae, President and Prof.
of
Old Testament at Biblical
to
me in biblical studies, initially as one of his students and in
more
recent years as a colleague and friend.
Thanks is also extended to the
trustees of Biblical School
of
Theology whose grant of a sabbatical leave during the
1973-1974
school year enabled significant progress to be
made
in the research and writing of this work. Particular
acknowledgment
is due Prof. Thomas V.
teaching
responsibilities during my absence.
Many others have helped with this
effort in a variety of
ways
contributing significantly to its completion. Thanks are
extended
to Mrs. William Taylor, typing; Dr. Perry Phillips,
proof
reading, checking citations; Mrs. James Pakala, proof
reading;
Mrs. Blair Ribeca, proof reading; my wife, Kathe,
proof
reading.
Finally, I express appreciation to my
family for their
encouragement,
patience, and assistance during the time of
the
preparation of this study. It is not possible to convey in a
xi
xii Acknowledgments
few
words the deep debt which I owe to my parents for their
support
through many years of educational pursuits and for
their
godly life and example. To my wife, Kathe, and our
children,
Anna, Robert, Mark, and Jonathan, I express my
appreciation
for their patience during the many hours that
this
study took from other activities in which they could also
be
actively involved.
I
Chronicles 29:11-13
INTRODUCTION
There
are few sections in the Old Testament which have been
the
object of more literary critical assessment than the narra-
tives
which decribe the rise of the monarchy in
tained
in I Samuel 8-12. During the first half of the 20th
century
these chapters were often pointed to by advocates of
the
documentary approach to the Old Testament as a show-
case
example for the combination of two contradictory
sources
(one considered to be early and pro-monarchial, and
the
other considered to be late and anti-monarchial) into a
composite
and historically dubious narrative sequence. The
result
of this approach was the obscuration of the historical
setting
for the rise of kingship which in turn contributed to
the
creation of many difficulties in evaluating the role of
kingship
in ancient
cance.
It is inevitably the case that the question of origin has
implications
for understanding the nature of a given phe-
nomenon
as well as for assessing the course of its develop-
ment.
This is especially true with regard to kingship in
When
one considers the prominence which the notion of
kingship
assumes in connection with the Messianic theme in
the
Old Testament, it is certainly of great importance to
understand
the circumstances and conceptual considerations
which
were associated with the origin of the institution. Was
kingship
an aberration from the legitimate form of rule for
the
theocracy according to the Sinai covenant? Is kingship as
conceived
under David properly understood as a rejection of
the
covenant-kingship of Yahweh and in fundamental anti-
thesis
with it? Questions such as these with their many
implications
are inseparably related to the matter of how one
understands
I Samuel 8-12 which describes the events asso-
ciated
with the establishment of the monarchy. For this
2 Introduction
reason
the interpretation of these chapters is of great impor-
tance
for understanding one of the central themes of the Old
Testament.
It has generally been the case that I
Samuel 11:14-12:25
has
been granted little or no place in attempts by critical
scholars
to assess the historical situation in which Israelite
kingship
was established. This is largely due to the fact that
I
Samuel 11:14-12:25 has generally been regarded as a late
and
historically untrustworthy appendage to the preceding
narratives
of I Samuel 8-12. Even from the standpoint of
conservative
biblical scholarship, which has recognized the
historical
trustworthiness of I Samuel 12, it has generally been
treated
merely as Samuel's farewell address at the time of
Saul's
inauguration to be king and little further of signifi-
cance
has been attached to the events described in the chap-
ter.
It is our contention, however, that neither of these
approaches
do justice to the content and importance of this
passage,
and that instead of a relatively insignificant appen-
dage
to the preceding narratives, one here encounters the
climax
to the narrative sequence of I Samuel 8-12 in which
the
key to the interpretation of this section of I Samuel is
found.
It is also here that a perspective is found in which the
pro
and anti monarchial tension which has so often been
pointed
to in these chapters is to be understood. I Samuel
11:14-12:25
is thus to be regarded as a vitally important
passage
which is of great significance for understanding the
concept
of kingship in
and
also for delineating the relationship which existed be-
tween
human kingship and Yahweh's kingship.
In the discussion which follows it is
our purpose to
demonstrate
by exegetical, literary critical, and form critical
analysis
that many features of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 strong-
ly
indicate that the assembly which is here described is
properly
understood as a covenant renewal ceremony, and
that
there is good reason to view this ceremony as an his-
torically
appropriate if not necessary event at this particular
Introduction
3
juncture
in
newal
of the covenant here described served a dual purpose.
First,
it served to restore the covenant relationship between
Yahweh
and his people after the people had abrogated the
covenant
by their sin in asking for a king "as the nations."
And
secondly, it provided a means for instituting the era of
the
monarchy in
the
suzerainty of Yahweh was in no way diminished by the
establishment
of kingship. It was Samuel's purpose, there-
fore,
in calling for the assembly to provide for covenant
continuity
through a period of major restructuring of the
theocracy.
In our study of I Samuel 11:14-12:25,
Chapters I and II
will
be given to the translation and exegesis of I Samuel 12
and
I Samuel 11:14-15 in that order. Chapter III will assess
these
same two units from a literary critical standpoint.
Chapter
IV will discuss the "covenant form" in the Old
Testament
and then investigate the implications which this
form
may have for the interpretation and unity of I Samuel
11:14-12:25.
Chapter V will utilize the covenantal perspec-
tive
found in I Samuel 11:14-12:25 for the assessment of the
literary
criticism of I Samuel 8-12, and particularly for sug-
gesting
a means for resolving the pro and anti monarchial
tension
which has so often been pointed to in this section of
I
Samuel.
A few additional words of comment
concerning organiza-
tion
are in order at this point. First, as has already been
indicated
we have chosen to place the exegetical and literary
critical
discussion of I Samuel 12 before that of I Samuel
11:14-15.
The reason for this is that I Samuel 12 in our view
provides
the basis for understanding I Samuel 11:14-15 as a
brief
synopsis of the Gilgal assembly prefaced to the narrative
of
I Samuel 12, which we take to be a more detailed descrip-
tion
of the same assembly. Our exegesis of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
has no pretensions of providing a more or less com-
plete
exegesis. We have delved more deeply into only those
4 Introduction
points
which were considered of particular importance for
the
purposes of this study.
Secondly, the survey of the history of
the literary criti-
cism
of I Samuel 12 and I Samuel 11:14-15 precedes that of
the
larger section of the book (I Samuel 8-12) for which they
form
the concluding segment because our primary interest is
in
these two units, and we have chosen to take them as the
starting
point for our assessment of the larger section. This,
however,
requires some overlap between Chapters III and V
because
in certain instances it has been necessary to give a
general
orientation to the criticism of the entire section
(I
Samuel 8-12) in Chapter III in order to adequately de-
scribe
the approach a given author has taken to the literary
criticism
of I Samuel 12 and I Samuel 11:14-15. For this
reason
the standpoint of certain authors is given three or four
times.
This occurs from a different perspective in each case,
although
of necessity some degree of repetition is involved.
This,
of course, has its objections, but I hope that the
advantages
will outweigh the disadvantages for the one who
reads
or consults the book.
Thirdly, the greatest difficulty was
caused by the struc-
turing
of Chapter IV. On the one hand, the issues which are
under
discussion in this chapter are of very great significance
for
our topic. On the other hand, such issues as the occur-
rence
of the "covenant form" in the Old Testament, the origin
of
the form, the significance of the form for the dating of
Deuteronomy,
etc., are such broad matters that it is impossi-
be
to handle them satisfactorily in the scope of this disserta-
tion.
Let me make three remarks in this connection. 1) This
is
not the first time that something has been written on these
issues.
I have included a rather large number of references to
pertinent
literature, particularly that which in my opinion
points
in the right direction, although without ignoring litera-
ture
in which other standpoints are defended. 2) Matters that
are
of particular importance for my subject I have discussed
in
more detail. 3) The discussion of the covenant form in the
Introduction
5
Old
Testament, Chapter IV, Section 1, does not, of course,
stand
by itself; it is an introduction to Chapter IV, Section 2
and
to Chapter V. The discussion in Chapter IV, Section 1
depends
to a great extent on the work of M. Kline (and
others,
such as K. A. Kitchen). I have tried to utilize the
model
which Kline has constructed in analyzing I Samuel 12,
I
Samuel 8-12. If some new light is thrown on these per-
copes
in this way, that in turn can argue that Kline has
constructed
his model correctly.
Fourthly, Chapter V is chiefly
concerned with the impli-
cations
which the covenantal character of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
may have for the literary critical assessment of I Sam-
uel
8-12. It is not our purpose, in this chapter, to discuss
literary
critical matters which are not closely related to the
covenantal
perspective provided by I Samuel 11:14-12:15. It
is our position that the tensions and
irregularities between
various
segments of I Samuel 8-12 which have been pointed
out
and discussed by many, are not of a sort which requires
one
to conclude that contradictory sources have been linked
together
in this section of I Samuel. Where such matters have
been
raised in connection with specific statements in I Sam-
uel
11:14-12:2 on which the covenant form has no particu-
lar
bearing, they are discussed in our exegetical discussions of
Chapters
I and II.
PART I
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL
11:14-12:25 WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON
JURIDICAL
AND COVENANT TERMINOLOGY AND
CONCEPTS
I
TRANSLATION
AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 12:1-25
I Sam. 12:1. And Samuel
said to all
your
voice1 in all which you said to me, and I have placed a king over
you.
The absence of a time or place
designation at the begin-
ning
of I Samuel 12 is an indication that it is intended to be
understood
as related to the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal
which
was briefly summarized in the last two verses of
I
Samuel 11. See further Chapter III, Sections 1 and 2 A.
Samuel's statement to the Gilgal
assembly makes refer-
ence
to what had transpired at two previous gatherings, one
in
Ramah (I Sam. 8:4, 5, 19-22) and the other in Mizpah
(I
Sam. 10:17-27). At Ramah the elders of
Samuel
and requested him to appoint them, "a king for us to
judge,
us like all the nations" (I Sam. 8:5).2 Even though
Samuel
warned them that a king as the nations round about
would
be a burden rather than a blessing (I Sam. 8:10-18),3
1. For the use of lvqb
fmw in
the sense of "yield to" or "obey" a request
or
entreaty see: BDB and KBL, s.v. fmw; cf. vv. 14, 15
below.
2. Bible quotations in most
instances are from the New American
Standard
Bible (New York:
1963), with the modification that Yahweh has been used in
place
of LORD for the designation of the name of
it
has been necessary to deviate from the NASB,
I have given my own translation.
3. There is no need to assume that
the description of the "manner of the
king"
contained in I Sam. 8:11-18 represents a late source expressing the bad
experience
that
maintained.
See, e.g.: H. P. Smith, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh:
1899) 55; G. Caird, "Introduction and
Exegesis
of I-II Samuel," IB, II (
History of
on
the basis of texts from Alalakh and
of
the city-state kings of Canaanite society from the 18th to 13th centuries B.C.,
9
10 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
the
elders nevertheless insisted that they wanted a king
(I
Sam. 8:19), and Yahweh instructed Samuel to acquiesce to
their
request and, "appoint them a king" (I Sam. 8:22).
Subsequent
to this, Yahweh made Saul known to Samuel as
he
sought his father's stray asses, and after a private anoint-
ing,
and the giving of signs to demonstrate to Saul that the
anointing
was truly of Yahweh (I Sam. 9:1-10:16), Samuel
called
all the people together to Mizpah (I Sam. 10:17-27)
for
a public designation by Yahweh of the man who was to
be
their king. After the lot had fallen on Saul, Samuel
addressed
the Mizpah assembly and said, "Do you see him
whom
Yahweh has chosen? Surely there is no one like him
among
all the people.’ So all the people shouted and said,
‘Long
live the king!’ Then Samuel told the people the manner
of
the kingdom and wrote it in a book and placed it before
Yahweh
. . ." (I Sam. 10:24, 25).
Now at the gathering in Gilgal, which
had been called by
Samuel
to "renew the kingdom" after Yahweh had given
victory
in battle over the Ammonites under Saul's leadership,
Samuel
had led the people in the formal inauguration of the
reign
of Saul (I Sam. 11:15a, "they made Saul king before
Yahweh
in Gilgal").4 This having been accomplished, he now
presents
the newly inaugurated king to the people, and says
that
he has done what they had requested (I Samuel 8,
Ramah),
and has placed a king over them (I Sam. 10:17-27,
Mizpah;
I Sam. 11:15a, Gilgal).
see,
I. Mendelsohn, "Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of Akkadian
Documents
from
concludes,
"In view of the evidence from the Akkadian texts from
obvious
that the Samuel summary of 'the manner of the king' does not constitute
‘a
rewriting of history’ by a late opponent of kingship, but represents an
eloquent
appeal
to the people by a contemporary of Saul not to impose upon themselves a
Canaanite
institution alien to their own way of life." See further below, Chap-
ter
V, Section 2,A.
4. For discussion of when the
inauguration of Saul took place, see below,
Chapter
II.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 11
I Sam. 12:2. And now,5 behold, the
king shall walk6 before you; as
for
me,
I have become old and grey headed, and behold, my sons are with
you;
and I have walked before you from my youth until this day.
With the twofold ynx and the double
use of Hithpael
forms
of the Verb jlh for both himself and the newly
inaugurated
king,7 Samuel draws attention to the
transition
in
leadership which was being formally implemented at the
Gilgal
assembly. Just as Samuel had lived openly before the
people
for an entire lifetime, in the performance of a variety
of
public functions in the service of Yahweh, so now the king
is
to assume his public responsibilities under the guidelines
which
Samuel had previously explained to the king and the
people
at Mizpah (I Sam. 10:25).
In his introduction of the king Samuel
makes allusion to
his
own advanced age, and to the presence of his sons among
the
people.8 His age and his sons had both
been cited by the
5. On the various uses of htfv see H. A.
Brongers, "Bemerkungen zum
Gebrauch
des Adverbialen We'ATTAH
im Alten Testament," VT 15 (1965)
289-299;
and A. Laurentin, "Weattah-Kai nun.
Formule caracteristique des textes
juridiques et liturgiques," Bib 45 (1964) 168-195. htfv is used to mark important
transitions
at three places in I Samuel 12: vv. 2, 7, 13 (16 [htf-Mg]). It marks a
secondary
transition in v. 10, where it is used in Samuel's resume of Yahweh's
righteous
acts. See further below, Chapter IV, Section 2,A,2.
6. GK §116 a.
7. In BDB (s.v.) this use of jlhth is defined as,
"fig. walk about=live; the
king
before (ynpl)
his people I S 12:2, so of Samuel v. 2." S. R. Driver (Notes on
the Hebrew Text
and the Topography of the Books of Samuel [
38)
comments: "To walk before any
one is to live and move openly before him;
esp.
in such a way as a) to deserve, and consequently b) to enjoy his approval and
favour."
Smith (Samuel, ICC, 83) cites Num.
27:16 f. and comments: "the king is
thought
of as a shepherd walking before his flock." See further: G. Sauer, THAT,
I,
491 f. on jlh.
8. Some commentators have questioned
whether the expression, "I have
become
old and grey headed, and behold my sons are with you" is to be
considered
original. See for example: K. Budde, Die
Bucher Samuel (KHC 8;
Prophetie
evidence
for eliminating this segment of the verse, and the allusion to Samuel's
age
and his sons does have relevance to the matters of concern at the Gilgal
assembly.
It is also not necessary to assume as does Caird (IB, II, 941) that, "the
author
must have forgotten their [the sons] misdemeanors, or he would not have
committed
the blunder of mentioning them at the very moment when Samuel is
protesting
his innocence from the crimes of which they had been accused."
12 Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25
elders
as reasons for their initial request for a king at Ramah
(I
Sam. 8:5). Samuel alludes to these matters here, however,
in
neutral terms, indicating neither acceptance nor rejection
of
their legitimacy as a basis for the establishment of king-
ship.9 It was
nevertheless, clear to all, that Samuel did not
have
many more years to continue to give guidance and
counsel
to the nation, and the people were well aware of the
unfitness
of his sons to carry on in his place.
I Sam. 12:3. Here I am;
testify against me10 in the sight of
Yahweh and
in
the sight of his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose ass have I
taken?
Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from
whose
hand have I taken a bribe11 to pervert
justice?12 And I will repay
you.
9. It seems that for the people
Samuel's age and the conduct of his sons
provided
a convenient occasion for their request for a king. Their real desire,
however,
particularly in the face of the Philistine and Ammonite threats to their
borders,
was for a "king as the nations" round about to lead them in battle
and
bring
them deliverance (see especially I Sam. 8:20). The narratives of I Samuel
8-12
make it clear that the request for a king involved a rejection of the kingship
of
Yahweh (I Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12, 19). The people were seeking a national
hero,
a symbol of national power and unity, and a guarantee of security which they
thought
they could find in the person of a human king. See further the exegesis of
I
Sam. 12:12 below, and A. A. Koolhaas, Theocratie
en Monarchie in
(Wageningen:
1957) 53-57.
10. For the use of hnf in the
technical sense of responding as a witness or
testifying
(with 2 of pers. usually meaning against) see BDB, s.v.l, 3. See also the
discussion
of H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des
Rechtslebens im Alten Testament
(WMANT
14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1964) 103.
11. rpk is usually used
in the sense of ransom for a forfeited life (Ex. 21:30;
N
m. 35:31, 32). J. Herrmann, ("i[lasmo<j," TDNT, III, 303) says of its use in
I
Sam. 12:3 that the, "context leaves it uncertain whether he [Samuel] means
an
expiatory
ransom for a forfeited life, but there is nothing to rule out this view.
The
same is true in Amos 5:12." In a similar vein Driver (Notes, 89) says,
"In
Amos
5:12 the nobles of
uniform
usage of the word, it follows that what Samuel here repudiates is that he
has
ever as judge taken a money payment on condition of acquitting a murderer
brought
before him for justice." According to KBL (s.v. IV) rpk has in I Sam.
12:3,
Amos 5:12, and Prov. 6:35 (where it parallels rHw, cf. also I
Sam. 8:3 for
7
), however, a broader meaning: "hush-money" in general, so also,
e.g., H. J.
Stoebe
(Das erste Buch Samuelis [KAT VIII/I;
position
appears preferable to me. There is insufficient basis for the restriction in
meaning
indicated by Herrmann and Driver.
12. a) Literally, "so that I
would have covered my eyes with it." On the use
of
the imperfect here, see GK § 107r.
Note also the statement in I Sam. 8:3 which
indicates
that Samuel's sons were guilty of this very offense.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 13
Samuel now proceeds to draw attention
to his own past
leadership
over the people. He does this by putting himself as
b) There is a variant reading for
this phrase found in the LXXAB, the
Old
Latin Version, and confirmed in the paraphrase of Ben Sira (49:19). The
LXX
version reads, kai> u[po<dhma; a]pokri<qhte
kat ] e]mou?, . . . which
presupposes a
Hebrew
text reading, yb vnf Mylfnv (utilizing the
Hebrew dual form of lfn
for
a pair of shoes, cf., the Greek u[podhma<twn of Ben Sira).
The resulting
translation,
". . . (oil from whose hand have I taken a bribe) and a pair of shoes?
Testify
against me (and I will return it to you)," may appear to make little
sense.
See,
however, the discussion of this phrase by
BASOR 77 (1940)
15-20. Speiser points out that the difference between the MT
and
the reconstructed Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX is only the differ-
ence
between an x and n (provided the
comparison is on the basis of a purely
consonantal
text). The question which naturally arises with the LXX rendering,
however,
is why would a shoe be used in connection with a bribe? Smith (Samuel,
ICC,
85), supported by Driver (Notes, 89) understands the expression as repre-
sentative
of a bribe that would be something very insignificant, even something of
as
little worth as a pair of shoes, but says that then one would expect the Hebrew
to
read either Mylfn Mg or Mylfnv Jxv. Both Smith and
Driver feel that rpk and
Mylfn do not agree well together, and
that it is questionable whether a pair of
shoes
is a likely bribe for a judge. They thus favor retention of the reading of the
MT.
Speiser, however, maintains on the
basis of a similar mentioning of shoes as
legal
symbols in two Nuzi texts that the shoes here are not to be understood
simply
in the sense of something of little worth, but rather, as in the Nuzi texts,
in
the sense of, "token payments to validate special transactions by lending
them
the
appearance of normal business practice." Speiser finds similar usages in
the
OT
in Ruth 4:7, Amos 2:6, and 8:6. His conclusion regarding Samuel's remark in
I
Sam. 12:3 is that, "in his capacity as judge he had never accepted bribes
or
gratuities
from any litigant; what is more, he had had nothing to do with cases
where
the law could be circumvented through some technicality." On the basis
that
the more difficult reading deserves preference in matters of textual criticism,
Speiser,
with this "outside support" favors the LXX version. While Speiser's
argument
is interesting, and may well be the key to understanding the LXX
version,
the argument of Smith and Driver that one would expect something other
than
simple I remains valid.
For another approach to this problem
see: R. Gordis, "Na'alam and other
observations
on the Ain Feshka Scrolls," JNES
9 (1950) 44-47. Gordis maintains
that
in spite of Speiser's proposal, Driver's objections are still valid. He then
proposes
another solution, namely that the word in question is a Hebrew noun
MlAfEna, (otherwise unknown) meaning
literally "concealing substance" or bribe,
which
is then a synonym for rpk. He translates the phrase, "From
whose hand
have
I taken ransom-money or a bribe; testify against me." His proposal is
based
on
the Hebrew Genizah text of Ben Sira which reads: yGhpl ymm
Mlfnv rpvk.
Gordis
says, "Unfortunately, scholars have emended it to read kopher vena
‘alayim, 'ransom and
shoes,' to conform with the Greek, ignoring the independent
testimony
of the Syriac suhada wekurbhana, 'bribe and offering.' This latter
rendering
clearly presupposes a noun, probably MlAfEna: (or MlAfAna) synonymous
with
kopher."
14 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
it
were on trial, and requesting legal testimony from anyone
who
could point to some irregularity or injustice in his own
previous
leadership of the nation.
This testimony is to be given before
Yahweh and before
the
newly chosen king, who as king has now become the
chief
judicial officer in the land.13 Samuel's
referring to the
king
as Yahweh's anointed,14 as well as
granting to him the
In conclusion, it can be said that
because of the indecisiveness of the
available
evidence, it is not possible to give strong
preference to any one of these
three
alternatives for the best reading of the text.
With regard to the words yb
vnf,
while they may have fallen out after
vb yvyf because of their close
similarity as is suggested by Driver (Notes,
89), it
would
seem better to follow the MT unless one chooses to adopt the entire LXX
rendering,
since the is not necessary for the sense of the verse. Note,
however,
that both the RS V and
(yb
vnf
) into their translation, but exclude "and a shoe" ( Mylfnv).
13. Indications of the function of
the king as judge are found in the time of
David
(II Sam. 15:1-6), and in the time of Solomon (I Kings 3:16, 28; and 7:7).
From
these and other references it appears that legal cases could either be
appealed
to the king from local jurisdiction, or in some cases be brought directly
to
the king. For discussion of the legislative and judicial powers of the king in
152-166.
14. This is the first time in the OT
(apart from the references of I Sam.
2:10,
35) that the king of
(Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament and
im Alten Orient [BZAW 87;
by
representatives of the people, and the idea of anointing by Yahweh through his
representative
represents a late "theologumenon," and thus the stories that utilize
the
expression "the anointed of Yahweh" in I Samuel in connection with
Saul and
David
are late, and not historically reliable. For a variation of this view see R.
Knierim,
"The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel," in Jesus and the
Historian, ed. F. T.
Trotter (
anointment
by the people was the original practice and suggests that the reference
to
the anointing of Saul through the people as contained in the LXX version of
I
Sam. 11:15 has been displaced in favor of a later "prophetic view" of
Saul's
anointing
from Yahweh through Samuel his prophet. Knierim's view is adopted
and
elaborated on by B. C. Birch, "The Development of the Tradition on the
Anointing
of Saul in I Sam. 9:1-10:16," JBL
90 (1971) 55-68. This notion,
however,
has rightly been questioned by J. Scharbert in his review of Kutsch's
work
(BZ 9 [1965] 103, 104). Scharbert
says, "Auch die Vorstellung von einer
Salbung
des Königs durch Jahwe bzw einen Gottesmann dürfte kein blosses
Theologumenon
sein, sondern in einem sakralen, tatsächlich geübten Ritus ihre
Grundlage
haben." He says, further; "Wenn Könige in Juda durch das Volk
oder
durch
dessen Vertreter gesalbt wurden, schliesst das weder die Mitwirkung von
Gottesmannern
noch die Vorstellung aus, dass der Konig als von Jahwe gesalbt
gilt."
For further discussion of the phrase "the anointed of Yahweh" and its
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 15
function
of the highest tribunal in the land reflects his
positive
disposition toward the king and kingship, now that
Saul
has been installed and is assuming his new responsibili-
ties.
The brief formula by which Samuel
elicits either his own
indictment
or exoneration touches on several major types of
misdemeanors
which frequently are characteristic of the
abuse
of power by public officials.
He first asks whose ox or whose ass he
had taken. These
two
animals were probably the most important domestic
animals
for the Israelite.15 Because of
their importance it was
not
uncommon for them to be stolen, and accordingly this
was
specifically prohibited in the Pentateuch not only in the
general
terms of the apodictic laws, "You shall not steal"
(Ex.
20:15), and "you shall not covet your neighbor's . . . ox,
or
his ass or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex.
20:17,
cf. Deut. 5:21), but also in the specific terms of the
case
laws of Exodus 21:37 (22:1); 22:3, 8 (22:4, 9).
It is striking that Moses defended the
integrity of his
leadership
of the nation in a similar manner when he said to
Yahweh
at the time of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram,
"Do
not regard their offering! I have not taken a single ass
significance
see the, essay by R. de Vaux "The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,"
in
The Bible and the Ancient Near East
(New York: 1971) 152-166.
Apart from the above question it is
certainly noteworthy, however, that
Samuel
in addressing the assembly speaks of Saul as the "anointed of Yahweh"
as
if
this was something which was known to the people. How is this to be
explained?
Had he previously told them the story of chapters 9 and 10, or was
Samuel
publicly anointed prior to this statement in the Gilgal assembly itself (cf.
LXX
of I Sam. 11:14-15, and Chapter II, pp. 85-88 below)? However this may
be
answered, this is one of a number of indications that I Sam. 8-12 is a com-
posite
of originally separate sources (cf. below, Chapter V, Section 1, D and
Section
2). In this connection it should be noted, however, that the account of
the
anointing of Saul by Samuel as the agent of Yahweh is found in I Sam. 10:1
which
normally is assigned to the earlier more reliable "source," rather
than to
the
"later source" often viewed as the prophetically influenced, less
reliable,
theological
source.
15. For a discussion of their
significance, see: E. Nielsen, "Ass and Ox in the
Old
Testament," in the Pedersen Festschrift, Studia Orientalia (
1953)
163-174.
16 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
from
them; nor have I done harm to any of them" (Num.
16:15).
Now Samuel is bringing to the attention of the
people
that he has not used his position of leadership for his
own
personal advantage.16
In this connection, Samuel seems to be
implying a con-
trast
between his own past conduct in which he had not
taken
( Hql)
anything from the people, and the warning
which
he had given to the people previously at Ramah
(I
Sam. 8:10-17) where he had said that a king as the nations
round
about would take their sons (v. 11), take their daugh-
ters
(v. 13), take their fields (v. 14), take the tenth of their
seed
(v. 15), take their menservants, and maidservants (v. 16),
and
take the tenth of their sheep (v. 17).17 It was often
the
case
that kings in the ancient near East taxed and expropri-
ated
property and possessions from those over whom they
ruled.
Samuel had done nothing of this sort. He, like Moses
before
him, had performed his duties as a true servant of
Yahweh
and Yahweh's people.
Samuel then asks whom he has defrauded
(qwf
)18 or
oppressed
(Nycr).
The defrauding of a neighbor (Lev. 19:13),
16. G. von Rad, building on the work
of K. Galling, has associated the series
of
questions in this verse with the Gattung
of the "confessional list," although in
doing
so he questions the appropriateness of the label "confessional list"
since
innocence
is being asserted rather than admission of shortcoming. See: K. Galling,
"Der
Beichtspiegel: eine gattungsgeschlichtliche Studie," ZAW 47 (1929) 125-
130;
and G. von Rad, "The Early History of the Form-Category of I Cor.
13:4-7,"
The Problem of
the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: 1966) 301-317. To
support
his view of the origin of the literary type represented in the questions
which
Samuel asks, von Rad postulates an original list-form underlying the clauses
(I
have taken no man's ox, I have taken no man's ass, etc.). He then suggests that
such
professions were used outside the cultus in legal contexts or that perhaps it
was
the work of a late writer to place this procedure in a secular setting. The
absence
of firm evidence greatly weakens von Rad's thesis.
17. The jlmh
Fpwm
(manner of the king) of I Sam. 8:9, 11 is not to be
understood
as descriptive of what the king of
descriptive
of what a king such as "of all the nations" (I Sam. 8:5) would be
like.
See
further: Koolhaas, Theocratie en Monarchie, 59-61.
18. Driver (Notes, 88) comments,
"qwf
is to oppress, in particular by
defrauding
a labourer or dependent of his due." See also BDB, s.v., where qwf is
defined
as, "oppress, wrong (oft. by extortion, || lzg); c. acc. pers.
I S 12:3,
4.
. . ."
Translations and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 17
or
a hired servant that was poor and needy (Deut. 24:14) was
also
prohibited in the Pentateuch. Although Nycr does not
occur
in any specific legal prohibition in the Pentateuch,
oppression
was clearly contrary to the spirit of covenantal
law
particularly as it is summarized in the expression, "love
your
neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). This question then,
just
as the previous one, points to a particular category of
political
abuse. The practice of fraud (qwf), often in the
form
of extortion, as well as oppression (Nycr), by national
leaders
was frequent in ancient as well as modern times.19
Samuel next asks from whom he has
taken a bribe to
pervert
justice (literally, to hide his eyes with it).20 In Exodus
23:821 the taking of
bribes was specifically forbidden because
it,
"blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the
just."
This prohibition is repeated in Deuteronomy in the
context
of regulations for local judges and officers through-
out
the land. "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be
partial,
and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the
eyes
of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous"
(Deut.
16:19).
Samuel's purpose is thus to establish
publicly his adher-
ence
to the requirements of the covenantal law in the exer-
cise
of his leadership over the nation. Because he has been
faithful
to the covenant in the performance of his duties he
has
not used his position of leadership for his own enrich-
ment,
nor has he engaged in oppression, fraud or the obstruc-
tion
or perversion of justice.
19. qwf and Ccr occur together
in Amos's denunciation of the people of
They
are also used together in Deut. 28:33 to describe the actualization of the
covenant
curse in the harsh treatment of
20. See n. 11 and 12 above.
21. In Ex. 23:8 and also Deut. 16:19
dHw is
used rather than rpk, see on
dHw n. 11 above.
18 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:4. And they said,
"You have not defrauded us nor oppressed
us
nor taken anything from the hand of any man."
Samuel receives complete exoneration
by the people in
response
to his request.
I Sam. 12:5. And he said
unto them, "Yahweh is witness overagainst22
you
and his anointed is witness this day that you have not found
anything
in my hand." And they said,23 (They are)24
"witness."
Samuel transposes the people's
positive response into
legal
terminology to which the people respond again by
asserting
that Yahweh and the newly appointed king are
witness
to his innocence.
One might ask why Samuel was so
interested in establish-
ing
his own covenant faithfulness at a public ceremony con-
nected
with the inauguration of Saul. It has often been
suggested
on the basis of his request for exoneration com-
bined
with his presentation of the king to the people, and the
statement
which he makes about his own age (v. 2), that he is
here
giving a "farewell address" before transferring his
"office"
to
Saul and retiring from public life.25
A. Weiser has challenged this
interpretation, and said that
I
Samuel 12:1-5 can hardly be understood as, "eine Art
Indemnitätsverklärung,
die er benötigt, urn ordnungsgemäss
von
einem Amt (etwa wie meist angenommen als Richter)
22. As C. J. Goslinga (Het Eerste Boek Samuel [COT; Kampen:
1968] 245)
notes,
Yahweh and Saul are earwitnesses of the response of the people and
therefore
Mkb
is best taken as "overagainst" rather than "against."
23. The MT (with the exception of 18
MSS) reads, rmxyv. The LXXBA,
Syriac,
Vulgate and Targum, however, all give a plural reading. Driver (Notes, 90,
91)
discusses this variant reading at length because it is also suggested in the
Masoretic
note rybs.
Driver (ibid., 91) points out that, "the rybs must be
carefully
distinguished from the yrq: in no case does it direct the
suggested
alternative
to be substituted in reading for that which is written in the text."
Perhaps
the explanation of the MT is to be found in the idea that the people (cf.
v.
6) responded as "one man."
24. For the suppression of the
subject in an exclamatory statement see, GK
§
147c.
25. For a more complete discussion
of this interpretation of I Samuel 12 see
further
the exegesis of v. 23, and also Chapter IV, Section 2,B, 1,a.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 19
zurückzutreten."26 He says further that the things for which
Samuel
asks vindication are not simply typical of the moral-
ity
of a judge, but those things which were incumbent on
every
Israelite. Thus Samuel was simply seeking to establish,
"die Tatsache einer einwandfreien, bundesgemässen
Lebens-
fühning."27 The
'confirmation of this by the king and the
people
would mean that, "Samuel auch unter den neuen
Verhältnissen als Repräsentant des Jahwebundes
aufzutreten
berechtigt
und ermächtigt zu sein wünscht."28 Weiser con-
cludes
that Samuel is not retiring or resigning, but that his
action
is to be understood as, "ein kluger Schritt vorwärts,
der
die Vertrauensbasis schafft für die durch die Einführung
des
Königtums notwendig gewordene Neuordnung. . . "29
Weiser is certainly correct in his
opposition to the "fare-
well
address" approach to this section of I Samuel 12, and in
his
emphasis on the continuing function of Samuel; for
Samuel
does not retire after the Gilgal ceremony, but con-
tinues
to function as intercessor, as prophet, as priest, as the
one
who brings the message of Yahweh's rejection of Saul,
and
perhaps also even as judge (cf. I Sam. 7:15).
Yet at the same time there is an
element of truth—
although
not more than that—in the farewell hypothesis.
Samuel
is transferring important elements of his former func-
tions
to the king, and precisely those functions in which
offenses
such as those mentioned in verse three could be
committed.
It is thus understandable that he desires an hon-
orable
discharge from these functions. In addition it is clear
from
Samuel's advanced age (I Sam. 8:5; 12:2) that the time
is
short in which he will continue as a leader in the nation,
and
that here in the ceremony at Gilgal the matter of provid-
ing
for an orderly transition in leadership is one of the major
26. A. Weiser, Samuel. Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiöse Bedeu-
tung (FRLANT, 81; Göttingen:
1962).
27. Ibid., 83.
28. Ibid., 83.
29. Ibid., 84.
20 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
concerns.
It is clear then that there remains a significant
distinction
between Weiser's position on this point and my
own,
even though Weiser has provided a valuable corrective
to
the usual "farewell address" interpretation. Against
Weiser's
view it can also be noted that it seems clear that
Samuel
is doing more than merely seeking. confirmation that
he
has lived as an ordinary Israelite in conformity to the
covenant
law. While it is true that all of the things which he
mentions
would be applicable to any citizen, in the context
of
the Gilgal assembly and his presentation of the newly
inaugurated
king to the people, they seem to have more
specific
reference to Samuel's role as a national leader.
Thus neither Weiser's suggestion nor
the traditional view
of
the chapter as a "farewell address" does justice to the total
picture.
Samuel is not retiring, yet his advanced age is very
real.
He is not simply transferring his office to Saul, yet he is
implementing
a transition in national leadership and a reor-
ganization
of the theocracy. There must then, be some other
over-arching
explanation for this procedure of Samuel in the
Gilgal
assembly in which each of these aspects of his concern
receives
its due recognition. Further discussion of this matter
must
await examination of the remainder of the chapter, and
lour
discussion of the "covenant form" and its implications
for
the interpretation of I Samuel 11:14-12:25.30
I Sam. 12:6. And Samuel
said unto the people, "It is Yahweh31 who
30. See below, Chapter IV, Section
2,B.
31. The LXX reading (le<gwn Ma<rtuj ku<rioj) is preferred
by many because
the
sentence is not complete in the MT and because it is felt that df could easily
have
dropped out by scribal error before or after hvhy. Among those
favoring the
LXX
reading are:
Göttingen:
1902) 53; Driver, Notes, 92; K. A.
Leimbach, Die Bücher Samuel
(HSchAT
III/I; Bonn: 1936) 56; and P. R. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel
(CNEB;
Cambridge: 1971) 98. This insertion of df is in our
opinion correctly
opposed
by, among others: A. Schulz, Die Bücher
Samuel (EH 8/1; Munchen in
Westfalen:
I, 1919) 168; H. W. Hertzberg, I and II
Samuel (
95,
98; Weiser, FRLANT, Samuel, 84; and Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël,
COT,
245. For further discussion see exegesis below.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 21
gave
you32 Moses and Aaron, and who brought
your fathers up out of
the
This verse introduces a new section of
the chapter in
which
Samuel turns from the matter of the character of his
previous
leadership over the people to the matter of the
people's
request for a king, which he views as a covenant-
breaking
act and a serious apostasy.
Samuel begins by turning the attention
of the people
back
to their deliverance out of the
himself.
This was the foundation-event in the history of
as
a nation.
gracious
and mighty act of Yahweh performed in fulfillment
of
his promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:13-16) and Jacob (Gen.
46:3,
4). Yet in connection with this, Samuel emphasizes
that
Yahweh gave the people the necessary leaders, Moses
and
Aaron, to guide the nation through the critical period of
her
birth. In this way Samuel draws attention to Yahweh's
past
provision of leadership for the nation, which was one of
the
important issues to be considered at the Gilgal assembly.
Because of the somewhat awkward
construction of the
beginning
of verse 6 in the MT where hvhy stands by
itself
followed
by two relative clauses,33 the LXX reading
has often
been
preferred.34 The acceptance of the LXX
reading re-
quires
the insertion of df before or after hvhy in the MT,
with
the resulting translation: "Yahweh is witness, who gave
you
Moses and Aaron, . . ." It should, however, be noted that
there
is no need for a repetition of the assertion that Yahweh
is
witness to the establishment of Samuel's innocence since
this
has already been explicitly stated by both Samuel and
the
people in verse 5. Furthermore, the acceptance of the
LXX
reading is, as might be expected, sometimes advocated
32. Literally: "who made (hWf) Moses and
Aaron." See further in exegesis
below.
33. Schulz (Samuel, EH, 168)
suggests that xvh has dropped from the MT
after
hvhy
and before rwx which is certainly a possibility,
particularly since xvh
begins
with the last letter of hvhy and ends with the first letter of rwx.
34. See n. 31 above.
22 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
in
connection with viewing verse 6 as the concluding verse to
the
first section of the chapter.35 In my opinion,
however,
one
in this way arrives at a wrong dividing point between two
important
sections in the chapter. It should be noted that in
verse
6, as contrasted with verse 5, nearly the entire address
formula,
"And Samuel said unto the people," is utilized as it
was
in verse 1. There is thus good reason to view verse 6 as a
new
beginning, and the introduction to what follows in
verses
7-15, for which view the insertion of df is not at all
necessary.36
D. J. McCarthy also views the reading,
"Yahweh is wit-
ness
who . . ." as the most likely.37 Nevertheless, he is of the
opinion
that a new section begins with verse 6. His rationale
is
that Samuel is here invoking Yahweh as witness to what
comes
next in the narrative, and that the two relative clauses
following
the statement that Yahweh is witness function,
"less
as history than as a solemn designation of Yah-
weh.
. ."38
While this suggestion is much more
attractive than the
approach
to the insertion of df which ties verse 6 to the
preceding
section of chapter 12, it is in my opinion still not
35. See, e.g., S. Goldman (Samuel [SBB; London: 1962] 64) who says,
"It
is
better to follow Kimchi and treat this verse as the conclusion of Samuel's
self-justification.
The sense is 'the Lord is witness, Who made Moses,' etc." See
also
J. Muilenburg, "The Form and Structure of the Covenantal
Formulations,"
VT 9 (1959) 362.
Muilenburg does not advocate the insertion of df, but does
view
v. 6 as the "climactic" conclusion to the first section of the
chapter.
36. There is not sufficient basis
for the "garbled doxology" suggestion of K.
Baltzer
in his book, The Covenant Formulary (
finds
v. 6 difficult to explain since it comes in between two clearly defined
sections
in the chapter; vv. 1-5, the exoneration of Samuel, and vv. 7-13, contain-
ing
the "antecedent history." Baltzer suggests that the verse may be the,
"garbled
remnant
of a doxology." He finds his primary support for this suggestion in 1QS
i.
18-19 where such a doxology occurs before the list of tvqdc. In addition he
refers
to the beginning of the doxology in Neh. 9:6; Ps. 115:15; 121:2; 134:3 and
passim.
A glance at these texts, however, shows that they have little resemblance
to
I Sam. 12:6 and in addition the
rather
than a statement as is I Sam. 12:6.
37. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21; Rome:
1963) 141,
n.
1.
38. Ibid.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 23
acceptable.
In McCarthy's rendering, the stress is on Yah-
weh-as-witness
to the legal argument of Samuel which fol-
lows.
However, the emphasis in verse 7 is not on Yahweh as
witness,
but on Yahweh as judge, before whom a case is
argued.
It would thus seem best to retain the reading of the
MT.
Before Samuel gives a short summary of
(v.
8 ff.) he places as a sort of heading over this summary a
statement
of the fundamental redemptive fact, the deliver-
ance
out of
that
Yahweh had given leaders for this deliverance. As we
already
saw (p. 21) this is not strange: the provision of
leaders
was the important issue at the Gilgal assembly.39
It is in this connection that the
unusual usage of hWf is
perhaps
best explained. It was Yahweh who had made Moses
and
Aaron what they were, and had enabled them to accom-
plish
what they did in connection with
from
Egypt.40
39. M. Noth views the mentioning of
Moses and Aaron in both I Sam. 12:6
and
8 as later additions taken from the parallel expression of Josh. 24:5. See: M.
Noth,
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien
(
however,
that this makes the, as it is, unusual use of hWf in v. 6 even
stranger,
since
Hlw
is used in Josh. 24:5, and in the similar phrase of v. 8. Has the redactor
replaced
Hlw
by hWf
in v. 6 for a particular purpose or just out of carelessness?
In
spite of this, Noth's suggestion is viewed as quite probable by H. J. Boecker,
Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums in den
deuteronomistischen Ab-
schnitten des I. Samuelbuches (WMANT 31;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1969) 71.
Boecker
remarks, "Alle text-kritischen Eingriffe in den Text, die an dieser Stelle
erwogen
worden rind, werden dann überflüssig. Der ursprüngliche Text lautet: 'Es
ist
Jahwe, der eure Väter aus dem Lande Ägypten herausgefuhrt hat.'"
Stoebe
(Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 237) says
that, "V 6 ist, wie das Fehlen einer
Fortsetzung
zeigt, Einschub, der einen Gedanken von V. 7 ff. vorausnimmt." All
that
Stoebe lets stand from verse 6 is: "And Samuel said to the people:".
All these proposed eliminations are
quite arbitrary, lack textual support, and
detract
significantly from the force of the line of argumentation which Samuel is
here
beginning.
40. See: C. F. Keil, The Books of Samuel (
original,
historical
sense, i.e. to make a person what he is to be...." While this seems to be
the
best understanding of Hlw in this context, it is also at least
possible that it is
used
here as a word-play-tie to v. 7 where hWf; occurs in
connection with the
righteous
acts of Yahweh. Elsewhere in the OT hWf is used rather
frequently in
connection
with the "great things" which Yahweh did (hWf) for his people
(see,
e.g.,:
Deut. 11:7; Josh. 24:31; Judg. 2:7, 10). The emphasis in v. 6, then, is that
24 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
Samuel here echoes the Old Testament
historical narra-
tives
of the exodus where Yahweh is consistently depicted as
the
deliverer of his people (see, e.g.: Ex. 14:13, 14, 25, 30,
31;
15:1b, 3, 6, 17). The statements of these verses indicate
that
from the very beginning of
Yahweh
was recognized as her deliverer and the provider for
her
well being. Included in his provision for the nation was
the
sending of the leaders which were appropriate and neces-
sary
to care for specific needs. But these leaders were clearly
designated
as instruments of the rule of Yahweh, who re-
mained
the nation's sovereign. The authority of these human
leaders
is not autonomous, but delegated, and their selection
was
the prerogative of Yahweh himself.
I Sam. 12:7. Now then,
present yourselves41 that I may
enter into legal
proceedings42 with you before
Yahweh43 concerning all the righteous
acts
of Yahweh which He did with you and with your fathers.
The transition from Samuel's assertion
of Yahweh's pri-
Moses
and Aaron are not to be regarded merely as great national leaders, but
rather
as gifts of Yahweh to his people. Their capacity for leadership was to be
viewed
as attributable to Yahweh's doing.
41. For the use of bcrth in the sense of
assembling before Yahweh for the
purpose
of witnessing what He is about to do either for or against his people, see:
W.
Harrelson, "Worship in Early
42. a) For the pointing of the
Niphal cohortative form of Fpw see: GK,
§51p.
b) For the Niphal use of Fpw
as
meaning, "to go to law with someone,"
see:
GK §51d. Cf. also Driver (Notes, 92,
93), who comments that the Niphal
sometimes
acquires, "a reciprocal force, as Fpwn to judge one another, i.e., to
plead or dispute
together in judgment...."
The sense here is thus of pleading a
case
as is done in a judicial procedure before a judge, who in this case is Yahweh
himself.
c) For the use of waw with the
cohortative, see: GK § 108d.
43. The LXX has kai> a]paggelw? u[mi?n following hvhy. On this basis
the
insertion
of Mkl hdygxv in the MT has often been advocated. See, e.g.:
Nowack,
HK
1/4, Richter, Ruth and Bücher Samuelis,
53; Driver, Notes, 93; and Ackroyd,
The First Book
of Samuel,
CNEB, 94. It is, in our opinion, rightly opposed by:
Smith,
Samuel, ICC, 86; Schulz, Samuel, EH,
168; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek
Samuël, COT, 246; and
Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT,
233. The con-
struction
in the MT is admittedly somewhat awkward ( Fpw Niphal, and tx
tvqdc-lk), but it is not impossible, cf.
e.g., Ezek. 17:20. For further discussion
see
below in exegesis.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 25
macy
in the establishment of the nation to the initiation of
the
second legal proceeding of the Gilgal assembly is made by
the
use of htfv.44
The legal character of what follows is
indicated by the
combination
of the Hithpael imperative form of bcy with
the
subsequent Niphal form of Fpw. H. J. Boecker
has
pointed
out that in legal cases it was customary for the judge
to
sit, and for the parties to the case under consideration to
stand,
and since there is no specific term in Hebrew meaning
to
stand for trial, either dmf or bcy is normally utilized.45
While
dmf
and bcy
are both used in a variety of different
ways,
the sacral-legal sense of bcy in this verse is
made clear
by
the following phrase, hvhy ynpl Mktx hFpwxv. The
scene
is thus that of a legal proceeding, as in verses 2-5, but
now
the relationship of the parties is reversed.46 This time
Samuel
is the accuser, the people are the defendants, and
Yahweh
is the judge before whom the proceeding is held.
Contrary to what one might expect,
Samuel does not
make
the people's behavior the immediate and direct focus of
attention.
Instead, he utilizes the judicial scrutiny of the
"righteous
acts of Yahweh" as a foil for the people's con-
duct,
and thereby an instrument for their indictment.
It
has often been suggested (see already above) that the
sequence
hvhy tvqdc-lk tx following hFpwv requires the
insertion
of Mkl hdygxv, or the changing of Mktx hFpwxv
to
Mkl hrpsxv.47 Budde,48 cites Ezekiel
17:20 as evidence
that
one must insert Mkl hdygxv or regard Mktx
hFpwxv
as
a
corruption or later insertion because the accusative in
Ezekiel
17:20 introduces the misdemeanour which is being
44. See above, n. 5.
45. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament, 85; and
Die Beurteilung der Anfdnge des Königtums, 72, n. 2. For
the use of dmf in this
sense
see: Ex. 18:13; Deut. 25:8; I Kings 3:16. For bcayA see: Ex. 18:14.
46. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The First Book of Samuel (CambB;
1880)
119.
47. See above, n.43, where we have
appealed to Ezek. 17:20 for retaining
the
MT.
48. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 79.
26 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
litigated.
Boecker, however, has pointed out that, "In I Sam
12,7
wird ebenso wie in Ez 17:20b in akkusativischer For-
mulierung
der Verhandlungsgegenstand der Rechtsausein-
andersetzung
genannt. Ein derartiger Verhandlungsgegen-
stand
muss keineswegs immer ein Vergehen oder etwas
Anliches sein. Das hängt ab vom Charakter der Recht-
sauseinandersetzung.
In unserem Fall liegt—in moderner
Terminologie
gesprochen—nicht so etwas wie ein Strafprozess
vor;
dazu würde eine Verhandlung über Vergehen oder Ver-
brechen
passen; vielmehr wird hier ein Prozess anvisiert, den
man
als 'Feststellungsverfahren' bezeichnen könnte."49 Sam-
uel's
purpose is to establish formally the covenant fidelity of
Yahweh,
which then itself indicts the people because they
have
turned away from Yahweh, in spite of his constant
faithfulness,
to seek deliverance from the internal and exter-
nal
difficulties which faced the nation by establishing an alien
form
of kingship.
In verses 8-11 Samuel summarizes the
"righteous acts" of
Yahweh
in
from
subsequently
in the cycles of oppression and deliverance
during
the time of the judges (vv. 9-11). His purpose is to
emphasize
that Yahweh was at work in all of these historical
experiences
because it was Yahweh who sold
hand
of Sisera, and into the hands of the Philistines and
Moabites
when
Astartes.
It was also Yahweh who sent Jerubbaal, Bedan,
Jephthah,
and Samuel when the people cried out to him for
deliverance
and confessed their sin. These acts of Yahweh in
Yahweh's
qdc
and thus termed hvhy
tvqdc.
The expression hvhy
tvqdc
occurs in the OT only in
Judges
5:11; I Samuel 12:7; and Micah 6:5. In Psalm 103:6
one
finds the expression hvhy tvqdc tWf and in Daniel
9:16,
jtqdc-lkk yndx.
49. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums, 73, 74.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 27
There are few words in the OT which
have been the
object
of more extensive investigation than that represented
by
the root qdc
in its various forms.50 In his recent
very
useful
and comprehensive study of this root,51 J. A. Ziesler
concludes
that righteousness is "behaviour proper to some
relationship.
. . . In the OT the relationship above all others
within
which behaviour occurs which may be called 'right-
eous'
is the covenant.”52 He comments
further: "Righteous-
ness
is neither a virtue nor the sum of the virtues, it is activity
which
befits the covenant. Similarly, on God's side it is not
an
attribute but divine covenant activity. If we must speak of
50. Cf., the nouns qd,c, and hqAdAci, the adjective qydica, and the verb qdAcA. For
discussion
of these terms see: G. Quell, "The Concept of Law in the OT," TDNT,
II,
174-178; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive
Ideas of the Old Testament (
1944)
51-78; L. Kohler, Theologie des Alten
Testaments (
W.
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament
(2 vols.;
239-249;
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2
vols.;
370-383;
A. Jepsen, "qdc und hqdc im Alten
Testament," in the Hertzberg
Festschrift,
Gottes Wort und
1965)
78-89; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God
in Ancient
1968)
165-172; H. H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als
Weltordnung (BZHT 40; Tu-
bingen:
1968); E. Berkovits, Man and God: Studies
in Biblical Theology (
1969)
292-348. For a more complete literature listing, see H. H. Schmid, ibid., 1,
n.
1, and the additional citations below.
51. J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (
Although
Ziesler's study is directed to elucidation of the meaning of the concept
of
righteousness in the writings of Paul, he considers it important to examine all
the
usages of the word which are likely to have some bearing on Pauline usage.
This
inevitably involves a study of the root qdc in the OT and
elsewhere. Ziesler
(ibid.,
14) notes that: "As far as possible the analysis has been exhaustive, all
cases
being examined, but in one or two instances this has proved impracticable;
in
the Rabbinic writings because of the sheer volume of the material; and in
Josephus,
partly because of the relatively minor importance of the material." In
general
one can say that Ziesler's view is the view which has been dominant in
recent
decades with respect to qdc. In my opinion his view at least in its
major
emphases
is correct (see, however, my critical remark in n. 53). There are,
however,
also other viewpoints, see especially that of H. H. Schmid (cf. above,
n.
50) which are also influential.
52. Ibid., 38. Cf. the definition of
K. Dronkert, "Liefde en gerechtigheid in
het
Oude Testament," in Schrift en
Uitleg (jubileum-bundel W. H. Gispen;
Kampen:
1970) 51. Dronkert says, "De kernbetekenis van het woord is ‘handelen
naar
de mispat.' Moeilijk is het om
precies to zeggen wat onder die mispat
verstaan
wordt,
omdat zij immers (zie boven) zo'n typisch karakter heeft. Het is een
rechtswaarde
in de meest uitgebreide zin van het woord. Die rechtswaarde nu
moet
in de praktijk worden gebracht door de seddqa(h).
Doet men dat en handelt
men
naar de mispat dan is men saddiq en staat men in de kring van sedaqa(h)."
28 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
norms,
then the norm is the covenant and whatever is appro-
priate
to it. . . . We must recognize that on this view God's
righteousness
may take many forms. Sometimes it may take
the
form of gracious, merciful, saving action, but it is too
simple
to say that it is always this and that severity is never
meant
by the term.... So God's righteousness means mercy
in
one situation, triumph in another, judgment in another,
the
establishment of good government and good justice in
another."53 As can be
inferred from these comments, the
specific
meanings which the various forms of the root qdc
assume
may vary considerably according to the context, yet
these
meanings can all be subsumed under Zeisler's above
definition.54
A prayer of Daniel (Dan. 9:3-19) is
particularly instruc-
tive
in this regard. The prayer begins with confession of the
nation's
rebellion against the commandments of Yahweh
(vv.
5, 11) and then links the disastrous situation in
the
actualization of the covenant curse poured out upon the
people
because of their sin (v. 11). For Daniel this judgment
is
demonstrative of Yahweh's hqdc (v. 7). He says
further
(v.
14): "Therefore Yahweh has kept the calamity in store
and
brought it upon us: for Yahweh our God is righteous
(
qydc
) with respect to all His deeds which He has done: but
we
have not obeyed his voice." The calamity which has come
53. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 40, 41. While this last
statement
of Ziesler is certainly born out by an examination of the use of the
various
forms of qdc,
it is at the same time clear that the emphasis is again and
again
on salvation, although not to the exclusion of punishment because of
unfaithfulness.
Dronkert ("Liefde en gerechtigheid in het OT," in Schrift en
Uitleg, 53) comments:
"De mens
Zijn
doel of en concreet naar Zijn mispat
is Zijn sedaqii(h), Zijn
gerechtig-
heid,
die in al Zijn werken tot uitdrukking komt. Hij is rechtvaardig en Hij handelt
rechtvaardig....
Opmerkelijk is, dat de gerechtigheid Gods in het O.T. in hoofd-
zaak betrokken wordt op de gunst van God jegens de mens
en dat Zijn recht en
gerechtigheid
in hoofdzaak een reddend karakter dragen."
54. In Ziesler's vocabulary analysis
of the forms of the root qdc used in
relation
to God's activity (cf. ibid., 28-32) he includes the following categories:
a)
Legal activity; b) Gracious, saving activity; c) Vindication, giving victory or
prosperity;
d) Acting reliably, trustworthily, faithfully; e) Right speaking;
f)
God's forensic or relational righteousness.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 29
upon
failure
to take their covenant obligations seriously, as well as
their
persistence in turning a deaf ear to warnings of judg-
ment.55 In verse 15 the
prayer turns from confession to
supplication,
and Daniel addresses Yahweh as the one who
has
delivered his people from
Yahweh's
fury be turned away from
dance
with all your righteousness."56 This is a
striking state-
ment
when it is placed in connection with the use of qydc in
verse
14. There, Daniel says Yahweh is righteous in bringing
judgment.
Here, he appeals to Yahweh's righteousness as the
basis
for deliverance. He is explicit in stating that the appeal
is
not made on the basis of the people's tvqdc, but on the
basis
of Yahweh's MymHr (Dan. 9:18),57 and in
accordance
with
his tvqdc
(Dan. 9:16). As John Calvin pointed out so
well
in commenting on Daniel 9:16: "Those who take this
word
'righteousness' to mean 'judgment' are in error and
inexperienced
in interpreting the Scriptures; for they suppose
God's
justice to be opposed to his pity. But we are familiar
with
God's righteousness as made manifest, especially in the
benefits
he confers on us. It is just as if Daniel had said that
the
single hope of the people consisted in God's having regard
to
himself alone, and by no means to their conduct. Hence he
takes
the righteousness of God for his liberality, gratuitous
55. As G. Kennedy (IB, VI, 489) comments: "God is not
to be mocked.
Since
men were perverse he executed his judgment, and in doing so he acted
rightly."
G. Ch. Aalders (Daniel [COT; Kampen:
19621 206) says, "Daniel erkent
ten
voile de rechtvaardigheid van het oordeel dat God over
nooit
tueert
dat nog eens door de herhaling: ‘wij hebben geen gehoor gegeven aan zijn
stem'
(vgl. vs. 10.11)." See also Neh. 9:33 where after a lengthy recapitulation
of
because
of her apostasy, it is stated that Yahweh has been, "just ( qydc) in all that
has
come upon us, for Thou hast dealt faithfully (tyWf tmx-yk) but we have
acted
wickedly."
56. Cf. GK § 124e (pl. intensivus).
57. MymHr has reference
to Yahweh's compassion exhibited in his covenant
fidelity.
It is used in parallelism with dsH in Jer. 16:5;
Hos. 2:21; Ps. 40:12 and
103:4.
Note also the use of a verbal form of the root: MHr in Deut. 30:3
with
reference
to Yahweh's promise to turn
30 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
favour,
consistent fidelity, and protection, which he prom-
ised
his servants . . . ."58 It is this
latter use of tvqdc which is
of
particular significance in connection with I Samuel 12:7.
In Judges 5:11 the expression hvhy
tvqdc
occurs in the
Song
of Deborah which celebrates the victory which Yahweh
had
given the Israelites over the forces of Jabin of Hazor. B.
Holwerda
has commented that this song is, "de profetische
vertolking
van het gebeurde in cap. IV, en is vooral hierom
van
belang, dat het aanwijst waar het eigenlijk om ging: het
toont dat het niet zuiver menselijke en militaire
gebeurtenis-
sen
waren, maar dat het hierin om de VERLOSSING DES
HEREN
ging."59 The reference to singing of the hvhy
tvqdc
is
here to be understood as the singing of Yahweh's covenant
fidelity
as demonstrated in
werda
comments that tvqdc in verse 11, "is het zich
houden
aan
verbondsafspraken, hier dus practisch ‘trouwbe-
wijzen.’"60
The use of the expression hvhy
tvqdc
in Micah 6:5 is
nearly
identical to its use in I Samuel 12:7. The setting in
Micah
as in I Samuel is that of a legal proceeding in which a
recapitulation
of Yahweh's righteous acts is utilized to indict
an
apostate nation.
Samuel's use of the term hvhy
tvqdc
thus emphasizes
the
constancy of Yahweh's covenant faithfulness toward his
people
as demonstrated in their past history. As we noted
above,
the question in I Samuel 12:7 is not that of judging or
vindicating
God's righteous acts, but that of calling
the
bar in view of all God's righteous acts on her behalf. The
emphasis
here is on Yahweh's acts of deliverance although
58. J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, II (Grand
Rapids:
1948 [ET of the 1561 Latin original] 177. Aalders (Daniel, COT, 206)
says
in speaking of tvqdc "Hieronder moeten gerekend
worden al de daden ter
verlossing
van zijn yolk, in de eerste plaats het in het vorige vers genoemde voeren
van
Israel uit Egypte, maar verder ook alle andere heilsdaden waarin God zich
tegenover
zijn yolk als de trouwe Verbondsgod geopenbaard heeft."
59. B. Holwerda, Seminarie-Dictaat, Richteren I (Kampen:
n.d.) 21.
60. Ibid., 24.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 31
the
expression need not be taken as referring exclusively and
only
to salvific actions.61
I Sam. 12:8. When Jacob
went into Egypt62 and your
fathers cried
unto
Yahweh, then Yahweh sent Moses and Aaron, and they brought
your
fathers out of
Samuel begins his recapitulation of
the hvhy tvqdc with
a
statement of the exodus (cf. already verse 6) and the
conquest.
Yahweh had heard the cry of the children of
in
Deut.
26:7), and, "God remembered His covenant with Abra-
61. The RSV translates MT hvhy
tvqdc
in I Sam. 12:7 as "the saving deeds of
the
LORD." This translation is supported by, among others, Caird (IB, II, 942,
943)
who says, "the righteous acts of the Lord (lit. ‘righteousnesses’) are
those
acts
in which he has appeared as the deliverer of his people, and so has manifested
that
righteousness which consists in the vindication of the helpless (cf. 2:8). The
word
is therefore well translated saving deeds
(RSV)." This translation, however,
places
too much of a one-sided emphasis on the term. Goslinga (Het Eerste Boek
Samuël, COT, 247)
comments: "Ook deze pijnlijke kastijdingen van Gods hand
kunnen
gerekend worden bij zijn tvqdc (vs. 7), daar zij ten doel
hadden
weer
in de rechte verhouding tot Hem to brengen."
62. The LXX adds kai> e]tapei<nwsen au]tou>j Ai@guptoj after
basis
Driver (Notes, 93) adds. Myrcm
Mvnfyv to
the MT saying, "The words are
needed
on account of the following vqfzyv: a copyist's
eye passed from the first
Myrcm to the second." While this
explanation is certainly possible, it seems
preferable
to leave the verse as it stands in the MT because adopting the LXX
reading
raises the additional problem of the singular "Jacob," and the plural
suffix
of the verb "oppressed them." This in turn necessitates another
addition to
the
verse, which in fact is also included in the LXX (kai> oi[ ui[oi> au]tou? ), so
that
the verse reads, "When Jacob and his sons went to
however,
has the problem of a plural subject and a singular verb ( 8: ), and the
absence
of vynbv
is not so easily explained as could be the absence of the
previous
phrase.
63. The MT gives a plural reading (MUbwy.av), while the LXXBL
(kat&<kisen
au]tou>j), TargumB,
Syriac, and Vulgate presuppose a singular form (MBeywiy.av).
Driver
(Notes, 93) comments, " Mvbywyv expresses just
what Moses and Aaron did
not
do." He then advocates reading the singular form with Yahweh as the subject
and
says, "The unpointed has been filled in wrongly in the MT." It would
seem
more likely, however, from the flow of the sentence that the plural form is
original
and that Samuel is speaking in broad general terms. Goslinga (Het Eerste
Boek Samuël, COT, 246)
says, "De oude vertalingen hebben hier een oneffenheid
willen
gladstrijken. Over het tijdperk der richteren is Samuel breder, dat is
betrekkelijk
nog recent, vss. 9-11." In this connection it should be noted, that
several
versions (LXXA, Targum, Vulgate) also have a singular form (with
Yahweh
as
subject) for vxycyv. Cf. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 233.
32 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
ham,
Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex. 2:24; cf., Gen. 46:1-4). It was in
response
to this cry, and in keeping with his promises to
Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob that Yahweh appeared to Moses
and
commissioned him to lead his people out of
Moses
was to say to the people, "I AM has sent (Hlw) me to
you"
(Ex. 3:14). And he was to tell the people that Yahweh
had
said, "I will bring you up out of the affliction of
to
the land of the Canaanite, ... to a land flowing with milk
and
honey" (Ex. 3:17). The exodus and conquest remained
throughout
weh's
gracious and righteous acts on her behalf, and are
frequently
cited in the OT literature as that which obligates
24:4-8;
Judg. 2:1-2; 6:8-10; 10:11-13; Amos 2:10; Ps. 105;
Neh.
9:9-25).
I Sam. 12:9-11. But they
forgot Yahweh their God and he sold them
into
the hand—of Sisera, chieftain of the army of64 Hazor, and into
the
hand
of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of
fought
against them.
And they cried unto Yahweh, and they
said,65 "We have sinned,
because
we have forsaken Yahweh, and served the Baals and the
Astartes;
but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we will
serve
you."
And Yahweh sent Jerubbaal and Bedan,66 and Jephthah,
and
64. The LXXL (Iabin basile<wj) presupposes a Hebrew text reading 17)
rvch (j`lm Nyby) xbc. Driver (Notes, 93) says that this is more in
accord with
Hebrew
usage. Schulz, (Samuel, EH, 169),
however, points out that the addition
is
not necessary and that, "die Ausdrucksweise 'Heerführer von Hasor' ist
gestützt
durch
I Kn 2,32 ('Heerführer von Israel' and 'H. von Juda')...." It seems likely
that
the LXX is expanded with data from Judg. 4:2.
65. The Ketib is
singular. It is not impossible that this is correct: elsewhere
in
the Old Testament one finds sudden alternations of singular and plural.
66. Bedan is an otherwise unknown
judge (the name Bedan occurs elsewhere
in
the OT only in I Chron. 7:17 where it designates another person). For this
reason
most commentators give preference to the reading of the LXX (barak)
and
Syriac.
Keil (The Books of Samuel, 118) after
considering and rejecting several
possibilities
such as rendering Bedan as an appellative, i.e., the Danite (ben-Dan),
and
thus connecting the name to Samson, concludes, "there is no other course
left,
therefore, than to regard Bedan as an
old copyist's error for Barak (Judg. iv.),
as
the LXX, Syriac, and Arabic have done,—a conclusion which is favored by the
circumstance
that Barak was one of the most celebrated of the judges, and is
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 33
Samue1,67 and he
delivered you from the hand of your enemies on
every
side, and you dwelt securely.
In these verses Samuel gives a brief
summary of the
period
of the judges in which he clearly portrays the cycle of:
a) apostasy;
b) oppression;
c) repentance and confession
accompanied by a request
for
deliverance;
d) deliverance through the
instrumentality of leaders sent
by
Yahweh.
The ideas which Samuel incorporates in
this survey of the
history
of the period of the judges are found elsewhere also.
The
terminology by which he frames the cyclical character of
the
course of events is similar to that found in the book of
Judges,
and some of it is rooted originally in Deuteronomy.
Similar
expressions are subsequently to be found in the
Psalms
and prophetical books as well. The cycle is formulated
with
the phrases:
placed
by the side of Gideon and Jephthah in Heb. xi. 32." Similar views are
advocated
by: Smith, Samuel, ICC, 86; Schultz, Samuel, EH, 170; and Leimbach,
Samuel, HSchAT, 57.
Goslinga, (Het Eerste Boek Samuël,
COT, 247), with
hesitation,
also adopts this view saying, "de lezing Barak staat toch wel het
sterkst
te meer omdat door hem het leger van Sisera (vs. 9) verslagen is." This
represents
a change in position from Goslinga's earlier commentary (C. J. Gos-
linga, I Samuel [KV; Kampen: 1948] 151) where
he said, " 't is moeilijk denk-
baar
dat een afschrijver Bedan zou schrijven, indien er geen richter van die naam
was
opgetreden. Maar ook is moeilijk aan te nemen, dat Samuel wel de ver-
drukking
van Sisera zou noemen (vs. 9) en niet de held, die Sisera overwon.
Daarom
lijkt de beste oplossing, dat Bedan een andere naam (bijnaam?) voor
Barak
is en dat deze aan Samuels hoorders evengoed bekend was als wij b.v.
Gideons
bijnaam Jerubbaal kennen." This suggestion of Goslinga seems to be
more
plausible than to assume a scribal error since the name of Barak was so well
known
as to make that highly unlikely. It also seems preferable to seeing here the
name
of a judge not mentioned in the book of Judges at all as do a number of
commentators,
including: J. de Groot, I Samuel
(TeU; Groningen: 1934) 123;
Goldman,
Samuel, SBB, 65; and Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 233
Nevertheless,
Stoebe is, in my opinion, perhaps correct when he suggests that the
occurrence
of this name here is indicative of an independent tradition.
67. The LXXL and the
Syriac read Samson instead of Samuel. This is most
likely
a correction due to the feeling that Samuel is speaking and he would no'
place
his own name on the list of judges he mentions. See further the discussion
below
in the exegesis.
34 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
apostasy:
"forgot Yahweh" (hvhy
tx Hkwyv,
verse 9);68
oppression:
"he sold them into the hand
of" ( dyb Mtx rkmyv,
verse
9);69
repentance and
confession, accompanied by request for de-
liverance:
"they cried unto Yahweh" (hvhy-lx
vqfzyv,
verse 10);70
"we have sinned" (vnxFH, Verse 10);71
"we have forsaken Yahweh" ( hvhy
tx vnbzf,
verse
10);72
"we have served the Baals and
Astartes" (Mylfbh-tx dbfnv
tvrtWfh txv);73
"deliver us from the hand of our
enemies" (dym vnlycH
vnykyx, verse 10);74
deliverance
through the instrumentality of leaders sent by
Yahweh:
"Yahweh sent . . ." (hvhy
Hlwyv,
verse 11);75
"and Yahweh delivered you from
the hand of your ene-
mies"
(Mkybyx dym Mktx lcyv, verse 11).76
The cumulative effect of the
phraseology is to focus on
Yahweh's
works of judgment and deliverance. It was Yahweh
who
gave
68. Deut. 6:12; 8:11, 14, 19; Judg.
3:7; Isa. 17:10; 51:13; Hos. 2:15 (13);
13:6;
Jer. 2:32; 3:21; 13:25; 18:15; 23:27; Ezek. 22:12; 23:35.
69. Deut. 32:30 (Mrkm
Mrvc-yk xl-Mx
); Judg. 2:14; 3:8; 4:2; 10:7.
70. Judg. 3:9, 15; 6:6-7; 10:10; I
Sam. 7:8-9; 8:18; Hos. 7:14; 8:2; Joel
1:14;
Mic. 3:4; Ps. 22:6 (5); 107:13, 19; Neh. 9:28.
71. Num. 14:40; 21:7; Deut. 1:41;
Judg. 10:10, 15; I Sam. 7:6; I Kings
8:47;
Jer. 3:25; 8:14; 14:7, 20; Ps. 106:6; Lam. 5:16; Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 15; Neh.
1:6;
I Chron. 6:37.
72. Deut. 28:20; Josh. 24:16; 24:20;
Judg. 2:12; 2:13; 10:6; 10:10; 10:13;
I
Sam. 8:8; I Kings 9:9; 11:33; II Kings 22:17; Isa. 1:4; 1:28; Jer. 1:16; 2:13;
5:19;
16:11; 19:4; Hos. 4:10; II Chron. 7:22.
73. Judg. 2:11 (only Baals); 2:13;
3:7; 10:6; 10:10 (only Baals).
74. Judg. 10:15 (the exact wording
of this phrase is not paralleled in the
10T).
75. Ex. 3:15; 7:16; Num. 16:28-29;
Josh. 24:5; Judg. 6:8; I Sam. 12:8; Isa.
19:20;
Jer. 23:21; Mic. 6:4; Ps. 105:26.
76. Ex. 18:9-10; Josh. 24:10; Judg.
6:9; 8:34; I Sam. 7:3; 10:18.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 35
and
forsook him. But it was also Yahweh who sent deliverers
when
reality
Yahweh's victories, and it was therefore accurate for
Samuel
to conclude that Yahweh had delivered them out of
the
hand of their enemies, so that they could live securely. It
was
this repeated provision for
enemies
which was of particular importance for Samuel's
demonstration
of the people's apostasy in desiring a king (cf.
verse
12). Although it is true that the judges themselves were
sometimes
referred to as
this
is to be understood only in a secondary sense, as instru-
ments
of Yahweh's deliverance (Judg. 2:18). It was Yahweh
who
sent them (Judg. 6:14; I Sam. 2:11) to be the agents of
his
deliverance.78
This is made particularly clear, for
example, in the case of
Gideon.
When the Israelites forsook Yahweh in the time of
Gideon
they were delivered into the hands of the Midianites
who
oppressed them for seven years (Judg. 6:1-5). When they
cried
( qfz, verses 6-7)
unto Yahweh, a prophet was sent,
who
(much like Samuel at the Gilgal assembly) utilized a
brief
recapitulation of
reason
for her present distress (Judg. 6:8-10). The emphasis
in
this historical recapitulation is that Yahweh had delivered
Canaan,
but
Yahweh,
however, had now heard the cry of the Israelites for
deliverance,
and Gideon is to become Yahweh's instrument
to
achieve this end.
Gideon asked for a sign, and said that
by the sign he
77. Judg. 3:9, 15, 31; 6:14; 10:1;
13:5.
78. When the root fwy is used with
reference to the activity of a human
leader,
some indication that he was sent by Yahweh is normally made explicitly
clear
in the context. See, e.g.: Judg. 2:16; 3:9, 15; 6:14; 13:5. Sam, 9:16;
II
Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27. The only exceptions I have noticed are iudg 3:31;
10:1.
In Judg. 8:22 one finds an
expression of the apostate idea that Gideon was
the
deliverer. A similar idea (although expressed negatively) with reference to
Saul
is
found in I Sam. 10:27 and perhaps 11:3.
36 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
would,
"know that Thou [Yahweh] wilt deliver (fywvt )
receiving
the sign and proceeding to organize his military
force,
Gideon was told to reduce the number of men in the
force
so that
"My
own power has delivered (hfywvh ydy) me"
(Judg. 7:2).
Yahweh
told Gideon that, "I will deliver ( fywvx) you with
the
three hundred men who lapped and will give ( yttnv) the
Midianites
into your hands . . ." (Judg. 7:7). After surveying
the
host of the Midianites, and after hearing the dream of one
of
the Midianites which depicted a victory for the Israelites
over
the Midianites, Gideon called his force to advance on the
camp
and said, "Arise for Yahweh has given (Ntn) the camp
of
Midian into your hand" (Judg. 7:15).
After the victory the men of
asked
him to establish dynastic rule over
over
us, both you and your son, also your son's son, for you
have delivered
us
(vntfwvh ) from the hand of Midian" (Judg.
8:22).
Gideon rejected their request,79 however,
because it
betrayed
the apostate idea that the human leader was the real
deliverer
rather than the instrument of Yahweh's deliverance,
and
it sought to exchange the rule of Yahweh for the rule of
a
man (Judg. 8:23).
Because Samuel's purpose was to
demonstrate Yahweh's
constant
fidelity to the covenant throughout the period of
the
judges (cf. hvhy tvqdc, verse 7), and
contrastingly the
people's
repeated apostasy, he stresses the cycle of oppres-
sions
and deliverances rather than historical details of the
period.
Accordingly, he mentions only three oppressors and
79. The interpretation of this
passage has provoked a great deal of discus-
sion.
J. Bright (A History of Israel [
the
offer of kingship to Gideon that, "he is said flatly to have refused—and
in
language
thoroughly expressive of the spirit of early
(ibid.,
173, n. 84): "It is frequently asserted (e.g., G. Henton Davies, VT, XIII
[1963],
pp. 151-157) that Gideon actually accepted the kingship. But the lan-
guage
of ch. 9: 1 ff. certainly does not require this conclusion; cf. J. L. McKenzie,
The World of the
Judges
(Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), pp. 137-144." See also below,
p.
77, n. 51.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 37
four
deliverers, and neither the oppressors nor the deliverers
are
cited in the order in which they appear in the book of
Judges.80
It is, however, significant that
Samuel places his own
name
last in the list of deliverers, and thereby brings the
historical
recapitulation right up to the time in which the
matter
of kingship had become an issue. There is no need to
regard
the appearance of Samuel's name as a scribal error for
Samson,81 nor to view it
as either a later insertion82 or an
indication
of the authorship of Samuel's speech by a ‘deuter-
onomic
editor.'83 In fact, it was quite necessary
for Samuel
to
make very clear that Yahweh had continued to provide for
the
national defense and leadership even during his own
lifetime
(cf., I Samuel 7; esp. vv. 3, 8, 10, 12), in order to
make
his case relevant to the current situation, and the
request
for a king. In addition as Goldman has pointed out,
"if
it be remembered that the figure of a trial is being
employed,
the third person is not strange. Samuel the ac-
cuser,
dissociates himself from Samuel, the saviour, who is
cited
as evidence against his people."'
80. The oppressors to which Samuel
refers are: Sisera, the Philistines, and
the
king of
recorded
in the books of Judges and I Samuel in which the order is: Eglon, king
of
perhaps
subsequent Philistine threats (Judg. 10:7; 13:1 ff.; I Sam. 4-7). The
deliverers
which Samuel mentions are Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah, and Samuel, in
that
order. The activities of these deliverers are described in Judges and I Samuel
in
the following order: Bedan (if this is another name for Barak, cf. above, n.
66,
Judges
4, 5); Jerubbaal (Judg. 6-8); Jephthah (Judg. 11:1-12:7); Samuel (I Sam-
uel
7). Here also (see the end of n. 66) one must consider the possibility that
Samuel
had access to traditions not contained in the book of Judges; see also,
Judg.
10:11 f.
81. Gressmann, SAT II/1, Die älteste Geschichtschreibung,
45; cf., for
instance,
above, n. 67.
82. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 247.
83. Caird, IB, II, 943. Caird views the introduction of the name of Samuel
in
this summary of the period of the judges as a "frank admission" that
this is a
"Thucydidean
speech" and the product of a deuteronomic editor. A similar view
is
expressed by Ackroyd, The First Book of
Samuel, CNEB, 99. See further
Chapter
IV, Section 2,A,1 and Section 2,B,2,b; Chapter V, Section 2,C.
84. Goldmann, Samuel, SBB, 65.
38 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:12. But when you
saw that Nahash the king of the Ammon-
ites
came against you, you said to me, No! but a king shall reign over
us,
whereas85 Yahweh your God was your king.
Samuel now comes to the climax of his
historical recapit-
ulation
in which the people's desire for a king to safeguard
themselves
from the threat of Nahash, is represented as a
rejection
of the kingship of Yahweh, and thus as the last of
the
long series of apostasies.
The mentioning of Nahash in connection
with the request
for
a king is often viewed as contradictory to chapters 8 and
11,
since in chapter 8 internal problems are mentioned as the
motivation
for the request, and in chapter 11, according to
the
opinion of many, the desire for a king arose after rather
than
before the threat from Nahash. For this reason it has
often
been suggested that I Samuel 12:12a is best explained
as
a later insertion.86 Others have
suggested that this verse as
well
as the rest of I Samuel 12 is to be viewed as the free
formulation
of the deuteronomistic history writer.87 Still
others
see here evidence of an independent tradition which is
in
conflict with chapters 8 and 11, and lays stress on the
importance
of the Ammonite threat for the rise of the desire
of
the people for a king.88
While it certainly is to be admitted
that from a reading of
85. See GK (§141e, § 156a) for a
discussion of the syntax of a noun-clause
connected
by a waw to a verbal clause.
86. See, e.g.: Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 80; and Schulz, Samuel, EH,
170.
87. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 60. More recently,
Boecker
(Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums,
75, 76) says, "In I Sam 12 werden
die
Berichte über die Entstehung des Königtums zusammengefasst and das
Ereignis
abschliessend gewertet. V. 12 ist als das Ergebnis solch abschliessender
Zusammenfassung
verschiedener Berichte anzusehen, wobei sich einmal mehr
zeigt,
wie wenig die Deuteronomisten Geschichtsschreiber in modernen Sinne
waren.
Sie verbinden in diesem Vers den von ihnen in ihr Werk übernommenen
Bericht von der Nachaschgeschichte mit der von ihnen
selbst konzipierten
lung
von dem an Samuel herangetragenen Königswunsch des Volkes, wobei die
dadurch
entstehende sachliche Spannung sie offenbar weniger belastet als den
modernen
Leser."
88. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 72-74, 86; Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis,
KAT,
237.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 39
chapters
8, 10:17 ff., and 11 one could not conclude that the
desire
for a king was specifically tied to the Ammonite
threat;
it must also be admitted that there is nothing in
chapters
8, 10:17 ff., and 11 which contradicts this idea.
Goslinga
comments that here is "een van de oneffenheden die
in
ons boek meer aangetroffen worden, zonder dat een be-
paalde
tegenspraak valt to constateren."89 Even though
Nahash
is not mentioned in chapter 8, there is reference to
the
desire for a king to lead
it
is not at all impossible that the threat of attack from
Nahash
was already a matter of concern at that time.90 It
should
also be noticed, that when Samuel spoke to the
people
gathered at Mizpah for the public selection of Saul to
be
king, he placed the matter of desiring a king in the context
of
seeking a savior ( lcn ), and said that in desiring a king
hand
of the Egyptians, and all the other kingdoms which had
oppressed
them (I Sam. 10:18, cf. also v. 19, fwy). In addi-
tion,
after Saul's selection, there were those who objected to
him
by asking, "how is this man going to save ( fwy ) us?"
(I
Sam. 10:27), betraying their fear that he was not adequate
to
the task of delivering
of
expression "No! but . . ." indicates the people's response
to
a preceding rejection of the kingship by Samuel. Samuel
and
the elders must have repeatedly negotiated this matter
(cf.
I Sam. 8:19; 10:19).
Samuel's statement in I Samuel 12:12
is thus compatible
with
chapters 8, 10, and 11, but more important is that it
reveals
his own analysis of the motivation behind the initial
request
of the elders for a king. In the face of the combined
pressures
of the Philistines in the west (I Sam. 9:16) and the
89. Goslinga, Het Eerste Both Samuël, COT, 248.
90. See: J. Schelhaas, "De
instelling van het koningschap en de troon-
bestijging
van
"De
boeken 1 en 2 Samuel," Bijbel Met
Kanttekeningen, eds. J. H. Bavinck and
A.
H. Edelkoort (Baarn: n.d.) II, 237; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT,
248.
40 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
Ammonites
from the east, the Israelites desired a human
king,
a national hero, and a symbol of national power and
unity
in whom they thought they could find a guarantee of
security
and rest. They were seeking their deliverance in the
person
of a human king.91 This, however,
constituted a
rejection
of the kingship of Yahweh, and betrayed a loss of
confidence
in his care for the welfare of the nation. For
Yahweh
was the deliverer of
fwy). He had promised to fight for them
against their ene-
mies
and to deliver them. He had remained faithful to this
promise
throughout the periods of the exodus, the conquest
and
the judges.92
I Sam. 12:13. And now behold
the king whom you have given prefer-
ence
to,93 whom you have requested,94 and behold,
Yahweh has given a
king
over you.
91. Koolhaas, Theocratie en Monarchie, 53-57. Koolhaas (ibid., 57) sums up
his
discussion of
Testament
als achtergrond van de vraag naar een koning gezien: wantrouwen
jegens
de koningsheerschappij van Jahwe, vrees voor de vijanden en een eigen-
rnachtig
streven naar veiligheid en eenheid."
92. See, e.g.: (fwy) Ex. 14:30;
Num. 10:9; Judg. 2:18; 10:13; 12:3; I Sam.
7:8;
10:19; (lcn)
Ex. 3:8; 6:6; 18:8, 9, 10; Josh. 24:10; Judg. 6:9; 8:34; I Sam.
7:3;
10:18; 12:11. Yahweh continued to be
period.
Cf. (fwy)
I Sam. 14:6, 23, 39; 17:47; II Sam. 3:18; I Kings 14:27;
II
Kings 19:34; I Chron. 11:14; II Chron. 10:9; 32:30; (lcn) I Sam. 17:37;
II
Kings 17:39; 20:6.
93. The suggestion of Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 234)
follow-
ing,
among others, M. Buber ("Die Erzahlung von Sauls Konigswahl," VT 6
[1956]
160) to retain Mtlxw rwx (see n. 94b below) but to delete
MtrHb rwx
has
no textual evidence in its support. According to Keil (The Books of Samuel,
19)
the use of rHb. is best understood as referring to the
choice of Saul by lot in
I
Sam. 10:17-25. There, however, the emphasis is not on the people's choice but
rather
on the fact that Saul is the one whom Yahweh
has chosen (cf. v. 24). In
view
of this it seems that rHb both here and in I Sam. 8:18 may be
best
translated
in the sense of "give preference to" (i.e., over Yahweh). See KBL
s.v.
94. a) see GK 44d and 64f for the
pointing of Mtlxw) The LXXB omits
Mtlxw rwx, and the phrase is therefore
regarded by many commentators as a
gloss.
See, e.g.: 0. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels
(KeH IV;
Smith,
Samuel, ICC, 88; and Driver, Notes, 94. The textual evidence for
deletion,
however,
is not strong and Goslinga (Het Eerste
Boek Samuël, COT, 249) is right
in
saying that the phrase in question is, "zonder twijfel oorspronkelijk, en
juist in
Samuels mond zeer begrijpelijk, omdat hij in dit vragen
en zelfs eisen van een
koning
een zondige daad zag, zie vs. 17."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 41
Samuel now draws the attention of the
people to the
king,
and stresses that it is Yahweh who has given them this
king.
In spite of the sinfulness of the people's request, Yah-
weh
has chosen to incorporate kingship into the structure of
the
theocratic government of his people.95 Kingship has
been
given
by Yahweh to his people, and from this time forward is
to
function as an instrument of his rule over them.
I Sam. 12:14. If you will
fear Yahweh, and serve him, and listen to his
voice,
and not rebel against the commandment of Yahweh; then both
you
and the king who reigns over you shall follow Yahweh your God.
It has long been the general consensus
of interpreters that
this
verse contains only a protasis and ends with an aposio-
pesis.96 The translation
normally adopted is similar to that of
the
RSV: "If you will fear the LORD and serve him and
hearken
to his voice and not rebel against the commandment
of
the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over
you
will follow the LORD your God, it will be
well" (italics
mine).
The last phrase does not occur in the MT and must be
added
to complete the sentence. As Smith, however, has
pointed
out, "to begin the apodosis with Mtyhv is gram-
matically
the correct thing to do.. . "97 Yet Smith feels
that
to
do so produces a redundancy because, "it makes an
identical
proposition: if you fear Yahweh . . .
then you will
follow
Yahweh.”98
A comparison of verse 14 with verse
15, however, con-
95. I Sam. 12:13 with its
juxtaposition of the people's request and Yah-
weh's
response points to the resolution of the kingship issue which has been the
focal
point of the narratives of I Sam. 8-12 (see further the exegesis of I Sam.
12:14).
This verse cannot be reconciled with the assignment of I Sam. 12 to an
"anti-monarchial"
source as often has been done. See further below: Chapter IV,
Section
2,A,2 and Chapter V, Section 1 and 2,A.
96. See, e.g.: Smith, Samuel, ICC, 88 (see further below in
the exegesis);
Nowack,
HK 1/4, Richter, Ruth and Bücher
Samuelis, 54; Schultz, Samuel,
EH,
171;
Driver, Notes, 94; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 249; J.
Mauch-
line,
I and II Samuel (NCB; London: 1971)
109; and Stoebe, Das erste Buch
Samuelis, KAT, 234.
97. Smith, Samuel, ICC, 88.
98. Ibid.
42 Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25
firms
Smith's observation that as a matter of fact the apodo-
sis
does begin with MtyHv,
protasis a vlvqb
Mtfmwv .
. . hvhy tx vxryt-Mx
(verse 14)
protasis a ... hvhy lvqb vfmwt xl-Mxv
(verse 15)
protasis b hvhy yp-tx vrmt
xlv
(verse 14)
protasis b hvhy yp-tx Mtyrmv
(verse 15)
apodosis Mtyhv
(verse 14)
apodosis htyhv
(verse 15)
The
two verses display a remarkably close parallelism in
wording
and structure, and because the apodosis is intro-
duced
in verse 15 with htyhv, the parallelism strongly sup-
ports
beginning the apodosis of verse 14 with Mtyhv.99
The objection which Smith makes to
beginning the
apodosis
of verse 14 with Mtyhv, while understandable, is not
conclusive,
since it turns on his understanding of the phrase
(hvhy) rHx . . . . Mtyhv. This phrase (rHx
hyh
or yrHx hyh)
is
found in several other places in the OT (II Sam. 2:10;
15:13;
I Kings 12:20; 16:21), in all of which it is used to
indicate
that the people of
people,
have chosen to follow a particular king in a situation
where
there was another possible alternative.
II Samuel 2:10 relates the decision of
David
while Isbosheth reigned over the remainder of the
99. It is noteworthy that in both
verses "Athnah" stands under [yp-tx]
hvhy, indicating that in the opinion of the
Masoretes the principal division
within
the verse is to be made at that point. Cf. GK
§ 15b,c.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 43
nation.
I Kings 12:20 relates that
of
David at the time of the division of the kingdom. I Kings
16:21
relates the people's divided loyalties between Tibni
and
Omri after the death of Zimri. Particularly instructive,
however,
is II Samuel 15:13. At the height of the rebellion of
Absalom,
David is told that, "the hearts of the men of
are
after Absalom" (Mvlwbx yrHx lxrWy wyxbl hyh). The
clear
meaning of the phrase here is that the men of
chosen
to give their allegiance to Absalom and to recognize
him
as king rather than David. Boecker, in his discussion of
these
passages comments as follows: "Es handelt sich an all
diesen
Stellen urn eine inhaltlich gepragte and in bestimmter
Richtung qualifizierte Ausdrucksweise. Die Aufnahme
dieses
Ausdrucks
dürfte in I Samuel 12, 14 im Sinn, der genannten
Parallelstellen
erfolgt sein. Ist dort die Anerkennung eines
menschlichen
Königs das Thema, so hier die Bestätigung der
Königswürde
Jahwes. Paraphrasiert lautet V. 14b—wiederum
ausserhalb des syntaktischen Zusammenhanges—‘sowohl ihr
als
auch der König, der uber euch regiert, werdet Jahwe,
euren
Gott, als König anerkennen.’”100 When nen . . . Mtyhv
hvhy rHx in I Samuel 12:14 is understood
in this, way then there
is
no need to postulate an aposiopesis, because there is a
meaningful
apodosis to the sentence.101
100. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfeinge des Königtums, 80.
101. This also makes unnecessary the
various suggestions for emendation
which
have frequently been made in an effort to avoid what is felt to be either an
identical
proposition or incompleteness in the verse. LXXL has added kai>
e]celei?tai u[ma?j in an attempt
to complete the verse. J. Wellhausen (Der
Text der
Bücher Samuelis [
Hebrew
MSS in place of Mtyhv , but points out that this does
not fit with
hvhy rhx. Smith (Samuel, ICC, 88), while noting Welihausen's objection, and
also
noting that De Rossi "denies the manuscript authority" nevertheless
con-
cludes:
"As a conjecture the reading recommends itself, even without any ex-
ternal
authority. I have therefore adopted it, omitting the clause hvhy
rhx
Mkyhlx, which was probably added after
the corruption to Mtyhv had taken
place."
Others have read the verse in a way that does not require an apodosis
either
stated or unstated. Budde (Die Bücher
Samuel, KHC, 80) advocates reading
vxry j`x in the place of vxryt
Mx
by analogy with v. 24 and Josh. 24:14. He
explains
that the corruption is due to v. 15. There is, however, no textual basis for
his
suggestion. Keil (The Books of Samuel,
119) and others come to a similar
44 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
At the assembly in Gilgal
commencement
of a new era in which the old covenant
conditional
(cf. Ex. 19:5, 6; Deut. 8:19; 11:13-15, 22-25,
26-28;
28:1 ff., 15 ff.; 30:17, 18; Josh. 24:20; I Sam. 7:3),
takes
on a new dimension. With the institution of kingship
the
potential for divided loyalties of the people and conflict
of
interest between Yahweh and the human king is created,
In
this new situation Samuel challenges the people to renew
their
determination to obey Yahweh, and not to rebel against
his
commandments, and thereby to demonstrate that they
continue
to recognize Yahweh as their sovereign. This chal-
lenge
is extended not only to the people, but also to the
newly
inaugurated king, who is to recognize that his kingship
is
a vice-regency, and that he, just as all the other people, is
obligated
to follow Yahweh. It is Yahweh who has given
Yahweh
by loyalty to her human ruler.
that
these loyalties lie on two different levels and total
loyalty
to Yahweh must remain inviolate.
It is then not necessary to conclude
as does Smith that
the
expression, "if you fear Yahweh . . . then you will follow
Yahweh"
is an identical proposition. Rather this is the ex-
pression
of the basic covenant conditional in terms of the
new
era which
serves
him, and obeys his voice, and does not rebel against his
commandments,
then she will show that even though human
kingship
has been introduced into the structure of the
theocracy,
she continues to recognize Yahweh as her sover-
eign.102
The implication of this in terms of the covenant
result
as Budde without modification of the text; they read Mx in the sense of
a
wish,
"Oh that ye would only. . . ." None of these proposals give
sufficient weight
to
the clear structural parallel between vv. 14 and 15.
102. The terms "fear" and
"serve" Yahweh in I Sam. 12:14, 20 (dbf; xry
is
used differently here than it is in vv. 14 and 24), 24 are used to characterize
to
the covenant stipulations. "To fear" Yahweh and "to serve"
Yahweh is to be
obedient
to the commandments, statutes and judgments of the covenantal law.
The
antecedents for the terminology utilized here by Samuel are to be found in
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 45
conditional
is that
expect
Yahweh's help in war and enjoy the benefits of
Yahweh's
rule as described in the blessings of the covenant
(Deut.
28:1 ff.) which are received as the concomitant of
such
places as Deut. 6:1-2; 10:12-13; 11:13; 17:19; 28:58; Josh. 22:5; 24:14. For
xry in v. 20, see ad locum.
For a discussion of the meaning of hvhy-tx
xry
in Deuteronomy, see: B. J.
Oosterhoff, De Vreze des Heren in het Oude Testament
(
He
concludes (ibid., 39), "In Deuteronomium is Jahwe vrezen het gehoorzamen
aan
Zijn geboden met een hart vol diep ontzag voor Jahwe enerzijds, maar ook vol
dankbare
wederliefde voor de liefde, die Hij bewees aan Zijn yolk anderzijds." See
also
S. Plath, Furcht Gottes. Der Begriff xry im Alten Testament (Arbeiten zur
Theologie
11/2;
For a discussion of the meaning of hvhy-tx
dbf
in the sense of total
commitment
to obedience to Yahweh's commandments, see the extremely useful
study
of C. Lindhagen, The Servant Motif in the
Old Testament (
Lindhagen
(ibid., p. 155) comments: "As Yahweh's servant,
unconditional
obedience. Her service implies that she hearkens to the voice
and
commandments of Yahweh.... For
rmw his commands and statutes and
doing hWf the commandment
and the
law....
As lawgiver for Israel Yahweh appears in his royal function:
stands
before Yahweh as a subject (i.e., db,f,) before his
king. The demands of the
Torah
apply to both cult and morals; the whole of
by
the will of Yahweh. To rebel against the commandment of Yahweh
hvhy yP-tx hrm [I Sam. 12:14]
is incompatible with
servant."
Both of these expressions ("to
fear" and "to serve" Yahweh) are sometimes
used
in the OT in a narrower sense to indicate cultic worship of Yahweh.
Oosterhoff
(ibid., 45) finds this usage of xry particularly in
the historical books
and
comments: "Nu betekent in Deuteronomium Jahwe vrezen zijn geboden
onderhouden
en daar deze geboden voor een groot deel betrekking hebben op de
cultische
verering van Jahwe,
cultisch
vereren,' op de wijze, die Hij aan Zijn yolk in Zijn wet heeft voor-
geschreven."
See further, Oosterhoff (ibid., 40-47). To serve Yahweh is also used
in
this way, although as Lindhagen (ibid., 90-91) points out one must be careful
in
drawing too rigid a distinction. As he notes: "To serve Yahweh means
allowing
the
whole of one's conduct to be ruled by obedience to the will of Yahweh. As
the
cult is part of what Yahweh commanded, every right act of worship is an act
of
obedience." Yet, on the other hand, as becomes clear on the basis of
numerous
passages
"this does not prevent the word being used in the OT not only in a
general
sense but also in contexts where the ethical or cultic aspect more or less
wholly
predominates." Some of the passages in which the cultic aspect is primary
are:
Ex. 3:12; 4:23; 7:16, 26 (8:1); 8:16(20); 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7, 8, 11, 24; 12:31.
On
this usage see also, G. Schmitt, Der
Landtag von Sichem (Arbeiten zur
Theologie
1/15;
The use of the terms in I Sam.
12:14, 20 (dbf ), 24 in connection with
Samuel's
challenge to
favors
understanding the terms here in the broader more inclusive sense of
obedience
to all of Yahweh's commands.
46 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
covenant
loyalty to Yahweh. Kingship is here being incor-
porated
into the structure of the theocracy in a manner
designed
to safeguard the continued recognition of the rule
of
Yahweh over his people.
I Sam. 12:15. And if you
will not listen to the voice of Yahweh, and
rebel103
against the commandment of Yahweh; then shall the hand of
Yahweh
be against you as it was against your fathers.104
The alternative to recognizing Yahweh
as the supreme au-
thority
over the nation and thereby to receive the benefits of
the
covenant blessings, is to refuse to submit to Yahweh's
authority
and in so doing to evoke Yahweh's wrath as ex-
pressed
in the covenant curses and experienced by the ances-
tors
of the people to whom Samuel spoke. Here, then,
is
faced with the same alternatives which long before had
been
presented by Moses to the people in the plains of
(Deut.
28:1-62; 30:15-20). The introduction of kingship into
tial
for either good or evil, has not changed the fundamental
nature
of
The alternatives which are here opened
to the Israelites
can
be traced in their realization in
103. Note the Qal form of hrm here, but the
Hiphil form in v. 14. No
difference
in meaning is involved; it would appear to be merely variety in
expression.
104. The LXXL(BA) reads kai> e]pi> to>n basile<a u[mw?n in place of the
Mkytbxbv of the
points
out that the mentioning together of "you" and "your king"
agrees with
vv.
14 and 25b. The LXXL acids at the end of the verse e]coloqreu?sai
u[ma?j = Mkdybxhl, which reading
is favored by Budde (Die Bücher Samuel,
KHC,
80)
and Smith (Samuel, ICC, 88).
Hertzberg (I and II Samuel, 96)
combines the
LXX
and MT and translates the phrase: "... the hand of the LORD will be
against
you and against your king to destroy you like your fathers." The Targum
and
Syriac translate the phrase, "as it was against your fathers." This
translation is
defended
by Keil (The Books of Samuel, 119)
and Goslinga (I Samuel, KV, 153)
based
on the use of in a comparative sense. More recently Goslinga (Het Eerste
Boek Samuel, COT, 249)
suggests: "Verreweg het eenvoudigst is aan to nemen,
dat
een oorspr. k bij het afschrijven is vervangen door
1, zo dat het vs. besluit met
een
vergelijking: tegen u evenals tegen uw
vaderen." This is certainly a reasonable
conclusion.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel 12:1-25 47
tory.
The history of the northern and southern kingdoms
with
few exceptions is a history of apostasy and turning away
from
the commandments of Yahweh. This led to repeated
actualizations
of the covenant curses in plagues, droughts,
and
foreign oppressions, eventually resulting in captivity, first
to
the northern and later to the southern kingdom.105
I Sam. 12:16. Now therefore,
present yourselves and see this great thing
which
Yahweh will do before your eyes.
With this verse a new section of the
report of the Gilgal
assembly
is introduced. Samuel has presented his case demon-
strating
Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant, and by con-
trast
the people's apostasy in requesting a king. He has
pointed
out that Yahweh has chosen to give them a king but
it
is their responsibility to continue to recognize Yahweh as
their
sovereign in the new era of the monarchy. He now calls
for
the attention of the people to observe something which
Yahweh
himself will do in order to authenticate that which
he
has been saying, and in order to remind the people that
Yahweh's
power to actualize the covenant curses is very real.
Yahweh
will do this by the performance of a "great thing"
which
will be a tangible demonstration of his existence and
power,
as well as his involvement with his people in the issues
being
faced at the Gilgal assembly.
This was to be an event of such highly
unusual signifi-
cance
that Samuel introduces it in terminology resembling
that
of Moses when he announced Yahweh's deliverance of
his
people at the Red Sea.106
105. That this is the case is no
reason to conclude that these verses must
have
been written after 587 BC. See, e.g., Hertzberg's statement (I and II Samuel,
100)
that vv. 14 and 15 give a "survey of the period of the kings which is now
beginning....
The standpoint of the preacher and his audience accordingly lies in
the
time after 587."
106. W. Harrelson (BR 3[19581 4, 5) has drawn attention to
the specialized
meaning
of bcyth
in a number of its OT occurrences. Although in certain places
the
word means simply to stand (Ex. 2:4; II Sam. 18:13, 30; Ps. 36:5(4); Prov.
22:29)
or to stand against, as in battle (Deut. 7:24; 9:2; 11:25), Harrelson points
out
that the use of the term in Ex. 14:13; 19:17; Judg. 20:2; I Sam. 10:19; 12:7,
48 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I
Sam. 12:16a: . . . . vxry vbcyth . . . .
Ex.
14:13a: . . . . vxrv vbcyth . . .
I
Sam. 12:16b: Mkynyfl hWf hvhy rwx hzh lvdgh rbdh-tx
vxrv
Ex.
14:31a: hWf hvhy
rwx hlvdgh dyh-tx lxrWy xryv
I
Sam. 12:17. Is it not wheat harvest today? I will call unto Yahweh
that
he may send thunderings and rain; then you shall know107 and see
that
your evil is great which you have done in the eyes of Yahweh, in
in
asking108 for yourselves a king.
In a season during which rain rarely
fell (cf. Prov. 26:1),
Samuel
says that he will call on Yahweh to send thunderings
(tvlvq) and rain as a
sign that
a
king.109 In this way the people can assuredly know (ex-
pressed
by the imperative vfdv) that the words of Samuel are
true.
16
"suffice to indicate that to take one's stand, or to present oneself, is
an act of
fundamental
meaning for Israelite worship. When the congregation is summoned
to
assemble before Yahweh, the first thing to be done is for
stand
in expectancy and holy fear. The outcome of such gatherings cannot be
predicted
in advance. The people are present for the purpose of witnessing what
Yahweh
is about to do. They are not mere bystanders by any means, but they are
gathered
first of all to hear from Yahweh, before they are to make confession, do
acts
of sacrifice or otherwise to demonstrate their loyalty or devotion." In v.
7
the
people present themselves (bcyth) before Yahweh
for indictment in a
sacral-legal
proceeding, now they present themselves (bcyth) to await a
sign
(ldgh
rbdh)
from Yahweh authenticating all that Samuel had been saying. For
other
references to "great things" which Yahweh had done for his people
see:
Dent.
20:21; 11:7; Josh. 24:17; Judg. 2:7; Ps. 106:21.
107. GK §110i.
108. GK §114o.
109. Mauchline (I and II Samuel, NCB, 109) misconstrues the intent of this
verse
when he says, "the editor of this chapter cannot be reconciled to royal
rule
(17)
and has a final condemnation of it put on record.... This chapter is
commonly
associated with chs. 7 and 8 but at this point it seems to go beyond
them
in exalting Samuel and in denigrating royal rule." See further below,
Chapter
V.
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 49
It has often been asserted that the
reference to the time
of
wheat harvest in this verse demonstrates that there was no
original
connection between the events described in I Samuel
11
and those of the Gilgal assembly.110 On the basis of
the
statement
in I Samuel 11:5 that Saul was coming from the
field
behind the oxen it is concluded that the events of
chapter
11 took place at ploughing time which was in the
rainy
season of November to January and not at the time of
wheat
harvest in the dry season of May and June.
De Groot, however, has rightly pointed
out that the re-
mark
in I Samuel 11:5 is better interpreted as a reference to
threshing,
not only because of the agreement which this
establishes
between chapters 11 and 12, but also because
warfare
was not normally carried on in the rainy season, and
according
to I Samuel 11:1, Nahash had already brought his
military
force against Jabesh-Gilead.111 Goslinga adds
to this
that
the crossing of the
11:11)
also fits much better with the dry season than it does
with
the rainy season, when this would be extremely diffi-
cult.112 It should also
be noted that I Samuel 11:11 appears
to
contain a reference to the cessation of fighting due to the
severity
of the mid-day heat (cf. v. 9, and Judg. 8:13; Neh.
7:3)
which would be characteristic of harvest time, not of the
season
for ploughing.113
110. See, e.g.: Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 81; and Schulz, Samuel,
EH, 172.
111. De
Groot, I Samuel, TeU, 121, 122.
112. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 250. Stoebe's comment (Das
erste Buch
Samuelis,
KAT, 239) that the thunder storm's occurrence at the time
of
wheat harvest is emphatically against the assignment of the proceedings of this
assembly
to a "hypothetical covenant renewal celebration" is apparently based
on
the
assumption that a covenant renewal ceremony must take place on a fixed
date,
most likely at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall (cf. Deut.
31:10,
11). There is no firm evidence however for concluding that covenant
renewal
ceremonies were always held at fixed times. Cf. Baltzer, The Covenant
Formulary, 61; Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient
further
discussion see Chapter IV, Section 2,B,1,a.
113. For a discussion of climatic
conditions referred to in the Old Testa-
ment
including those alluded to in I Samuel 11 and 12 see: R. B. Y. Scott,
50 Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25
I Sam. 12:18. And Samuel
called on Yahweh and Yahweh sent thunder-
ings
and rain on that day, and all the people greatly feared Yahweh and
Samuel.
Yahweh responded to Samuel's prayer
and sent thunder-
ings
and rain with the result that the people feared for their
very
lives (v. 19), being convinced that Samuel's indictment
was
correct, and that they had incurred upon themselves the
wrath
of Yahweh. This is not the only place in the Old
Testament
where it is noted that the Israelites feared for their
lives
when Yahweh revealed himself in the thunderstorm (cf.
Ex.
19:16; 20:18-20; Deut. 18:16). Neither is this the only
place
in the Old Testament where an expression similar to the
unusual
combination at the end of the verse (Yahweh and
Samuel)
is found. On another historic occasion it is said that
the
Israelites "feared Yahweh and believed Yahweh and his
servant
Moses" (Ex. 14:31), in response to the manifestation
of
Yahweh's power at the Red Sea.114
It is sometimes questioned whether
this event is to be
regarded
as a theophany or merely as an authenticating sign
that
what Samuel had said was correct.115 However one may
answer
this,116 it is clear that the people understood the
"Meteorological
Phenomena and Terminology in the Old Testament," ZAW 64
(1962)
11-25.
114. Notice also the statement in
Josh. 4:14 after the Israelites had seen the
waters
of the
exalted
Joshua in the sight of all
feared
Moses all the days of his life." See further below, n. 122b.
115. Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 238) contrasts the thunder and
rain
in I Sam. 12:18 with Ex. 19:18 where he sees the thunderstorm at the
concluding
of the covenant as a sign of the power of Yahweh, and bearing the
character
of a theophany. In I Sam. 12:18 he says there is no thought of this and
he
views the storm as an unexpected event authenticating a mandate. Stoebe
argues
that here rain is mentioned, "und Regen gehört nun sicherlich nicht
zu
einer
theophanieschilderung" (239); (cf., however, Judg. 5:4). Baltzer (The Cove-
nant Formulary, 67, n. 20)
suggests that the sign in vv. 16-18 has replaced an
original
theophany.
116. The question is more
complicated than would appear from Stoebe's
comments.
Various authors (see, e.g.: Th. C. Vriezen, An
Outline of Old Testa-
ment Theology [
Ps.
L 1-6," OTS, XV [1969] 213-226,
esp., 216 f., and the literature there cited)
make
a distinction between an epiphany and a theophany. Ridderbos (216, n. 1)
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 51
thunder
and rain as an attestation to Samuel's words, but at
the
same time as a revelation of the power of Yahweh.
Perhaps
the closest parallel to be found in the OT is the
sending
of fire from heaven in response to the prayer of
Elijah
on
ites
know that Yahweh was God, and that Elijah had per-
formed
his ministry at the mandate of Yahweh. In both
instances
authentication is primary. Thus while a theophany
cannot
be spoken of in the normal technical sense of that
term
on either of these occasions, there is nevertheless in
both
instances a manifestation of the power of Yahweh
which
revealed something of the awesomeness of his person
and
which to that extent can be said to have theophanic
aspects.117
It is noteworthy that here when the
people of
challenged
to renew their loyalty to Yahweh and to resolve
to
keep their covenantal obligations, a sign is given which
might
well remind them of the establishment of the covenant
at
Sinai where there were, "thunder and lightning flashes and
a
thick cloud upon the mountain" (Ex. 19:16).118
comments,
"Wenn Gott erscheint, urn seinem Volk (durch einen Mittler) etwas zu
sagen,
spricht man von einer Theophanie; erscheint Gott zur Rettung seines
Volkes
im Kampf mit den Feinden, so handelt es sich urn eine Epiphanie (die
Definitionen
des Unterschieds weisen bei den einzelnen Verfassern gewisse
Abweichungen
auf). Eine solche Unterscheidung kann gewiss klärend wirken...."
Vriezen
(An Outline of Old Testament Theology,
190), however, rightly remarks
that
"in the stories concerning
those
of the epiphanies, though these stories are meant to describe
theophanies."
Ridderbos
(217, n. 1) with reason adds to this that the same can be said of
Ps.
50. We make mention of this here merely to indicate the complexity of the
question
involved. We are using the term theophany, however, in the customary
manner,
i.e., the designation of an appearance of God which is accompanied by
extraordinary
natural phenomena.
117. For discussion of the
revelatory significance of signs and wonders in
the
Old Testament, see: G. F. Oehler, Theology
of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids:
n.d. [German original,
OTH als
"Offenbarungszeichen Gottes" (
des
Wunders im Alten Testament," in: Verbannung
and Heimkehr, Festschrift W.
Rudolph
(
On
theophany in general see: J. Jeremias, Theophanie.
Die Geschichte einer
Alttestamentlichen
Gattung
(WMANT, 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1965).
118. Cf. especially the plural tvlvq in I Sam.
12:17-18 and in Ex. 19:16;
52 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:19. And all the
people said119 unto Samuel, "Pray120 for
your
servants unto Yahweh your god that we die not,121 because we
have
to all our sins added evil in asking for us a king."
The people's fear motivated them to confess
their sin and
request
Samuel to intercede for them unto Yahweh. As they
look
to Samuel to mediate between themselves and Yahweh,
they
are strongly conscious that from their side they had
broken
the covenant relationship with Yahweh. This being so
they
do not even dare to refer to him as "our God," but ask
Samuel
to pray to Yahweh "your God" (in contrast cf.
I
Sam. 7:8). The evil (hfr) to which the people refer is (as in
v.
17) the request for a king with its accompanying impli-
cations.
The people recognize that this evil did not stand
alone,
as they have become aware that Samuel was right
when
he spoke at length of the pervasiveness of their sinful
condition
throughout the centuries.
It is not explicitly stated that
Samuel acceded to their
request.
Yet we may conclude from verse 23 that he did. This
prayer
of Samuel must have been a prayer of confession, and
a
request for mercy, much like that of Moses after the
(
apostasy of the golden calf worship (Ex. 32:31-32; 33:12-
17),
and the unbelief at Kadesh Bamea (Num. 14:13-19).
This
and other intercessions (cf., e.g., I Sam. 7:8, 9; 12:23)
20:18
(according to Mandelkern the plural occurs only twelve times in the entire
OT).
It is, of course, true that there are considerable differences between Ex. 19
and
20, and I Sam. 12 (note, e.g., the absence of rain in Ex. 19 and 20; see n. 115
above).
But, on the other hand, in view of the connection which Nic. H.
Ridderbos
(OTS, XV, 213-226) has suggested
between Ps. 50 and a covenant
renewal,
it is apparent that to an Israelite the concluding and renewing of the
covenant
with Yahweh is apt to be accompanied by thunder (see Ps. 50:1 ff.). See
further
below, Chapter IV, Section 2,A,4.
119. Subject sing., predicate pl.,
cf. kettb in v. 10.
120. Driver (Notes, 35) defines llpth
as
"to interpose as mediator, espe-
cially
by means of entreaty...." Although in general usage the term is about as
neutral
as the verb "to pray" in English, it is often used in the sense of
"asking for
someone
else." J. Herrmann ("dxopat," TDNT, II, 785) notes that 25 out of 60
occurrences
of the word are intercessory. Cf. the similar requests for prayer
addressed
to Moses in the wilderness: Num. 11:2; 21:7. See further: P. A. H.
de
Boer, "De voorbede in het OT," OTS,
III (1943) 124-132; D. R. Ap-Thomas,
"Notes
on some terms relating to prayer," VT 6 (1956) 225-241.
121. GK §107p.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 53
later
cause Samuel to be regarded as an intercessor compa-
rable
to Moses, and otherwise unequalled in the course of
Samuel's
prayers appears in I Samuel 7:10 and 12:18.
I Sam. 12:20. And Samuel
said to the people, "Fear not!122 You indeed
have123
committed all this evil, only do not any longer turn away from
following
Yahweh, but serve Yahweh with all your heart."
In words of comfort and admonition,
also in some ways
reminiscent
of those which Moses spoke to the children of
fear
in spite of the evil which they had done124 and the
awesome
sign which Yahweh had given. Samuel subsequently
(v.
22) explains the grounds on which he can tell the people
not
to fear, but he first reminds them of their responsibility
toward
Yahweh. Their duty remains to serve Yahweh with all
their
heart. In this expression Samuel states concisely the
fundamental
obligation of the covenant relationship (cf.
Deut.
10:12; 11:13; Josh. 22:5).125
Here Samuel again brings to focus the
central issue in the
controversy
surrounding the establishment of kingship in
from
following Yahweh. In this admonition Samuel again
uses
the terminology (hvhy yrHxm) which he had
used earlier
to
formulate the covenant conditional in verse 14 (rHx
122. a) GK §109c. b) Samuel's
exhortation in this verse not to fear utilizes
xry in a different sense than in vv. 14,
24. See n. 102 above and n. 144 below. We
can
say that the meaning of xry in v. 18 is in between that in v. 14
and 24 and
that
in v. 20.
123. GK §135a; Driver, Notes, 95.
124. There is no well founded basis
for seeing here in Samuel's encouraging
words
a badly harmonized tension with the previous verse as does Stoebe (Das
erste Buch
Samuelis,
KAT, 239) who suggests that when the people have come to
the
realization of their arrogance (v. 19) this is weakened with the
"yes-but" idea
of
v. 20. Rather than tension, here is an expression of the idea that when
repentance
resumes her proper relationship to Yahweh (i.e., that of serving him)
He
will not forsake them for his great name's sake (v. 22). Stoebe, however, views
vv.
21 and 22 as a late insertion. On this question, see further below.
125. See above, n. 102.
54 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
hvhy).126 The supreme obligation
of the children of
not
changed with the establishment of the monarchy. Their
duty
now, just as previously, is to follow Yahweh, which is to
serve
Yahweh with all their heart.
I Sam. 12:21. And turn not127
away128 after vain things which do not
profit
or deliver because they are vain things.
The alternatives for
follow
Yahweh and find prosperity and security or follow
vain
things ( vhth
) which cannot profit or deliver because
they
are vain (vht).
Samuel here broadens the frame of
reference
from the focus on the evil (hfr, vv. 17, 19) of
requesting
a king, and now warns the people to turn from
every
attempt to find security outside of obedience and
loyalty
to Yahweh.
From the construction of the sentence
it is clear that
vhth is to be understood in a collective
sense.129 The term
vht is usually interpreted as a reference
to turning aside after
heathen
gods or idols.130 Because idolatry is not the issue in
126. See above, 41-46.
127. Here the stronger form of
prohibition is used, xl and the imperfect,
rather
than lx
and the jussive, which was used in v. 20, cf. GK § 107o, § 109b.
128. The yk which appears
here in the MT is regarded by many as a
copyist's
error and thus to be eliminated. See, e.g.: Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels,
KeH,
53; Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher
Samuelis, 79; Driver, Notes, 95;
and
Smith,
Samuel, ICC, 89. Keil (The Books of Samuel, 121) suggests that
following
the
yk
after vrvst
the same verb should be supplied from the context thus
yielding
the translation: "Do not turn aside (from the LORD) for (ye turn aside)
after
that which is vain." A. B. Ehrlich (Randglossen
zur Hebraischen Bibel [7
vols.;
an
incorrect sentence because vrHx rvs is not used in
Hebrew, but rather
yrHxm rvs, it may be better to view yk as a mutilation
of an original tkll with
rvs as in Deut. 11:28; 28:14. More recently
Stoebe, (Das erste Buch Samuelis,
KAT,
234) following P. A. H. de Boer (Research
into the Text of I Samuel I-XVI
[
In my opinion the resolution of de
Boer is preferable. But whichever of these
alternatives
is adopted, the meaning of the verse remains unchanged. The presence
of
paseq points up the problem, but may
not be used to give precedence to any
particular
solution (cf. GK § 15 f., n. 2).
129. Note the plural verb forms
which follow vhth and the pronoun hmh
at
the end of the sentence.
130. See, e.g.: Keil, The Books of Samuel, 121 ("false
gods"); Kirkpatrick,
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 55
the
context, and because the use of vht is considered
by
many
to be an indication that this verse cannot be dated
prior
to the time of the author of "deutero-Isaiah" (c.
540
B.C.), it is frequently suggested that this entire verse
should
be regarded as a later insertion.131 Such a position,
however,
rests on too narrow an understanding of the mean-
ing
of vht,
and on the unprovable assumption that the word
could
not have been used in the time of Samuel. Certain
occurrences
of the word in Isaiah (where eleven of its twenty
occurrences
are found), show that it is sometimes used to
express
the weakness or nothingness not only of molten
images
(Isa. 41:29), but also of nations (Isa. 40:17), and their
rulers
(Isa. 40:23), when these are compared to the power of
Yahweh.
The term is thus not to be confined in its meaning
in
I Samuel 12:21 to the "nothingness" of heathen idols, but
rather
has reference to the "nothingness" of anything that
would
exalt itself against Yahweh. Samuel thus uses the term
here
to exhort the people to turn aside from everything,
whether
that be a person, a king, a nation, a god or idol,
which
entails a reduction or replacement of service to Yah-
weh.
For to follow anything or anyone to the deprecation of
following
Yahweh is to follow a "nothing" (vht ) and a
"nothing"
cannot deliver (lcn, Hiphil).
I Sam. 12:22. For Yahweh
will not forsake his people, on account of
his
great name's sake, for Yahweh has resolved to make you a people
for
himself.
The double use of yk serves to
indicate the basis on
Samuel, CambB, 122
("false gods"); Nowack, Richter,
Ruth and Bücher Sam-
uelis, HK 1/4, 55
("fremden Gotter"); A. R. S. Kennedy, I and II Samuel (CentB;
Samuel, COT, 251
("heidense afgoden").
131. See, e.g.: Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 81; Kennedy, Samuel,
CentB,
95; Caird, IB, II, 945; and Stoebe, Das
erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 239.
Schulz
(Samuel, EH, 173) also questioning
the use of vht by Samuel proposes a
reconstruction
of the verse in which on the basis of the Targum he suggests
replacing
vhth
with tbfvth.
His proposal, however, is quite involved and requires
other
changes in wording as well, for which there is no textual evidence.
56 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
which
Samuel's previous words of comfort and admonition
rest.
First of all, Samuel asserts categorically that Yahweh
will
not forsake ( wFn) his people for his great name's sake
(lvdgh
vmw rbfb
). While wFn
is used rather infrequently in
the
OT in an expression of this type (normally a verb such as
bzf is used) Samuel's statement is directly
paralleled in Psalm
I
94:14a. Here wFn is used in synonymous parallelism with
bzf. Samuel is thus restating the well
known promise of
Deuteronomy
31:6, 8 and Joshua 1:5.
The guarantee to the people for the
validity of the
promise
of Yahweh's faithfulness to them rests in the in-
tegrity
of Yahweh himself (lvdgh vmw).132 The idea that
Yahweh
will do certain things for the sake of his own name is
equivalent
to saying that Yahweh will be faithful to his own
self
revelation. Yahweh cannot deny himself.133 It was on
this
same basis that both Moses and Joshua had interceded
for
the Israelites after previous incidents of serious apostasy
(Ex.
32:12-14; Num. 14:15-20; Josh. 7:9); and in Deuter-
onomy
it is emphasized that the basis for
be
Yahweh's people does not lie in any quality or merit of
the
people themselves, but in the oath which Yahweh had
given
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deut. 7:7, 8; 9:4, 5).
This
idea persisted throughout
that
during the exile Ezekiel is found assuring the people in
captivity
that Yahweh was not finished with them, and in
spite
of their present condition, Yahweh would again act on
their
behalf for his holy name's sake. "Thus says Yahweh
God,
It is not for your sake, 0 house of
about
to act, but for My holy name, which you have pro-
faned
among the nations where you went. And I will vindi-
cate
the holiness of My great name which has been profaned
among
the nations . ." (Ezek. 36:22, 23, see further Ezek.
36:22-38).
132. For similar expressions see:
Isa. 48:9; Jer. 14:7; Ps. 106:8.
133. For discussion of the
theological significance of the use of the term
"name"
of Yahweh in this way, see: G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the
Old Testament (
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 57
Samuel then undergirds this assertion
with a statement
introduced
by the second yk which explains that the ultimate
basis
for
ditional
free choice of Yahweh's elective grace to make
his
own people. The use of (Hiphil) to express the idea
of
divine determination or "good pleasure" is found else-
where
only in II Sam. 7:29; Job 6:9; I Chron. 17:27. Never-
theless,
it clearly expresses an idea which finds repeated stress
in
Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:37; 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; 26:18, 19),
and
which constitutes one of the most important and central
ideas
of the OT.134
For the simple reason that Yahweh had
chosen
be
his people, the people can be assured that he will not
forsake
them. Yet this position is not simply one of privilege
without
obligation. Yahweh's choice of
sponse
and created a particular responsibility. The form
which
the response was to take found its definition in the
stipulations
of the Sinaitic covenant. These stipulations were
to
be observed as an expression of the people's thanksgiving
and
loyalty to Yahweh, who had revealed himself to them,
delivered
them out of
ful
to his covenant with them and their fathers.135
134. For discussion of the OT idea
of election see: K. Galling, Die Erwahl-
ungstraditionen
Doctrine of
Election
(
Nieuwe
reeks, II;
135. D. J. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 175, 176) makes the
following
comment
on the relation between election and covenant while discussing the
giving
of the decalogue to
Yahwe
made
known the conditions for continued covenant; or better, obedience to these
provisions
is the living expression of
produce
this relationship. We may remark that this becomes even more clear when
the
covenant comes to be expressed in the treaty form. It is not the stipulations
which
produce the relationship; they are the obligations which are revealed by
God
as resulting from that relationship rather than bringing it about." C.
Lind-
hagen
(The Servant Motif in the Old Testament,
153, 154) points out: "The
election
was an election to a service of Yahweh. As Yahweh's servant,
longer
entitled to go her own way. Her te<loj from then
onwards is to perform the
will
of another, to effectuate the purpose that Yahweh laid down in the elec-
58 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:23. As for myself,136
far will it be from me that I should sin
against
Yahweh, that I should cease to pray for you; but I shall instruct
you137
in the good and the right way.138
Samuel assures the people not only of
Yahweh's con-
tinued
commitment to them (v. 22), but also of his own
continued
interest in their well being. Samuel's great concern
is
that
intends
to do all that he can to see that this is done. It is clear
from
this statement that he is not planning to withdraw from
a
role of leadership in the nation.139 First, he will continue
(cf.
v. 19) to intercede for the people, but in addition he will
instruct
them in their covenantal obligations.140 These are
lessentially
the same functions which he was performing in
convening
and directing the Gilgal assembly.
This continued activity of Samuel was
to be of great
tion....
As Yahweh's obedient servant,
she
tries to free herself from Yahweh's sovereignty, the unfaithful servant will be
led
into a curse and death." This does not mean, however, that Yahweh's
covenant
with his people is dissolved. When the people turn away from their
covenant
obligations they will experience the covenant curses (Deut. 28:15 ff., cf.
29:11[12]
) or what is termed in Lev. 26:25 the "vengeance of the covenant."
Yet
the curses and the vengeance are not antipathetic to the covenant, nor do
they
void the covenant, but rather belong to it. As Lindhagen (ibid., 154) notes:
"Even
if
Yahweh
never let go his servant: in the new covenant, everyone was both to know
and
to do the will of Yahweh." For further discussion of the relation between
election
and covenant see: M. G. Kline, By Oath
Consigned (Grand Rapids: 1968)
26-38;
J. Jocz, The Covenant: A Theology of
Human Destiny (
1968)
40-43; D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament
Covenant (
and
the additional literature cited below in Chapter IV, n. 10.
136.
KBL3 s.v. Mg, 4, cf. Gen. 32:19(18) etc.
137. GK §112x.
138. GK § 126x. See further Chapter
IV, n. 113.
139. This chapter is not properly
understood when it is viewed as Samuel's
farewell
speech. See above, 18-20 and below, Chapter IV, Section 2,B,1,a. For this
reason
statements such as that of Kennedy (Samuel, CentB, 95): "Samuel divests
himself
of his authority as Yahweh's representative in the theocracy, reserving
only
the privilege of being his people's intercessor" do not do justice to the
continuing
role of Samuel in the national life.
140. That the good and the right way
(hrwyhv hbvFh jrdb ) is the way of
covenantal
obedience is clear from comparison of this expression with Deut. 6:18
and
12:28 (see also I Kings 8:36). Samuel is here carrying on with one of the
most
important functions which Yahweh had previously entrusted to Moses (see
Ex.
24:12). See further Chapter IV, Section 2,B,1,b,3.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 59
significance
to Saul. While from this time on Saul would
assume
a position of leadership in the nation, particularly in
political
and military matters, his actions would remain sub-
ject
to review by Samuel, who would not hesitate to rebuke
him
should his actions be in violation of the revealed will of
Yahweh,
the description of the responsibilities of the king
drawn
up at Mizpah previously (I Sam. 10:25), or of cove-
nantal
law generally.
More importantly, however, Samuel's continuing
activity
establishes
the pattern for all the future occupants of the
throne
in
to
assessment by a prophet of Yahweh.141 Samuel is here
laying
the structural foundation for the functioning of the
theocracy
in the new era of the monarchy which was now
beginning;
and in so doing he is seeking to insure covenantal
continuity
through a time of transition and into the new
epoch.
I Sam. 12:24. Only fear142
Yahweh, and serve him faithfully with all
your
heart, for consider what great things he has done143 for you.
Speaking to the people, Samuel now
describes how they
may
walk, "in the good and the right way" (v. 23b). Much as
Joshua
had done previously at the covenant renewal cere-
mony
at Shechem (Josh. 24:2-14a), Samuel frames the es-
sence
of the people's covenant obligation in words demand-
ing
complete loyalty to Yahweh out of gratitude for the great
things
which he has done for them.144 The great things to
141. E. F. Campbell ("Sovereign
God," McCormick Quarterly 20
[1967]
182)
comments that the role of the prophet in
no
man is king in
side
with the office of kingship which will never let the king forget who is really
sovereign
in
142. GK §75oo.
143. The Hebrew expression here is
difficult. Perhaps this is an elliptic
formulation: lydigGhi rw,xE
vyWAfEma txe
cf. Eccl. 2:4.
144. To fear. Yahweh, and serve him
faithfully with all your heart is to live
in
obedience to the covenantal obligations (see n. 102 above). Oosterhoff's
comment
(De Vreze des Heren in het Oude Testament,
43) that "to fear" Yahweh
in
I Sam. 12:24 has particular reference to, "de cultische dienst van Jahwe
in
60 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
which
he refers are all the manifestations throughout the
centuries
of Yahweh's care for his people which Samuel has
summarized
previously (vv. 8 ff.), but they also include the
more
recent manifestations of Yahweh's care for his people
such
as the victory over the Ammonites (I Sam. 11:13), the
giving
of a king to the people in spite of the sinfulness of
their
request (I Sam. 12:13), and the sending of the thunder
storm
as a sign of Yahweh's concern for the condition of his
people
(I Sam. 12:16, lvdgh rbdh-tx). Yahweh has
been
faithful
to his people; their obligation is total loyalty to him
in
gratitude for his great and gracious acts on their behalf.
I Sam. 12:25. (But) if you
on the contrary do evil, both you and your
king
will be swept away.145
Samuel concludes by warning the people
that persistent
rejection
of Yahweh will ultimately lead to the destruction of
the
nation. Previously (vv. 17, 19, 20) Samuel focused on the
evil
(hfr
) of seeking a king, which betrayed
of
the kingship of Yahweh (v. 12). Now a king has been given
to
the nation with Yahweh's sanction (v. 13); but his role is
to
be that of an instrument of the rule of Yahweh (v. 14, see
also
10:25). Should the nation or the king now persist in
covenant
breaking conduct, then they will bring upon them-
selves
their own destruction.146
tegenstelling
met de verering der afgoden" is too restrictive in this context.
Lindhagen
(The Servant Motif in the Old Testament,
158) notes that "the
fear-serve
combination is associated with ideas like hearkening to the voice of
Yahweh
[Dt 13:5(4), I S 12:14; cf. Ecclus 2:15], not being rebellious [I S
12:14],
cleaving to Yahweh [Dt 10:20, 13:5(4)], being followers of Yahweh [Dt
13:5(4),
I S 12:14] , walking in his ways [Dt 10:12; cf. Dt 8:6, Is 63:17, Ps
128:1,
Pr 14:2], keeping his commandments and statutes [Dt 10:12f; cf. Dt
5:29(26),
6:2,24, 8:6, 17:19, 28:58 (tvWfl rmw ), 31:12 (do.), Ps 19:10, 112:1,
Ecclus
23:27 and the explanation jyhlxm txryv in 'the law of
Holiness' Lev
19:14,
32, 25:17,36,43. Cf also 2 K 17:34] , swearing by his name [Dt 6:13,
10:20]."
145. hps, Niphal (which
is also used in I Sam. 26:10; 27:1) appears in the
Pentateuch
only in Gen. 19:15, 17; Num. 16:16. In Deuteronomy only the Hiphil
is
used (Deut. 32:23, in the sense of "heap up"). Similar expressions
occur
frequently
in Deuteronomy but using forms of dbx or dmw.
146. The alternation of promise and
warning as found here is characteristic
of
the exhortations of Deuteronomy (see, e.g., Deut. 28 and 29).
II.
TRANSLATION
AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-15
I Sam. 11:14. And Samuel
said unto the people, "Come, let us go to
Gilgal
and renew the kingdom there."
After the great victory over the
Ammonites (I Sam. 11:
1-13)
which demonstrated to the people not only that Saul
was
competent to lead them in battle, but more importantly
that
Yahweh was willing to bring victory to the Israelites
through
Saul's leadership,1 Samuel called for the people to
assemble
in Gilgal to renew the kingdom.
By far the most significant phrase in
I Samuel 11:14 is
the
expression "renew the kingdom." The question of how
this
expression is to be understood is inseparably tied to the
question
of how one interprets the relationship between the
event
here referred to and those which precede and immedi-
ately
follow in the sequence of events associated with Saul's
being
made king in Israel.2
Currently the most common approach to
the phrase is to
1. In I Sam. 11:13 Saul says that
"Yahweh has worked salvation (hvhy-hWf
hfvwt) in
opposed
Saul's selection to be king at Mizpah, and who then asked, "How is this
man
going to save us?" (hz vnfwy-hm, I Sam. 10:27;
cf. also I Sam. 11:12). The
important
point being made is that it is not merely this man who delivered
but
that the promise of Deut. 20:4 ("For Yahweh your God goes with you to
fight
for you against your enemies to save you" [fywvhl] is still
operative. Even
though
Yahweh
is being replaced, but that he will continue to lead
sometimes
through the instrumentality of the human king, and sometimes
through
the extraordinary utilization of psychological and natural forces. The
victory
of the Israelites over the Ammonites is thus to be seen as an additional
confirmation
that Yahweh had chosen Saul to be king.
2. For the literary critical
background to this problem see below, Chap-
ter
III, Section 1, and Chapter V, Section 1.
61
62 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
view
it as a "harmonizing redactional insertion."3 This view
transcends
many of the differences in approach to the liter-
ary
analysis of I Samuel 8-12,4 and its advocates regard the
expression
"renew the kingdom" as an ineffectual editorial
attempt
to arrange I Samuel 10:17 ff. and I Samuel 11:15
(which
are viewed as two separate and conflicting traditions
of
the establishment of the monarchy) as sequential rather
than
juxtaposed parallel accounts.
Those who do not view the phrase
"renew the kingdom"
as
a harmonizing redactional insertion generally interpret wdH
(renew)
as inaugurate,5 confirm,6 or celebrate.7 The
Gilgal
3. B. C. Birch, (The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The
Growth and
Development of I
Sam. 7-15
[unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
1970]
101), says, "Most scholars have regarded this verse as the clearest
evidence
of
redactional activity in this chapter and there would seem to be little reason
for
challenging
this conclusion." Note, for example, the following expressions of this
viewpoint:
Ackroyd, (The First Book of Samuel,
CNEB, 92), writes, "The text
represents
an attempt at harmonizing the various divergent statements about the
origins
of the monarchy." N. K. Gottwald, "The Book of Samuel," Encyclopedia
Judaica (
only
imperfectly dealt with by the harmonizing reference 'Let us go to Gilgal and
there
renew the kingdom' (11:14)." Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 94: "The final
compiler
sees this account as a continuation of the earlier ones. This may explain
the
word 'renew'; originally it will have been no 'renewal,' but an institution of
the
kingship. We are also able to see in the sequel that here an editorial hand has
tried
to represent things as a succession rather than a juxtaposition of
accounts."
See
also the similar viewpoints of: Weiser, Samuel,
FRLANT, 78; Stoebe, Das
erste Buch
Samuelis,
KAT, 229; Smith, Samuel, ICC, 80.
Many more commen-
taries
as well as introductions could be cited which represent this viewpoint.
4. See below, Chapter III, Section
1,B, and Chapter V, Section 1.
5. J. Schelhaas, "De instelling
van het koningschap en de troonbestijging van
6. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuel, COT, 242; Th. C. Vriezen, "De
Compositie
van de Samuel-Boeken," in Orientalia
Neerlandica (
181;
Leimbach, Samuel, HSchAT, 55; 0.
Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sam-
uelisbücher (
7. A. H. Edelkoort, De Profeet Samuel (Baarn: 1953) 149.
Others with this
same
general viewpoint propose the emendation of wdH to wdq (consecrate).
See,
e.g.:
Ehrlich, Randglossen, III, 205, 206;
and K-H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der
Altorientalischen
Königsideologie im Alten Testament (VTS, VIII; Leiden 1961)
142,
n. 1. While this approach avoids the questionable interpretations of wdH as
inaugurate,
confirm, or celebrate (see below), it suffers from a complete lack of
textual
evidence. A. Schulz (Die Bücher Samuel,
EH, 163) correctly rejects the
emendation
approach saying, "Das ist aber nicht angangig, weil der Text sicher
ist."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 63
assembly
of I Samuel 11:14, 15 is then viewed as an addition-
al
step in the process of establishing Saul's kingship, rather
than
a conflicting parallel account to I Samuel 10:17-27. In
this
category of approach some8 would view I Samuel 11:14,
15
as a military recognition of the previous civilian acclama-
tion
of Saul as king at Mizpah.9 In this case, the "renewal of
the
kingdom" would be interpreted as the formal acceptance
of
Saul as military chief by the army. Unfortunately, how-
ever,
there is no firm basis in the language of the text for
viewing
the action at Gilgal as confined to the military.10
8. A. R.
Hulst (I en II Samuel, Commentaar op de
Heilige Schrift, ed. J.
A.
van
der Hake [
zijn
eerste krijgsdaad heeft hij getoond ook in feite koning te kunnen zijn;
vandaar,
dat het leger (de heirban) hem ook voor de toekomst als koning,
bevelhebber,
aanvaardt." De Groot (I Samuel,
TeU, 122, 123) says, "Als wij de
uitdrukking
'het geheele volk' mogen opvatten als beteekenende ‘alle soldaten’—
en
dit is o.i. zeer wel geoorloofd—, dan hebben we hier geen plomp duplicaat van
het
verhaal in 10:17w. (zelfs den meest onnoozelen redactor zouden we daartoe
niet
in staat mogen achten), doch moeten we hierin zien een voortzetting en wel
speciaal
de militaire erkenning van de kroningsplechtigheid te Hammispa (hoofd-
stuk
10)." De Groot's point regarding the redactor is well made, but his
interpre-
tation
of "renew" as a military recognition is questionable. Koolhaas (Theocratie
en Monarchie, 66) expresses a
similar view and says, "No het verslaan der
Ammonieten
wordt in Gilgal het koningschap vernieuwd. Deze samenkomst
gezien
worden als een voortzetting van de plechtigheid te Mizpa, waar het yolk
Saul,
na zijn verkiezing tot koning, erkende en huldigde. In Gilgal riep de heerban
hem
tot koning uit en bekrachtigde zo de koningskeuze."
9. Here the position of M. Buber (VT 6 [1956] 155, 156) can also be
mentioned.
Buber takes the position that the opposition to Saul's selection as
king
as expressed in I Sam. 10:27 was not merely that of a few detractors, but to
the
contrary represented the great majority of the people, while those who
acclaimed
Saul were only a small group whose "hearts God had touched" (v. 26).
He
thus feels it is appropriate to speak of "renewing" Saul's kingdom in
I Sam.
11:14.
This interpretation, however, does not give adequate recognition to I Sam.
10:24.
10. In I Sam. 11:14 and 15a
"the people" (Mfh) are called to Gilgal to
"renew
the kingdom" and "make Saul king before Yahweh." In verse 15b
"all the
men
of
"all
These terms in themselves are
indecisive in regard to whether or not they are
intended
to have military significance, since all three are used elsewhere with
either
civilian or military connotation depending on their context.
Three things, however, should be
noted. First, there is no terminology that is
clearly
military in vv. 14 and 15 such as, e.g., the terms "men of war" ywnx
hmHlmh) or "warriors" (xbc
CvlH).
Second, the term "the people" is also used in
I
Sam. 10:24, 25 without military connotation. When Saul had been chosen by
64 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
Furthermore,
one can raise serious questions as to whether
the
translations "inaugurate," "confirm," and
"celebrate" do
justice
to the meaning of wdH.11
In the places where wdH occurs in the
OT it consistently
presupposes
as an object something that already exists which
is
to be renewed or made anew.12 The verb occurs nine times
in
the Piel. In four of these occurrences it expresses the idea
of
repairing a material object which is in a state of deteriora-
tion
(Isa. 61:4; II Chron. 15:8; 24:4, 12). Among the five
other
occurrences there is a poetical usage in Psalm 104:30
where
God's creative power is referred to as renewing the
face
of the earth (apparently with reference to springtime);
and
then four instances where the object to be renewed is
something
non-material (I Sam. 11:14; Ps. 51:12[10]; Job
10:17;
Lam. 5:21). Thus in all of its occurrences wdH speaks
of
the restoration or repair of something that already exists,
be
that a material or immaterial entity,13 but which in some
sense
is in a condition of deterioration.14
lot,
"the people" shouted and
said, "Long live the king!" (v. 24). Samuel then
told
"the people" the manner of
the kingdom and sent "the people"
to their
houses
(v. 25). In I Sam. 12:6, 19, 20, 22 "the
people" (Mfh) are again referred to
without
any indication of military connotation. In I Sam. 11 term "the
people"
(Mfh)
is used with two different senses. In vv. 4, 5, 7, 12 it would appear
to
refer to the general populace, while in v. 11 it appears to have military
significance.
The important thing, however, for the question under consideration
is
that the expression "the people"
is used in I Sam. 10 when Saul was chosen by
lot
to be king, and also in I Sam. 11:14, 15 when the kingdom was to be renewed,
with
no clear indication in the context that a distinction between a civilian and a
military
recognition is intended as the distinguishing difference between the two
ceremonies.
Thirdly, the phrase, "the men of
it
has no military connotation and where it is used interchangeably with "the
people" (vv. 7,
10) and "the elders of
therefore,
not a clear reference to the military.
11. Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 223) comments, "wdHn darf
weder
geändert (Ehrlich wdqn, . . .) noch durch erleichternde Übersetzung
be-
seitigt
werden (Dhorme, Inaugurer'; Klostermann, 'ein Volksfest feiern')."
12. KBL, s.v.; BDB, s.v.
13. M. Buber (VT 6 [1956] 155) in his discussion of the word under
consideration
says that renew means, "die Stärke, Konsistenz and Gültigkeit von
etwas
wiederherstellen." He rejects the translations of Wiesmann and Dhorme
(inaugurieren)
as well as that of Leimbach (bestatigen).
14. It appears, however, that wdH, is used in a
more relative sense in Job
10:17.
As J. H. Kroeze (Het Boek Job [COT;
Kampen: 1961] 142 comments:
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 65
If then the kingdom is to be renewed
at Gilgal this means
that
something which was already established, but which
subsequently
had deteriorated, needed to be restored to the
position
of strength and validity which was proper to it. One
might
ask why Saul's kingdom would need restoration so
soon
after his selection at Mizpah. What had occurred in the
intervening
time to necessitate a renewal at Gilgal? Goslinga
is
of the opinion that it didn't need to be "renewed" and says
that
there is, "geen grond in de tekst en evenmin in de
historische
situatie" for such a conception.15 He then cites
with
favor the views of Leimbach (bestätigen), Wiesmann and
Dhorme
(inaugurieren), and concludes that what was done at
Gilgal
was that Saul was "confirmed" (bevestigd) as king.16
As was noted above, however, such a
translation of wdH
has
little support from its usage elsewhere.17 The translation
"Wat
Job vreest en verwacht dat God zal doen, wordt in dit vs. vermeld: U zult
uw
getuigen tegen mij vernieuwen, d.w.z. nieuwe getuigen laten verschijnen. Die
getuigen
zijn z'n lijden en rampen als bewijzen van zijn schuld, 16:8."
15. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuel, COT, 242.
16. In his conclusion on this matter
Goslinga (ibid.) also cites with favor
both
Koolhaas (Theocratie en Monarchic)
and J. H. Kroeze (Koning Saul
[Potchefstroom:
1962]). Goslinga comments, "Hetgeen men te Gilgal gedaan
heeft
was niet een plompe herhaling maar wel een bekrachtiging (vgl. Koolhaas,
blz. 66) van de koningskeuze te Mispa." He then quotes
Kroeze and says, "Nu
Saul
getoond had wat hij waard was, had de huldiging te Gilgal ook meer waarde
en dieper zin dan die te Mispa, 10:24." For the view of
Koolhaas, however, see
above,
n. 8.
The position of Kroeze is more
general. He sees no need to view 10:17 and
11:14,
15 as a doublet, and he says (ibid., 49, 50) that the word "renew,"
"toon
duidelik
aan dat die ‘Gilgal-verhaal’ die `Mispa-verhaal' veronderstel." Thus Saul
was
chosen king at Mizpah: "Tog het daar te Mispa, vergeleke by Gilgal, iets
ontbreek.
Dit was meer iets van psigologiese aard. Daar was geen merkbare
verandering
van situasie nie. Elkeen het na sy huis gegaan, Saul inkluis. Was
nou
regtig 'n koninkryk?" But this is changed after the events of chapter 11.
The
king
had acted in his role, "Daarom gaan die yolk nou na Gilgal om Saul daar
voor
die
aangesig van die HERE koning te maak; nie weer deur verkiesing of enige
andere
formele handeling nie, maar deur hulde-betoon,
deur erkenning van sy
dade.
Die nuwe instelling, die koningskap, het, om so te se, in twee etappes tot
stand
gekom."
As will appear below I am in general
agreement with much of what Goslinga,
Koolhaas,
and Kroeze write, but in my opinion as long as they continue to apply
trm
to the
17. Bernhardt (Königsideologie, 142, n. 1) comments that with this inter-
66 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
of
the NEB, "renew our allegiance
to the kingdom" suggests
a
better alternative. Strictly speaking it was not the kingdom
which
had deteriorated and needed renewal, but rather the
recognition
of the kingdom by the people. Yet even with the
introduction
of this distinction, both Goslinga's suggestion
and
that of the translation of the
with
the difficulty of explaining the relationship between this
renewal
of allegiance to the kingdom and the statement in
verse
15 that at Gilgal all the people "made Saul king before
Yahweh."
How could Saul's kingdom be renewed (i.e., alle-
giance
to it be renewed), if he had not yet been officially
inaugurated
(to be distinguished from his having been select-
ed
to be king at Mizpah) and therefore had not yet assumed
his
royal functions and begun his reign?18 It would appear
that
the renewal of the kingdom referred to in I Samuel
11:14
must be regarded as distinct from the inauguration of
Saul
(I Sam. 11:15), even though his inauguration was enact-
ed
as an important subsidiary action of the Gilgal assembly.19
pretation,
"man allerdings in V. 14 statt wdHn mit Kittel wdqn lesen müsste."
Yet
as
was also noted above, this emendation has no textual support.
18. Note the comment of G. Wallis (Geschichte und Überlieferung
[Arbeiten
zur Theologie 11/13;
kann
man nur, was in der Substanz vorhanden, vielleicht überholt oder hinfällig
geworden
ist. Betrachten wir aber das gesamte Kap. 11, so sehen wir in Saul einen
Bauernsohn,
von Jahwes Geist ergriffen, handeln, aber keinen, der schon zuvor
König
war.... Ein Aufruf zur Erneuerung setzt aber die Bekanntschaft des
Volkes
mit dem Konigtum voraus. Aber davon lässt der Erzahler wiederum gar
nichts
erkennen." The conclusion which Wallis draws from this is quite different
than
ours (see below, Chapter III, Section 1,B,1,a,5), yet the point which he
makes
here certainly has merit.
19. See, H. Wildberger, "Samuel
und die Entstehung des israelitischen
Königtums,"
ThZ 13 (1957) 442-469. Wildberger
(449) says, "Wenn V. 14 vom
Erneuern
(chaddei) des Königtums spricht, so steht das mit V. 15, wo ja nicht von
seiner
Erneuerung, sondern der Neuerrichtung gesprochen wird, im Widerspruch."
Wilderberger's
conclusion is that vv. 12-14 are a redactional insertion to link
chapter
11 with chapter 10 (see below, Chapter III, Section 1,B,1,a,4). Note also
Birch's
comment (The Rise of the Israelite
Monarchy, 93): "It has long been
recognized
that the exhortation of Samuel 'to renew the kingdom' Mw
wdHn
hkvlmh at Gilgal stands in
contradiction to vs. 15 which indicates that it was on
this
occasion at Gilgal that Saul was actually 'made king' lvxw-tx
Mw vklmyv
by
the
people. This discrepancy must be taken into account in any attempt to treat
the
development of I Sam. 7-12."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 67
The central issue here revolves around
the question of
what
the term "kingdom" refers to in I Samuel 11:14. Does
it
refer to the
reference
to something more fundamental, namely the king-
dom of Yahweh? Considering
the ramifications of the total
historical
situation depicted in I Samuel 8-12, it is certainly
clear
that renewed recognition of the
was
in order. Had not the people already expressed their
disdain
for the kingship of Yahweh by their request for a
king
to rule over them "as the nations" round about? Was
there
not the implicit danger that with the establishment of
the
kingship of Saul, the recognition of the continuing rule of
Yahweh
over his people would become eclipsed in the new
order
of
The pivotal question which runs
through the narratives in
I
Samuel 8-12 is that of how the monarchy was to be
integrated
with the already existing rule of Yahweh over
Samuel
to give them a king "like all the nations" (I Sam.
8:5),
Samuel discerned that the type of kingship which they
were
requesting was such that it would exclude the continued
recognition
of the kingship of Yahweh over his people (cf.
I
Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12, 17). To this, Samuel expressed his
opposition.21
Yet in the sequence of events described in
I
Samuel 8-12 it becomes clear that a human kingship inte-
grated
with the kingship of Yahweh in a manner that would
not
detract from Yahweh's rule over his people but rather be
an
instrument of that rule was Yahweh's intention for his
people,
and that which Samuel led in establishing (cf. I Sam.
8:22;
9:16, 17; 10:1, 24, 25; 12:13-15, 20).
It may be objected that to interpret hkvlmh in I Samuel
20. Cf. D. J. McCarthy, "The
Inauguration of Monarchy in
(1973)
401-412.
21. Samuel's attitude toward
kingship is not properly characterized as
anti-monarchial.
His opposition was to the kind of kingship desired and the
reasons
for which it was requested.
68 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
11:14
as a reference to the
to
the immediate context, since jlm is used with
reference to
Saul
in I Samuel 11:12, 15 and I Samuel 12:1, 2. Yet it
should
be noticed that the preceding statement of Saul in
verse
13 makes the explicit assertion that the deliverance
from
the Ammonite threat was the work of Yahweh,22 and
while
it is true that the jlm terminology in the immediate
context
refers to Saul, it must also be recognized that jlm
terminology
is applied to Yahweh several times in the larger
context
(I Sam. 8:7; 12:12; cf. also 10:19), and the con-
tinued
recognition of the kingship of Yahweh is the primary
issue
in the narratives of I Samuel 8-12. In this regard it is
certainly
also of significance that it is not the kingship of
Saul
which is the central focus of the proceedings of the
Gilgal
assembly as that assembly is described in I Samuel 12,
but
rather renewed allegiance to the kingship of Yahweh, at
the
time of the establishment of the kingship of Saul.23 Saul's
name
is not once mentioned in chapter 12, and he appears to
be
strangely and inexplicably in the background if the basic
purpose
of the Gilgal gathering was to renew the recognition
of
his kingship. In addition, it is extremely difficult to
satisfactorily
explain the phrase in the very next verse (I Sam.
11:15),
"they made Saul king" if the renewal of the kingdom
in
verse 14 refers to renewed recognition of Saul's already
established
kingdom.24 There are then, strong contextual
arguments
for interpreting hkvlmh in verse 14 as Yahweh's
kingdom,
in spite of the references to the kingship of Saul
immediately
preceding and following.
22.
This demonstrated Yahweh's sanction of the choice of Saul to be king,
but
at the same time it also demonstrated Saul's realization that he was merely an
instrument
in the accomplishment of
stood,
was to be regarded as a work of Yahweh.
23. Notice particularly the formulation
of the covenant conditional in
I
Sam. 12:14-15, where at the climax of Samuel's discourse before the Gilgal
assembly,
the challenge to the people is presented in the terminology of renewed
allegiance
to Yahweh as king. See above, Chapter I, 41-47. For the relationship
between
I Sam. 11:14-15 and I Sam. 12 see below, Chapter III, Section 2,A.
24. See below.
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 11:14-15 69
This interpretation, however, also
raises the vexing ques-
tion
of whether or not Yahweh's relationship to his people,
conceived
as that of a king to his kingdom, was an early or
late
conception in ancient Israel.25 Many have maintained
25. On this issue see particularly
M. Buber, Kingship of God (
19673)
in which he has argued that
as
that of the relationship of a people to her king from the very inception of her
existence
as a nation when a "kingly covenant" was concluded at Sinai after
Yahweh
had delivered his people out of the
provoked
an extensive debate after its original publication in 1932. In the
prefaces
to the 2nd and 3rd editions of his book Buber interacts with many
criticisms
of his position in a manner which is helpful in bringing into focus the
issues
involved.
For a contrasting position see: A.
Alt, "Gedanken uber das Königtum
Jahwes,"
Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des
Volkes
345-357.
Alt (345) maintains that the paucity of references to the kingdom of
God
in the earlier writings of the OT is very much against the idea "dass man
die
Vorstellung
vom Königtum Jahwes für eine Urgegebenheit der israelitischen
Religion
halten dürfte, die ihr von jeher zu ihrem Selbstverständnis unentbehrlich
gewesen
wäre." Nevertheless, Alt does conclude that the kingship of Yahweh
over
a
circle of subordinate divine beings (cf. his discussion of I Kings 22:19 ff.;
Gen.
3:22;
11:7) was an idea present in pre-monarchic
relationship
to the idea of a monarchistic order in the world of the gods which
was
extant among neighboring peoples.
For the viewpoint of G. Fohrer see: History of Israelite Religion (
1972)
166. Fohrer comments: "Although the earliest explicit literary evidence
(Isa.
6:5; cf. Num. 23:21 [E] ) dates only from the eighth century, the use of the
title
'king' for Yahweh is undoubtedly earlier and represents a Canaanite heri-
tage."
In this way Fohrer adopts a nuanced standpoint with its attendant
advantages
and disadvantages.
G. von Rad (jl,m, and tUkl;ma in the
OT," TDNT, I, 565-571) while
noting that
the
application of the term jlm to the Godhead is common to all the
ancient Orient,
says
(568) that: "In
precision.
As is only natural, references are first found only after the rise of the
empirical
monarchy; Nu. 23:21; Dt. 33:5; 1K. 22:19 and Is. 6:5 are among the
earliest."
He notes further (570): ". . . Yahweh is never called melek prior to the
monarchy.
There is certainly no exegetical basis in the text for regarding the
Sinaitic
covenant as a royal covenant."
Koolhaas, (Theocratic en Monarchie, 23-37) gives careful consideration to
this
question, including various facets of the "Buber debate" and
concludes (ibid.,
133),
"The idea of the royal power of Yahweh did not arise after the empirical
kingship
had come into existence, but we may assume with sufficient certainty
that
the nucleus of it existed among the Israelites after Yahweh's revelation at
mount
Sinai." See also John Bright, The
Kingdom of God (New York: 1953) 19,
where
he comments, "in the heritage of Moses himself, we shall find the begin-
nings
of her [
up
along the way by cultural borrowing, nor was it the creation of the monarchy
and
its institutions, nor yet the outgrowth of the frustration of national
ambition,
however
much all of these factors may have colored it. On the contrary it is
70
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 11:14-15
that
it was a late conception derived from the already exist-
ing
human institution of kingship. Even if this were correct,
it
is difficult to deny that I Samuel 8-12, as they lie before
us,
present the idea that the maintenance of the kingship of
Yahweh
was the central issue at the establishment of the
human
kingship. Even if the statements of I Samuel 8:7;
12:12
do not derive from the time of Samuel, they can still
be
of importance for the exegesis of I Samuel 11:14 (see also
below).
This, however, is not to deny that the
question of
whether
the idea of Yahweh as king over
is
of great significance for the exegesis of I Samuel 11:14,
and
for the subject of our study in general. It should be
noted
that while it is true that the Hebrew root jlm is not
frequently
utilized either as a title for Yahweh or for the
characterization
of his rule over his people in OT passages
dealing
with the period from the exodus to the establishment
of
the monarchy, nevertheless, it does occur, and not only in
passages
which are often regarded as "late."26
Because of the importance of this
issue in this connection
linked
with
in
turn was woven into the texture of her faith from the beginning." He says
(ibid.,
28) further, "The Exodus was the act of a God who chose for himself a
people
that they might choose him. The covenant concluded at Sinai could, then,
be
understood in Hebrew theology only as a response to grace. . . . The notion of
a people of God
called to live under the rule of God, begins just here, and with it
the notion of
the
der
Bezeichnung Jahwehs als Konig," in Wellhausen Festschrift (BZAW 27;
J.
Gray, "The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God: Its Origin and
Development,"
VT 6 (1956) 268-285; L. Rost, "Konigsherrschaft
Jahwes in
vorkbniglicher
Zeit?" TLZ 85 (1960) 722-723; W.
Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in
19662)
80-97; J. A. Soggin, "jlm," THAT, I (Munchen: 1971) 908-920, esp.
914
f.
26. Buber (Kingship of God, 36) says, "For the assertion that it is
certain
that
JHWH, before the period of the kings, is not designated as melekh, no proof
has
up to now been offered either by von Rad or by any one else." See also Th.
C.
Vriezen,
The Religion of Ancient
says
(160): "One can fully accept, therefore, from a historical standpoint,
that
such
a mentality should stipulate Yahweh's sole right to the kingly title and could
reject
the earthly status of a king (Judg. 8:22 f. and 9:8 ff.)."
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 11:14-15 71
we
will look briefly at the passages involved, noting particu-
larly
the evidence for an early date for this material.
The noun jlm occurs in the
Hebrew Bible prior to I Sam-
uel
11:14 as a designation of Yahweh in Numbers 23:21 and
Deuteronomy
33:5.27
The first of these occurrences is
contained in the second
discourse
of Balaam the Mesopotamian diviner who was hired
by
the Moabite king Balak to curse
could
only speak that which Yahweh put in his mouth (Num.
23:26),
and instead of cursing
and
good things which Yahweh would give to them. In
Numbers
23:21 he says that, "The shout for a king is among
them."
The context makes it clear that the reference is not to
a
human king but to Yahweh himself. The preceding phrase
says
that "Yahweh his God is with them," and the following
phrase
states that, "God brings them out of
Yahweh
their king who led
who
gave
He
is the one who has promised to give them the land of
Yahweh
to be in the camp of
The unity and authenticity of the
Balaam narrative has
been
defended by numerous scholars in the tradition of
conservative
biblical scholarship.28 The advocates of the doc-
umentary
theory of the origin of the Pentateuch have cus-
tomarily
divided the Balaam narrative (in a variety of differ-
ent
ways) into J, E, JE, and P components thus assigning the
27. The noun occurs elsewhere as a
designation of Yahweh in: I Sam. 12:12;
Isa.
6:5; 33:22; 41:21; 43:15; 44:6; Jer. 8:19; 10:7, 10; 46:18; 48:15; 51:57;
Mic.
2:13; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9, 16, 17; Mal. 1:14; Ps. 5:3(2); 10:16; 24:7, 8,
9,
10; 29:10; 44:5(4); 47:3(2), 7(6), 8(7); 48:3(2); 68:25(24); 74:12; 84:4(3);
95:3;
98:6; 99:4; 145:1; 149:2; Dan. 4:34(37); cf., Eissfeldt, ZAW 46 (1928) 89.
28. See, e.g.: G. Ch. Aalders, Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek (Kampen:
1952)
147; E. J. Young, An Introduction to the
Old Testament (
19642)
84-93; W. H. Gispen, Het Boek Numeri
II (COT: Kampen: 1964) 66-72,
110-112;
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old
Testament (
1969)
614-634.
72 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
material
to various times long after the Mosaic era.29 There is,
however,
a tendency in recent years even among certain
advocates
of the documentary theory to recognize the an-
tiquity
of much of the material in the Balaam narratives,30
and
particularly to make a distinction between the oracles,
which
are regarded as old, and the narrative framework which
is
often considered to be of later origin. W. F. Albright in his
study
of the Balaam oracles concluded that Balaam was a
genuine
historical personality and that, "we may also infer
that
the Oracles preserved in Numbers 23-24 were attributed
to
him from a date as early as the twelfth century, and that
there
is no reason why they may not be authentic, or may
not
at least reflect the atmosphere of his age."31
In the introduction (Deut. 33:1-5) to
the blessings
which
Moses pronounced on the tribes of
fore
his death, he speaks of Yahweh's kingship over his
people
which was exhibited in the giving of the covenantal
law
by Yahweh at Sinai ("And he was king [jlm]32
in
29. See the survey of positions
given by Gispen, Het Boek Numeri,
COT,
II,
66-69.
30. M. Noth, e.g., (Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri [ATD .11; Göttingen:
1966]
13, 163 considers the Balaam narrative to be composed of J and E strands,
but
finds it quite difficult to divide the material between the two sources. He
comments
(13), however, that, "die ‘alten Quellen,’ soweit sie im 4. Mosebuch zu
Worte
kommen, auf Behr fruhe Traditionen zurückgehen, die anfangs mündlich
weitergegeben
worden waren, ehe sie in die Erzahlungswerke J and
fanden,
ist nich zu bezweifeln. Das gelt für ... die Bileamgeschichte in Kap.
22-24.
. . ."
31. W. F. Albright, "The
Oracles of Balaam," JBL 63
(1944) 233. See
Gispen
(Het Boek Numeri, COT, II, 112) for
an analysis of Albright's translation
of
Num. 23:21.
32. That jlm is here used as
a designation of Yahweh is made clear in the
context
and is interpreted in that way by most commentators. See, e.g., the
comments
of S. R. Driver (A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Deuter-
onomy [ICC;
Edinburgh: 1901' ] 394); J. Ridderbos (Het
Boek Deuteronomium,
II
[KV; Kampen: 1964' ] 124); and M. H. Segal (The
Pentateuch. Its Composi-
tion and Its
Authorship and Other Biblical Studies [
G.
von Rad (Deuteronomy. A Commentary [
writes:
"Probably the sentence is to be applied to the rise of the earthly kingdom
in
convincing.
Thus his statement: "Elsewhere the conception of Yahweh as king is
understood
to be confined to a kingdom over the gods and the nations . . ." is, as
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 73
Jeshurun,33
When the heads of the people were gathered,
The
tribes of
kingship
over his people is closely tied to the establishment
of
the covenant at Sinai.34
The Mosaic origin of this chapter has
had many defend-
ers.35
We do not know if Moses put the material in written
form
himself (cf. Deut. 33:1) but the chapter is represented
as
containing his own words. Those who deny a Mosaic origin
for
Deuteronomy 33 are divided over its date,36 but as with
the
Balaam oracles there is increasing recognition of its an-
tiquity
among critical scholars.37
Verbal forms of jlm as a predicate
of Yahweh in the
Hebrew
Bible prior to I Samuel 11:14 occur in Exodus 15:18
a
generalization, certainly incorrect. A view similar to von Rad's is advocated
by
0.
Eissfeldt (ZAW 46 [1928] 98-99).
33. A title for
in
Deut. 32:15; 33:26 and Isa. 44:2.
34. M. Kline (Treaty of the Great King. The Covenant Structure of Deuter-
onomy: Studies
and Commentary
[
Yahweh's
earthly representative, Moses gave his covenant with its kingdom
promises
to
kingship
over
35. See, e.g.: J. Ridderbos (Het Boek Deuteronomium, I [KV; Kampen:
19632]
29); idem, Deuteronomium, II, 120-122)
and Young, Introduction, 104.
Segal
(The Pentateuch, 99-102) comments
that, "its [The Blessing of Moses]
ascription
in the heading to Moses immediately before his death is much more
plausible
than the imaginary and contradictory dates assigned to it by its modern
critical
interpreters" (102).
is
no warrant whatever for assigning the blessing to some date within the period
of
the
divided monarchy, as Riehm, Stade, and other earlier critics did."
36. Driver (Deuteronomy, ICC, 387) dates the chapter shortly after the
rupture
of the kingdom under Jereboam I or in the middle of the reign of
Jereboam
II (c. 780 B.C.). Both 0. Eissfeldt (The
Old Testament. An Introduc-
tion [
Formation and
Development
[
certainty
can be had for the date of the chapter but they regard certain unspeci-
fied
parts of it to be "old" without indicating more precisely how old
that might
be.
37. See the discussion of M. Cross
and D. N. Freedman, "The Blessing of
Moses,"
JBL 67 (1948) 191-210; cf. also the
comments of Albright, "The Old
Testament
and the Archaeology of the Ancient East," in OTMS, ed. H. H. Rowley
(
Poetry,"
TB 20 (1969) 76-94.
74 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
and
I Samuel 8:7.38 In Exodus 15:18 jlmy hvhy is found in
the
climactic phrase of the song sung by Moses and the
people
of
tians
at the
root
jlm
in connection with Yahweh in the Old Testament.
This
text is only of secondary importance for us, because
here
Yahweh's kingship over
tioned.
Nevertheless, this text also deserves our attention. It
is
in this connection certainly not without significance that
already
in ancient times Yahweh's kingship in general was
spoken
of. And perhaps it is significant that this expression is
associated
with
the
establishment of her nationhood under the rule of Yah-
weh
at Sinai.39
Although this song has been given a
late date by many
scholars,40
some of the more recent studies of its vocabulary,
38. Verbal forms of jlm as a predicate
of Yahweh also occur in Isa. 24:23;
52:7;
Ezek. 20:33; Mic. 4:7; Ps. 47:9; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; 146:10; I Chron.
16:31; 96:10); cf. Eissfeldt, ZAW 46 (1928) 90.
39. See the illuminating discussion
of M. Kline (The Structure of Biblical
Authority [Grand Rapids:
1972] 76-88) in which he draws attention to the
theme
of divine triumph and house-building in the book of Exodus. The exodus
victory
of Yahweh issued in Yahweh's house building which was of two kinds:
first,
the structuring of the people Israel into the formally organized "house of
Israel,"
a living habitation of Yahweh, and second, the constructing of the more
literal
house of Yahweh, the tabernacle. Kline points out (81) that this idea of,
"victorious
kingship followed by palace-building is discovered as a thematic
pattern
within the briefer unity of the Song of Triumph at the sea (Exod.
15:1-18)...."
40. See, e.g.: R. H. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament [New
York:
1941]
281) who dates the poem to the 2nd half of the 5th century B.C., and
terms
it a "homiletic and devout paraphrase of Miriam's Song by a 'pseudo-
poet.'
" A. Weiser (The Old Testament: Its
Formation and Development, 106) is
uncertain
of the date of the song, but considers it as certain that it was composed
after
the time of David and Solomon. G. Fohrer (Überlieferung
and Geschichte
des Exodus: eine Analyse von Ex 1-15 [BZAW 91; Berlin: 1964] 112, 115) gives
it
a late pre-exilic date while J. P. Hyatt (Commentary
on Exodus [NCB; London:
1971]
163) suggests the 7th century. Although it is now generally agreed that Ex.
15:1-18
is not to be considered as belonging to any of the JED or P strands of the
Pentateuch,
no alternative consensus on the date or manner of its origin has been
achieved.
The view that the song was used as a liturgy in a Jerusalem enthrone-
ment
festival as advocated by A. Bentzen (Introduction
to the Old Testament
[Copenhagen:
1952] I, 143) and others has influenced their opinion of its date.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 75
poetic
form and general content have yielded firm evidence
for
its unity and antiquity,41 including the statement in
verse
18 that, "Yahweh shall reign for ever and ever" (It
should
be noted, however, in this connection that some
authors
do not hereby have in mind specifically a reigning
over
The date of the use of jlm to designate
Yahweh in
I
Samuel 8:7 is normally regarded as closely connected with
the
date of similar statements in I Samuel 10:19 and 12:12.
The
three passages in which these statements are found are
See,
however, the comments of W. H. Gispen (Het
Boek Exodus, I [KV; Kampen:
19643]
160) in opposition to this view.
41. See particularly F. M. Cross,
and D. N. Freedman, "The Song of
Miriam,"
JNES 14 (1955) 237-250. Cross and
Freedman emphasize that the poem
does
not find its origin in the late cultus and they assert that its metrical style
and
strophic
structure precisely fit the pattern of old Canaanite and early Hebrew
poetry.
They say further (237, 238) that, "the repetitive parallelism, mixed
meter,
and the complex makeup of the strophes suggest an early date of composi-
tion.
At the same time, the unity of the pattern and the symmetry of the strophic
structure
indicate that the poem is substantially a single, unified composition."
While
not fixing a precise date for the poem they conclude (240) that the poem,
"is
scarcely later than the twelfth century in its original form." W. F.
Albright
(Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [New York:
1969] 12) says that, "The oldest
Israelite
poetry of any length, judging from stylistic indication, confirmed by
content,
is the song of Miriam, which I should date in the thirteenth century B.C.,
preferably
in the first quarter." See also M. H. Segal, (The Pentateuch, 38, 39) for
a
similar position.
42. Cross and Freedman (JNES 14 [1955] 250) comment, "The
kingship of
the
gods is a common theme in early Mesopotamian and Canaanite epics. The
common
scholarly position that the concept of Yahweh as reigning or king is a
relatively
late development in Israelite thought seems untenable in the light of
this,
and is directly contradicted by the evidence of the early Israelite poems; cf.
Num 23:21; Deut 33:5; Ps 68:25; Ps 24:9." F. C.
Fensham (Exodus [POT;
Nijkerk:
1970] 86) who also dates the song between the 13th and 11th centuries
B.C.
says of verse 18, "Het is beslist onnodig deze woorden to beschouwen als
een
exilische
of postexilische toevoeging, omdat de idee van het eeuwige koningschap
van
YHWH eerst in de dagen van de tweede Jesaja volop uitgesproken zou zijn.
Reeds
in oudhebreeuwse gedichten als Deuteronomium 32 (vs. 5) Psalm 68
(vs. 25) en Numeri 23 (vs. 21) treffen wij deze gedachte
aan. Overigens
wordt al
heel
vroeg in de kanaanitische wereld het koningschap van een bepaalde
eeuwig
gekwalificeerd.. .." A similar position is adopted by J. Muilenburg
("A
Liturgy
on the Triumphs of Yahweh," in Studia
Biblica et Semitica [jubileum-
bundel
Th. C. Vriezen; Wageningen: 1966] 233-251, especially, 249, 250) who
says
that the closing celebration of the kingship of Yahweh is not necessarily late;
"it
may well have been the central affirmation in the credo of the early tribal
federations
(Num 23:31; Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12)."
76 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
frequently
considered to compose the "late anti-monarchial
source"
which is detected by many critical scholars in I Sam-
uel
8-12. It is our contention, however, that the jlm termi-
nology
of I Samuel 8:7 and 12:12 is closely related to Sam-
uel's
invitation in I Samuel 11:14 for all the people to come
to
Gilgal to "renew the kingdom" (hkvlmh ). Moreover,
the
late
date of all this material as well as its anti-monarchial
character
are being increasingly called in question in many of
the
more recent studies of its interpretation and literary
origins.43
The abstract nouns tvklm, hkvlm, hklmm are used in
reference
to Yahweh prior to I Samuel 11:14 only in Exodus
19:6
(hklmm).44
In this passage commentators are sharply
divided
over both the meaning of the phrase Mynhk hklmm45
as
well as its date.46 As can be seen from the discussion by B.
S.
Childs,47 the critical theories which have been advanced to
explain
the composition of Exodus 19 are notoriously com-
plex,
and no consensus has been reached. It is our position,
however,
that this passage also is to be understood as evi-
dence
for the existence of the idea of Yahweh's kingship over
43. See further below, Chapter V.
44. Other places in which tvklm is used with
reference to Yahweh are: Ps.
103:19;
145:11, 12, 13; Dan. 3:33 (4:3); 4:22, 29, 31 (4:25, 32, 34); 5:21; 6:27;
I
Chron. 17:14; 28:5; II Chron. 13:8. hkvlm used in: Ps.
22:29; Obad. 21.
is
used in I Chron. 29:11; cf. Eissfeldt, ZAW 46 (1928) 91.
45. For discussion of various
interpretations of the phrase see esp.: R. B. Y.
Scott,
"A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix 6)," OTS, VIII (1950) 213-219; W. L.
Moran,
"A Kingdom of Priests," in The
Bible in Current Catholic Thought, ed. J.
L.
McKenzie (New York: 1962) 7-20; G. Fohrer, " ‘Priesterliches Konigtum,’
Ex.
19,6,"
ThZ 19 (1963) 359-362.
46. For a good summary of various
positions on the date of Ex. 19:3b-8
see:
B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus. A
Critical Theological Commentary
(Philadelphia:
1974) 344-351, 360-361. Positions ranging from the Mosaic era to
exilic
times have been advocated.
47. Ibid. It would take us beyond
the scope of our thesis to discuss here the
details
of the various critical theories. Childs comments (344): "The extreme
difficulty
of analyzing the Sinai pericope has long been felt. In spite of almost a
century
of close, critical work many of the major problems have resisted a
satisfactory
solution." Child's own conclusion concerning Ex. 19:3b-8 is (361):
"In
sum, although the passage contains old covenant traditions, probably re-
flected
through the E source, its present form bears the stamp of the Deutero-
nomic
redactor."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 77
his
people in pre-monarchial times, and for the close linkage
of
the ideas of covenant and kingship.48 The Israelites as
subjects
of the
task
among the nations.49
Also indicative of the early existence
of the idea of the
kingship
of Yahweh are certain Hebrew personal names in-
cluding
Elimelech,50 Abimelech,51 and Melchishua (see above,
the
remarks on Yahweh's kingship in general in the discussion
of
Exodus 15:18). The most important of these for the
purposes
of our discussion is Melchishua (I Sam. 14:49; 31:2;
I
Chron. 8:33; 9:34; 10:2) who was one of the sons of Saul.
In
most cases Hebrew names utilizing the root jlm:
are
considered theoforic that is, names which include a title
48. For a more detailed development
of this position see:
Origins and
History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (
Although
Beyerlin regards Ex. 19:3b-8 as an Elohistic tradition, he nevertheless
places
its roots in pre-monarchic times and comments (74): "Exod xix. 3b-8, the
kernel
of which goes back to
early
evidence of Yahweh's kingship...." Such a position, in our view, is to be
preferred
over that of M. Noth (Exodus. A
Commentary [
157)
who says: "There is no particular emphasis on the word 'kingdom' in this
expression;
it may be understood to mean 'state' in just the same way as the
nations
on the earth are usually organized into states.
49. Note the comment of W. H. Gispen
(Het Boek Exodus [KV; Kampen:
19512]
II, 54): "En Hij legt den nadruk op Israls heerlijke bestemming en dure
verplichting:
konninkrijk van priesters (de dienst, dien het voor den HERE moest
verrichten
als onderdanen van zijn rijk, is dus van priesterlijken aard) en een heilig,
afgezonderd,
rein, aan God gewijd, Gode toebehorend, yolk moeten zij zijn (vs
6a)."
50. Cf. Ruth 1:2. The name means,
God is King. Cf. M. Noth, Die
itisc hen
Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung
(BWANT
III/10; Stuttgart: 1928) 70, 90-99, 141-142; B. J. Oosterhoff,
ietische
Persoonsnamen
(Exegetica 1/4:Delft: 1953) 9, 28, 36, 55.
51. Cf. Judg 8:31. The name means,
Father is King, but as Oosterhoff (Het
Koningschap Gods
in de Psalmen
[Alphen: 1956] 26, n. 7) comments, "Evenals
in
de andere eigennamen in de Bijbel, die samengesteld zijn met ab, is ook in de
naam
Abimelech ab een aanduiding voor God. . . . De opmerking van Kittel, dat
uit
de naam Abimelech blijkt, dat Gideon wel het koningschap heeft aanvaard en
dat
de mededeling van de Bijbel, dat Gideon het koningschap niet heeft aanvaard
het
gevolg is van een latere wijziging, is er dan ook geheel naast, R. Kittel,
Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, II, 1925, bl. 31, aant. 2."
For the use of bx and Hx as theoforic
elements in Hebrew personal names
see:
Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen,
66-82; Oosterhoff, Israelietische
Persoonsnamen, 28-31; Bright,
History of
78 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
or
name of God in their construction.52 The meaning of
Melchishua
is thus "the king-Yahweh has delivered."53 By
giving
his son this name, Saul is testifying in a forceful way to
his
belief that King-Yahweh is the deliverer of his people.54
Here
then is an important indication that precisely at the
time
of the establishment of the earthly kingship in
the
recognition of the kingship of Yahweh was extant, and
confessed
by Saul who became
52. For the use of jlm as a theoforic
element in Hebrew personal names see:
Noth,
Die israelitischen Personennamen,
118-119; Oosterhoff, Israelietische Per-
soonsnamen, 26-28.
53. Noth (Die israelitischen Personennamen, 147) says: "Eine grosse
Reihe
von
Namen bringt eine Beziehung zur Gottheit oder eine Seite des gottlichen
Wesens
zum Ausdruck, die geeignet ist, das Vertrauen des Menschen zur Gottheit
zu
erwecken und zu starken. Wir werden sie daher am besten Vertrauensnarnen
nennen."
Noth includes Melchishua among this category of names. With regard to
the
etymology of fvw Noth (ibid., 154, n. 2) comments,
"Man pflegt dieses
Element
mit dem hebräischen faOw=edel, freigebig zusammenzubringen (vgl.
Gray
S.
146 f.; König, Wörterbuch), doch liegt es näher, an eine
Nebenform vom
Stamme
fwy
zu denken (so richtig Hommel, Altisr. überl. S. 52 u. ö.; Zimmern
KAT3
S. 481 Anm 4), denn auch die Wurzel fvw=freigebig sein
tritt im Arab-
ischen
als ws’ auf, und fvw =helfen haben wir im Hebraischen noch
in hfvwt
(vgl.
hxvkt hmvry hkywt u.a.) und in
Pi.=Hilfe schreien." See also
ietische
Persoonsnamen,
35, 40. Oosterhoff comments, "Vele zijn de namen, die
ons
melden, dat God een helper is. Helpen behoort tot het wezen van God (Ps
33:10;
70:6; 115:9; 146:5). Abiezer: Wader is een hulp’; Ahiezer: 'Broeder is een
hulp';
Ongeveer dezelfde betekenis hebben de namen Abisua: Wader heeft
verlost';
Elisua: 'God heeft verlost'; Malkisua: 'De Koning heeft verlost'; Jozua:
‘De
HERE heeft verlost.’ De afgekorte naam is Sua."
54. It is striking that Saul's
statement after the victory over the Ammonites
(I
Sam. 11:13) expresses the very idea which is incorporated in the name given to
his
son Melchishua. On that occasion Saul said that none of those who had
opposed
his selection to be king should be put to death, "for today Yahweh has
accomplished
deliverance in
55. Cf. further: A. H. Edelkoort, De Christus-verwachting in het Oude
Testament (Wageningen:
1941) 49-107, esp. 51-55; Koolhaas, Theocratie
en
Monarchie, 24-31;
Oosterhoff, Het Koningschap Gods in de
Psalmen, 4-5; D. H.
Odendaal,
The Eschatological Expectation of Isaiah
40-66 With Special Reference
to
G. Fohrer (History of Israelite Religion, 166-167), who considers the
application
of the title "king" to Yahweh to be closely related to the bringing
of
the
ark to
the
time of Solomon, and therefore a development subsequent to the establish-
ment
of the Israelite monarchy, makes the rather unconvincing statement with
respect
to the name Melchishua that: "such official use [of the title
"king" for
Yahweh]
does not exclude the possibility that the title was used earlier and
elsewhere
as a more or less private form (I Sam. 14:49)." Eissfeldt (ZAW 46
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 79
It
should also be said that the hesitation to utilize jlm
terminology
for Yahweh in the narratives of the history of
early
attempt
to avoid the potential for confusing
ship
to Yahweh with the mythological divine-kingship ideolo-
gies
of various ancient near eastern peoples.56 In any case the
[1928]
89, 104), who considers Isa. 6:5 as the oldest biblical text which speaks
of
the kingship of Yahweh concludes that names such as Elimelech, Abimelech,
and
Melchishua, although theoforic names, must not have originally had reference
to
Yahweh. He says: "Die noch in anderem Zusammenhang zu wertende
Tatsache,
dass der deutlich auf Jahwe das Prädikat j`l,m,; anwendende
Personenname
Uhy.Kil;ma (Jer 38:6) erst
seit der Zeit Jeremias nachweisbar ist, rechtfertigt den
Verdacht,
dass in den genannten Namen unter ursprünglich nicht Jahwe,
sondern
ein anderer Gott zu verstehen ist." This argument is also hardly convinc-
ing
particularly with regard to Melchishua (cf. I Sam. 11:13).
56. Koolhaas (Theocratie en Monarchie, 24) says, "Maar daar Jahwes ko-
ningsheerschappij
zo geheel anders was dan die van de andere goden en daar de titel
mlk bij goden en
koningen gevuld was met een geheel andere inhoud en door
heidense
mythologieen belast, had Oud-Israel in bepaalde tijden een afkeer om
deze
naam voor Jahwe te gebruiken en bezigde men andere uitdrukkingen om
Jahwes
heerschappij aan te geven.... Het ontbreken van deze titel houdt echter
niet
in dat de gedachte, die later door deze titel tot uitdrukking werd gebracht,
niet
aanwezig was.... Het getuigt juist van een uiterst fijn aanvoelen van deze
heerschappij
van Jahwe dat men besefte dat, daar deze titel bij andere volken zo
anders
gevuld was, het gevaar bestond dat
de
heerschappij van Jahwe ook zou vullen met een inhoud die in strijd was met de
openbaring
van Jahwe."
Buber (Kingship of God, 37-38) also noting that this terminology is not
widely
used, points out that it is found, "only in passages where it appears to
be
representatively
important, even indispensable. The four passages of the Penta-
teuch
... which I treat in the seventh chapter, emphatically have such a focal
significance.
After the successful liberation the people proclaim its king (Exodus
15:18);
the King establishes His constituency with the marking out of His 'kingly
domain'
(Exodus 19:6); the mantic representative of universal man bows before
the
divine kingship in
before
he blesses the people at parting, with the last words before the beginning
of
the blessing, the hour at Sinai when over the united tribes 'a king there was
in
Jeshurun'
(Deuteronomy 33:5). One might investigate whether the designation
melekh in any of the
four passages was dispensable, but also whether it was
indispensable
in any other passages beside these four. Those responsible for the
textual
selection preserved what had to be preserved, no less, but also no more. In
the
book of Judges which swarms with melekhs (cf. the second chapter), in the
decisive
passage 8:22 ff., the application of the word, noun or verb, to JHWH is
carefully
avoided. Here it can be avoided because it is not yet a matter of the
historical
fact of the Israelitish kingship with which the divine kingship is to be
confronted
in the same linguistic expression, but only the first unrealized striving
after
it. It can no longer be avoided in the confrontation with the historically
realized
kingship: I Samuel 8:7; 12:12, 14.... Because here the vocable melekh is
80 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
absence
of a particular terminological label does not neces-
sarily
mean that the reality of the function legitimately
associated
with that label might not be operative.57 Thus in
spite
of the paucity of references to Yahweh as king in the
parts
of the OT dealing with early
same
parts nevertheless portray
Yahweh,
and particularly in the realms of law and warfare
represent
Yahweh as king over his people.58
In fact, it is precisely the early
Israelite conception of the
rather
amazing fact of the relatively late origin of the mon-
archy
in the history of the Israelite socio-political structure.60
Out of what we have argued above it is
also clear that in
ancient
dom
of Yahweh and the covenant, see especially Exodus
19:6;
Deuteronomy 33:5. It was in the Sinaitic covenant that
Yahweh's
rule over his people was formally structured, and it
was
in the covenant ratification that Yahweh's kingdom was
given
for the human ruler, it must, in the confrontation, be applied to the divine
ruler
also."
57. Note the similar debate
occasioned by the infrequent use of the word
covenant
by the prophets before Jeremiah. See further Chapter IV, n. 41.
58. For the development of this
basic thesis see A. E. Glock, "Early Israel as
the
Tenth
Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (
Mendenhall's
work see particularly Chapter I, "Early Israel as the Kingdom of
Yahweh:
Thesis and Methods."
59. The idea of
ized
by the term "theocracy." For discussion of this term see: Buber, Kingship of
God, 23, 24, 56-58,
93, 139-162; Koolhaas, Theocratie en
Monarchie, 28; and
Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, 199,
200.
60. Koolhaas (Theocratie en Monarchie, 53, 54) discusses various explana-
tions
which have been advanced for the late rise of the monarchy in
geographical
factors or bondage to customs of the nomadic times, and concludes:
"Al
kunnen deze bovengenoemde feiten, historisch gezien, zeker als argumenten
gelden
voor het late opkomen van het koningschap in Israël, toch is dit niet de
zienswijze
van het Oude Testament, dat het late opkomen niet als een historische,
maar
als een principiele kwestie ziet.
eigendom
to zijn, waarover Hij zelf koning was en in welks midden Hij woonde,
waarvan
de ark als zijn troon het teken was. Het feit dat
Israël zo lange tijd zonder
menselijke
koning leefde, komt vooral voort uit het koningschap van Jahwe."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 81
formally
constituted.61 It is accordingly the allegiance to this
kingdom,
and hence this covenant, which now at the time of
the
institution of the monarchy was in urgent need of re-
newal.
Here then (I Sam. 11:14), is one of
those moments in
which,
to borrow Buber's expression, the jlm terminology is
"indispensable."62
Precisely because the
being
formally established, the
be
forgotten. The introduction of the monarchy in
required
that it be understood within the framework of the
provisions
of the Sinaitic covenant so that the continued rule
of
Yahweh in the new political order would be recognized. In
addition,
because of the people's sin in seeking a human king
to
replace Yahweh, there was also the necessity that formal
confession
of their apostasy be made, and that they renew
their
allegiance to Yahweh in the context of the introduction
of
the new civil order.
All of these considerations indicate
that we should under-
stand
Samuel's summons to the people to meet at Gilgal "to
renew
the kingdom" as a summons for them to renew their
allegiance
to the rule of Yahweh. The Gilgal assembly was
thus
not simply a duplication of that which had occurred
previously
at Mizpah, nor the recognition by the military of
61. There is the possibility here of
distinguishing between two OT concep-
tions
of the "
Testaments [
called
the
designates
the rule of God established through creation and extending through
providence
over the universe. This is not a specifically redemptive Kingdom idea,
cf.
Psa. 103:19. Besides this, however, there is a specifically-redemptive Kingdom,
usually
called 'the theocracy.' The first explicit reference to the redemptive
Kingdom
appears at the time of the exodus, Ex 19:6, where Jehovah promises the
people,
that if obeying His law, they shall be made to Him 'a Kingdom of
priests.'
It is in this latter sense that we speak of Yahweh's kingdom being
constituted
at Sinai. See also Oehler, Theology of
the Old Testament, 199, 200. It
is
not necessary here to discuss further the questions which are raised by this
distinction.
62. Buber does not include I Sam.
11:14 in the list of passages where he
finds
jlm
terminology utilized for the rule of Yahweh (see n. 51 above). His
argument,
however, can be appropriately applied to this verse.
82 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
Saul's
authority, nor even merely the inauguration or celebra-
tion
of Saul's kingship (although this was a subsidiary and
contributing
cause for the calling of the assembly, cf. v. 15).
It
was rather a solemn covenant renewal ceremony, in which
at
a time of important transition in leadership, and covenant
abrogation
because of apostasy, Saul was made king, in
connection
with the people's confession of sin, and renewed
recognition
of the continuing suzerainty of Yahweh the
Great
King.
It is not surprising that Samuel
selected Gilgal63 near the
held.
For it was at Gilgal that the Israelites first encamped in
the
promised land (Josh. 4:19-24); it was there that all those
who
were not circumcised during the period of the wilderness
wandering
were circumcised (Josh. 5:2-9);64 and it was there
63. The precise geographical
location of the Gilgal mentioned in I Sam.
11:14
is a matter of dispute. There are those who argue for a location near
Shechem
including: E. Sellin, Gilgal. Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichte der Einwander-
ung
Kroeze,
Koning Saul, 49; Edelkoort, De Profeet Samuel, 149; and J. H.
Kroeze,
Het Boek Jozua (COT; Kampen:
1968) 63.
Others, including the following,
favor a location near the
line,
"
estine,"
VT 6 (1956) 29-30; H.J. Kraus, Worship in
Israel (
152-154;
A. Alt, "The Formation of the
Old Testament
History and Religion (New
York: 1968) 251; Goslinga, Het Eerste
Boek Samuel, COT, 189,
241-242.
It is this latter location which is
to be preferred (see particularly the reasons
adduced
by Goslinga, 241-242) yet there is an additional question over the precise
identification
of the ancient site. Some favor chirbet
el-meflir located to the north
of
tell es sultan. See, e.g., J.
Muilenburg, "The Site of Ancient Gilgal," BASOR
140
(1955) 11-27. Others favor either chirbet
en-netheleh or a site in its near
vicinity.
See, e.g.: J. Simons, The Geographical
and Topographical Texts in the
Old Testament (
view
of the reference in Josh. 4:19 which places Gilgal east of the territory of
location
remains a matter of uncertainty.
64. C. J. Goslinga (Het Boek Jozua [KV; Kampen: 1927] 60)
interprets the
abstention
from circumcision during the wilderness period as attributable to the
brokenness
of the covenant relationship. He bases this interpretation on the
statement
in Num. 14:33 reading, "your children shall wander in the wilderness
forty
years, and bear your harlotries
..." (italics mine). Goslinga maintains that
by
the term "harlotries" the sin of apostasy or covenant breaking is
pointed to. He
says,
"Doordat het yolk niet naar Kanaan wilde, stelde het zich feitelijk buiten
het
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 83
that
the first observance of the passover was held in the land
of
Gilgal was tied historically not only
to these covenant
renewal
traditions, but also to events related to the conquest
of
the
land into the hand of the Israelites, and his faithfulness to
his
promise to lead
was
at Gilgal that twelve stones were set up to remind the
Israelites
that Yahweh had, "dried up the waters of the
(Josh.
4:23, 24). It was at Gilgal that the "captain of the host
of
Yahweh" appeared to Joshua (Josh. 5:13-15). It was at
Gilgal
that Joshua was told of the remarkable manner in
which
Yahweh would give the city of
of
the Israelites (Josh. 6). It was also from Gilgal (Josh. 10:8,
9)
that
verbond
met Jehovah, die het juist daartoe uit het diensthuis had uitgeleid. De
Heere
heft nu wel zijn verb ond met het yolk als zoodanig niet op, maar spreekt
toch
den ban uit over het uit Egypte getogen geslacht en over deszelfs kinderen,
welke
ban eerst zal worden opgeheven als het oudere geslacht geheel is vergaan.
Het
‘dragen van de hoererijen’ der vaderen, hield zonder twijfel ook in, dat de
kinderen
niet mochten besneden worden.... Ten bewijze dat de verbondsver-
houding
thans weder votkomen normaal is, laat de Heere nu diegenen die het
verbondsteeken
nog missen, besnijden. Hij neemt hen daarbij tot Zijn yolk aan in
de
plaats hunner ongehoorzame vaderen (vs 7)."
Goslinga's interpretation is
challenged by Kroeze (Jozua, COT,
65-69) who
maintains
that the abstention from circumcision was not due to a prohibition but
was
merely negligence.
While it must be admitted that there
is no specific prohibition given in
Numbers
against continuation of circumcision, it seems strange that, as Josh. 5:5
says,
"all the people who were born in
the wilderness ... had not been circum-
cised"
(italics mine), if this was simply a matter of negligence. It would seem
likely
that at least some of the people
would have continued the practice if it had
been
permissible.
Goslinga's position can be
strengthened, I believe, by notice of the expres-
sion
in Num. 14:34(33) which says that, "forty years you shall spend—a year for
each
day—paying the penalty of your iniquities. You shall know what it means to
have
me against you" (ytxvnt tx Mtfdyv:
65. Goslinga (Jozua, KV, 62) also places the observance of the passover
(which
he views as the first passover observance since the second year after the
exodus)
in the context of covenant renewal upon entering the promised land. He
says
(ibid.), "Van God zelf gaat dan ook het bevel tot besnijdenis uit. Hij
vernieuwt
aldus Zijn verb ond met
Pascha,
dat Hij zijn Bondgenoot is ook in den komenden strijd."
84 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
narrative
relates that, "Yahweh fought for
extraordinary
victory was gained (Josh. 10:14, 15). The
picture
of the conquest contained in Joshua is that it is
Yahweh
who gives
land,
and the remembrance of this is rooted more firmly in
Gilgal
than in any other single site in Canaan.66
Gilgal's unique historical
credentials, therefore, made it a
fitting
place for the convening of a covenant renewal cere-
mony
in which the issue of Yahweh's continued leadership
over
his people was the focal issue.67
I Sam. 11:15. And all the
people went to Gilgal, and there they made
Saul
king before Yahweh in Gilgal, and there they sacrificed peace
offerings
before Yahweh, and there Saul and all the men of
rejoiced
greatly.
I Samuel 11:15 is a condensed
description of what took
place
at the Gilgal assembly. The verse functions as a sort of
"lead
sentence" to the more detailed description of certain
parts
of the same ceremony which is contained in I Samuel
12:1-25.68
The primary purpose of the assembly was renewal
66. G. von Rad located what he
termed the "settlement tradition" at the
sanctuary
in Gilgal. See: G. von Rad, Das
Formgeschichtlich Problem des Hexa-
teuch (BWANT 4, Heft
26; Stuttgart: 1938). In von Rad's theory of the origin of
the
Hexateuch the Yahwist used this "settlement tradition" as the basic
core
material
to which he fused the Exodus and Sinai traditions, all of which von Rad
views
as originally distinct and independent tradition units. Building on von Rad's
approach,
but advocating a different means for the fusion of the Sinai and
Exodus-Conquest
traditions is H.J. Kraus, "Gilgal-ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte
that
the union of the traditions occurred when the Shechem cult was displaced to
Gilgal.
For a critical analysis of these
theories see, e.g., H. B. Huffmon, "The
exodus,
Sinai and the Credo," CBQ 27
(1965) 101-113. For a more general
analysis
of von Rad's approach to the historical narratives of the OT, see: B. J.
Oosterhoff,
Feit of Interpretatie (Kampen: 1967).
67. The idea that Gilgal was chosen
for this occasion because at this time
Gilgal
was the "central sanctuary" of the "amphictyonic tribal
confederation" is a
matter
of speculation for which there is no firm biblical evidence. On the question
of
whether or not it is proper to speak of the pre-monarchial period of
tribal
organization as an amphictyony, see the literature cited below, Chapter IV,
n.
37.
68. See below, Chapter III, Section
2,A and Chapter IV, Section 2,B.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 85
of
allegiance to Yahweh (v. 14). The two subsidiary actions
mentioned
in verse 15, (first the people made Saul king
before
Yahweh, and second, they sacrificed peace offerings)
correspond
to the two historical realities which called for
renewal
of allegiance to Yahweh. First, it was of great impor-
tance
that the kingship of Saul be inaugurated in the context
of
a challenge to renewed allegiance to Yahweh. And second-
ly,
covenant fellowship needed to be restored after
apostasy
in desiring a king "like all the nations" to replace
Yahweh
as the source of her national security.
The question of what is to be
understood by the phrase
the
people "made Saul king before Yahweh" is related to
one's
interpretation of what is to be understood by the
phrase
"renew the kingdom" in the preceding verse. The two
expressions
are usually regarded as nearly synonymous, with
both
referring to the kingship of Saul. The relationship of
wdH to verse 15 has already been discussed
above from the
standpoint
of the meaning of wdH.69 Here we must give
further
attention to the same question but with particular
emphasis
on the meaning of the term vklmy. If one regards
both
wdHn
and vklmy
as referring to the kingship of Saul, one
creates
the problem of how Saul's kingdom could be "re-
newed"
if he had not yet been "made king.'
In attempting to alleviate this
problem some interpreters
are
of the opinion that the phrase (. . . vklmyv) is a reference
to
a public anointing (cf. I Sam. 10:1, a private anointing) of
Saul
by Samuel at the Gilgal renewal of Saul's kingdom.71
This
interpretation assumes that Saul had actually already
been
"made king" previously in the ceremony at Mizpah
(I
Sam. 10:17 ff.), and thus his kingdom could be renewed at
Gilgal
in a ceremony of confirmation and celebration which
then
also included a public anointing. Goslinga, for example,
69. See above, pp. 62-66.
70. See above, p. 68.
71. See: Caird, IB, II, 940; and Goslinga, Het
Eerste Boek Samuel, COT,
242.
86 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
says:
"Op de vraag wat wij precies denken moeten bij de
woorden
vkylmyv enz. is wrsch. to antwoorden, dat Saul door
Samuel
gezalfd is. De LXX zegt kai e]xrisen Samouhl e]kei
ton Sauoul en het
uitvallen van het Hebr. equivalent is door
een
homoioteleuton (lvxW) zeer goed denkbaar. Voor deze
lezing
(in elk geval voor haar zakelijke inhoud) pleit zeer
sterk
dat Saul vlak daarna, 12:3, 5, maar ook later met grote
nadruk
de gezalfde van Jahwe (24:7, 26:9; II 1:16) genoemd
wordt
en dat David blijkens II 2:4, 5:3 ook publiek gezalfd
is."72
While it is true that the LXX reads, "and Samuel
anointed
Saul there to be king before Yahweh in Gilgal," it
seems
much more likely that this is the LXX's interpretation
of
vklmyv
rather than an indication that the MT has dropped
a
phrase due to homoeoteleuton." In fact, the assumption
that
a phrase is dropped due to homoeoteleuton is pure
hypothesis.74
Goslinga's point that David's anointing was
repeated
is of interest in this connection, and calls attention
to
the possibility that an anointing could be repeated under
certain
circumstances, but it certainly does not prove that
this
was necessarily the case in the instance of Saul.75
In addition it should be noted that
the expression "to
make
a king" (Hiphil forms of the verb jlm) is consistently
utilized
to designate the official inauguration of someone's
rule
as king.76 This may or may not be associated with
72. Ibid.
73. Budde (Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 76) sees this LXX interpretation as an
additional
attempt to relate this tradition of Saul's rise to the monarchy to that of
I
Sam. 10:17 ff. He says, "Die Anpassung an 10:17 ff ist auch hier in LXX
weiter
vorgeschritten
indem sie statt vklmyv bietet kai> e@xrisen Samouh<l . . . ei]j
basile<a." Others
who state a preference for the MT are: Smith, Samuel, ICC, 81;
and
Leimbach, Samuel, HSchAT, 55.
74. Notice that there is no evidence
in either the MT or LXX for supposing
the
presence of an additional mentioning of the name Saul in the original text.
75. Keil, The Books of Samuel, 113.
76. There are forty-nine occurrences
of Hiphil forms of jlm in the OT.
Among
these I Chron. 23:1; 29:22 are the only places where the term is not
clearly
a reference to the inauguration of someone's rule as king. I Chron. 23:1
says:
"when David reached old age, he made his son Solomon king (jlmyv) over
(vkylmyv) a second
time." What is the relationship between these two statements?
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 87
anointing
as a simultaneous act. The important thing is that
"to
make someone king" is to formally invest him with the
prerogatives
and responsibilities of his office.
Saul's anointing had taken place
previously (I Sam. 10:1);
subsequent
to this he was publicly designated as the one
whom
Yahweh had chosen to be king at the gathering in
Mizpah
(I Sam. 10:17-27). At this time Samuel was careful to
explain
to Saul and to the people exactly what the responsi-
bilities
and obligations of Saul as king would be (I Sam.
10:25).
All the people, with a few exceptions, rejoiced in his
selection
and said, "Long live the king!" (I Sam. 10:24), but
nowhere
is it said in the report of the Mizpah assembly that
Saul
was "made king," nor is there any indication that he
assumed
the responsibilities and prerogatives of a newly in-
stalled
king at that time.77
W.
Rudolph (Chronikbücher [HAT 1/21;
Tubingen: 1955] 194) says that the
phrase
"a second time" in I Chron. 29:22 is an "Einschub wegen 231,
dessen
Überschriftcharakter
verkarmt wurde," and is to be deleted. If this is the case then
I
Chron. 23:1 is a heading for the entire following section and it has reference
to
the
same event as does I Chron. 29:22, and therefore also refers to the inaugura-
tion
of rule. In support of Rudolph's statement it can be noted that tynw does not
appear
in LXXBA and one might suggest it has been inserted in the MT in an
at-
tempt
to harmonize I Chron. 29:22 with I Chron. 23:1. A similar position is also
advocated
by R. Kittel (Die Bücher der Chronik
[HK 1/6;
104);
J. Goettsberger (Die Bücher der Chronik
Oder Paralipomenon [HSchAT
IV/1;
1960]
125. Generally speaking we have objections to the views of Rudolph on
the
relationship of I Chron. 23 ff. and 28-29, but it is possible that his
statement
cited
above is correct.
77. It is also noteworthy in this
connection that the regular formula used to
begin
the report of a reign ("... was ... years old when he began to reign, and
he
reigned.
. . .") occurs with reference to the reign of Saul right after the report
of
the
Gilgal assembly in I Sam. 13:1, rather than after the Mizpah gathering in
Chapter
10. This favors the view that Saul's reign was initiated at Gilgal rather
than
previously at Mizpah. Although the regular formula for initiation of a reign
clearly
occurs here, the present state of the Hebrew text only enables one to
estimate
the length of Saul's reign and his age when he began to reign. The MT
reads,
"Saul was ... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years
over
both
clauses. Various conjectures have been made in attempting to reconstruct
the
original reading, but evidence is lacking for certainty. See, Driver, Notes,
96-97,
and Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis,
KAT, 242-243 where extensive
literature
is cited. K. A. Kitchen (Ancient Orient
and Old Testament [
1966]
75) notes a similar omission of the year-date in Babylonian Chronicles.
88 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
Saul's subsequent activity in the
events surrounding the
threat
of the Ammonites against the inhabitants of Jabesh-
gilead
(I Sam. 11:1-13) does not rest on public recognition of
his
kingship and royal authority, but rather leads to this
recognition
and the inauguration of his reign. For it was only
after
Yahweh confirmed Saul's selection to be king, by bring-
ing
victory to the Israelites over the Ammonites under his
leadership,
that Saul was formally invested with his kingly
office
in the Gilgal ceremony.78 This investiture was done
"before
Yahweh" indicating the sacral-cultic character of the
ceremony
in which Saul was inaugurated in the context of a
challenge
to a renewed recognition of the kingship of Yah-
weh
over his people.
It is significant that the sacrifices
which are mentioned in
connection
with the Gilgal ceremony are the Mymlw MyHbz.
The
common characteristic of this category79 of sacrifice was
that
one portion was offered to God upon the altar while the
remainder
was eaten by the one or ones offering it in a meal
which
signified the fellowship and communion of God with
his
people.
The name "peace offering"
follows the translation nor-
mally
given by the LXX (qusi<a ei]rhnikh<) and the
Vulgate
(victima
62)
for an enumeration of the translations of the LXX and
the
Vulgate. These translations reflect the view that Mymlw is
connected
with the Kal, Mlw, to be complete or be sound. In
more
recent times other suggestions have been made for the
designation
of this sacrifice including: "communion sacri-
fice,"80
and "covenant offering.81 The Hebrew word, with
78. See n. 72.
79. Lev. 7:12-17 and 22:21-23, 29-30
distinguish three different types of
this
sacrifice. For discussions of its different uses and significance, see: R.
de
Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice
(Cardiff: 1964) 27-51, especially 33;
and
Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament,
287, 288.
80. De Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 27-51.
81. J. Pedersen, Israel. Its Life and Culture III/IV
(London: 1940) 335; R.
Schmid,
Das Bundesopfer in Israel (StANT 9;
Munchen: 1964).
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 89
the
exception of Amos 5:22, is always in the plural form; this
is
explained in different ways.82
Rudolph Schmid, who has recently made
an extensive
study
of the nature, origin, and significance of the Mymlw,
maintains
that the communal meal, which is the distinguish-
ing
feature of this offering, emphasizes the relation of the
sacrifice
to the covenant. Schmid concludes his study by
saying,
"Deutlicher sprach das alttestamentliche selamim-
Opfer
den Bundesgedanken aus, das die Bundesgemeinschaft
schloss,
wiederherstellte and starkte.”83 While Schmid's
study
successfully demonstrates the close relationship of this
sacrifice
to covenant making, restoration, and strengthening
in
various contexts, his designation of the sacrifice in transla-
tion
as covenant offering may be questioned. H. H. Rowley
comments
that this term, "would seem well to define the
character
of the offerings made at the sacred mount at the
time
of the conclusion of the covenant, but less certainly to
cover
all the cases of these sacrifices."84 This caution of
Rowley's
is certainly justified,85 but at the same time it
82. De Vaux (Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 50, 51) suggests that the
name
was borrowed from the Canaanites noting that the Ras Shamra texts refer
to
the communion sacrifice as slmm. He
says that the "pseudo-plural form
selamim is explicable
on these grounds, and it can be compared to other loan-
words
in the religious vocabulary: urim,
tummim, terapim, which in their
primitive
form, are singulars with mimation." See further in relation to this
question
David Gill, "Thysia and selamim: Questions to R. Schmid's Das
Bundes-
opfer
in
[COT;
Kampen: 1950] 61-69) suggests the plural is "pluralis van het
abstractum"
(62).
83. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer, 125.
84. H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient
(
offering."
In a similar vein D. J. McCarthy in his review (CBQ 26 [1964] 503) of
Schmid's
Das Bundesopfer says: "If it is
certain that zebah selamim
was often
associated
with covenant, it is not clear that this was always and necessarily the
case
as will be seen from the very instance cited (p. 83), Ex 10, 25, as well as
from
the
sacrifice of Jethro in Ex 18, which leaves open the possibility that the rite
was
simply
a means to honor God whether there was a covenant or not."
85. A. Rainey ("Peace
offering," Encyclopedia Judaica
XIV, 603, 604)
points
out that among the events which called forth the peace offering were:
"cessation
of famine or pestilence (II Sam. 24:25), acclamation of a candidate for
kingship
(I Kings 1:9, 19), or a time of national spiritual renewal (II Chron.
90 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15
remains
apparent that the Mymlw MyHbz did have a
particular-
ly
close relationship not only to the establishment, but also
to
the maintenance and strengthening of the covenant, and
Rowley
himself summarizes their purpose by saying that,
"these
sacrifices were for the maintenance or restoration of
good
relations with God."86
The Mymlw MyHbz were an
important element in the origi-
nal
ceremony of covenant ratification at Sinai (Ex. 24:5,
11).87
On that occasion after sprinkling half of the blood of
the
sacrifice on the altar, Moses read the book of the cove-
nant
to the people, and then when the people had affirmed
their
willingness to keep the covenant obligations Moses
sprinkled
the people with the other half of the blood saying,
"Behold
the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made
with
you in accordance with all these words" (Ex. 24:8). At
the
conclusion of this ceremony the elders of
representatives
of the people, ate the covenantal meal demon-
strating
the communion of Yahweh with his people.88
This particular sacrifice was thus
part of the ceremony
establishing
the covenant relationship at Sinai, and it repre-
sented
symbolically the communion or peace that was to
exist
between Yahweh and his people when they lived in
conformity
to their covenant obligations. It is, therefore,
certainly
appropriate, and even to be expected, that at the
"renewal
of the kingdom" at Gilgal the same sacrifices were
offered
which had comprised an important element in the
original
ceremony of covenant ratification at Sinai.
Finally, it is said that Saul, and all
the men of
rejoiced
greatly. Rejoicing (Hmw) is associated with peace
29:31-36).
At the local level they were sacrificed for the annual family reunion
(I
Sam 20:6) or other festive events such as the harvesting of the firstfruits (I
Sam
9:11-13,
22-24; 16:4-5)."
86. Rowley, Worship in Ancient
COT,
61-69; J. C. de Moor, "The peace-offering in
en Uitleg 112-117.
87. See the discussion of Eichrodt
in: Theology of the Old Testament, I,
156-157.
88. Sec: Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, 264.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
11:14-15 91
offerings
in Deuteronomy 27:7, II Chronicles 29:36 (cf.
29:35),
30:25 (cf. 30:22), and with "eating before Yahweh"
in
Deuteronomy 14:26 and 27:7. HmW appears as an
activity
associated
with covenant renewal in the time of Joash
(II
Kings 11:20; cf. II Chron. 23:21), in the time of Asa
(II
Chron. 15:15), and in the time of Hezekiah (II Chron.
29:36;
cf. 29:10). Here in I Samuel 11:15 the rejoicing is to
be
understood as the expression of a people who has renewed
its
commitment to Yahweh, has confessed its sin (cf. I Sam.
12:19)
and has been given a king.
PART II
LITERARY-CRITICAL AND
GENRE-HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25
III
I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25 AS A COMPOSITE UNIT
The position which we are seeking to
develop and defend on
the
basis of exegetical, literary-critical, and genre-historical
analysis
is that I Samuel 11:14-12:25 is best understood as a
composite
unit,1 descriptive of a covenant renewal ceremony
held
in Gilgal in connection with the inauguration of kingship
in
literary
critical analysis of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 before
looking
in Chapter IV at the form-critical assessment of
I
Samuel 12 and the implications which this might have for
its
literary character and interpretation.
Section
1
A Survey of the Literary
Criticism
of I Samuel
11:14-12:25
In the survey of the literary
criticism of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
which follows, no attempt will be made to be ex-
haustive,
but the main varieties of approach which have been
followed
in the literary-critical assessment of this material
will
be indicated, and resumes of the positions of important
representatives
of the major categories of viewpoint will be
given.2
We will treat I Samuel 11:14-15 and I Samuel 12:1-25
separately,
beginning with I Samuel 12:1-25.
1. The question can be raised if the
material of this section of I Samuel was
originally
an oral unity. It would lead us too far astray here to go into the
complicated
question of the relation of oral and written traditions. Given our
view
of I Sam. 11:14-12:25 it appears improbable to us that this would have ever
existed
as an oral tradition. See Section 2,A, below.
2. As much as possible the authors
discussed in Section A have also been
discussed
in Section B. There is not complete correspondence, however, since
95
96 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit
A. I Samuel 12:1-25
The literary analysis of I Samuel 8-12
can be divided into
four
broad categories of approach.3 There is the documen-
tary-source
theory, which distinguishes two or three literary
strands
within I Samuel 8-12, basing itself largely on the
general
orientation of the various sections which are charac-
terized
either as "pro" or as "anti" monarchial. Secondly,
there
is what can be termed the "fragmentary approach"
which
finds in I Samuel 8-12 the linkage of a number of
originally
independent tradition units. More recently a third
approach
has developed which combines elements of the
"documentary"
and "fragmentary" viewpoints by finding the
present
narrative to be the end result of a process of growth
in
which originally independent traditions became linked into
clusters,
and the clusters in turn became fused into the
present
narrative so that various stages of tradition growth
are
represented in the final product. And fourthly, there are
those
who regard I Samuel 8-12 as the work of a historian
who
utilized the materials at his disposal to construct a
reliable
historical record of the rise of the Israelite monarchy
and
its attendant ci:rcumstances.4
I Samuel 12:1-25 has presented
particular difficulty for
the
advocates of ail the above mentioned approaches to the
material
in I Samuel 8-12. The result is that scholars who
otherwise
are in general agreement in their basic approach to
some
authors have not discussed both sections in detail, and in some instances
have
said little or nothing about one of the sections. Notice, e.g., that Buber is
discussed
in Section A and not in Section B, and Wildberger is discussed in
Section
B but not in Section A.
3. See further below, Chapter V,
Section 1.
4. This classification has its
deficiencies. At least the later advocates of the
documentary-source
theory and the fragmentary approach have also engaged in
traditions-history
research, sometimes rather extensively. It is therefore, some-
times
also difficult to determine in which category a specific author should be
discussed
(see Chapter V, n. 2). Particularly the line between the third and the
fourth
category is not to be drawn too rigidly. The distinction between these
categories
is that those in the fourth category lay more emphasis on the work of
the
final historian (what those of the third category might designate as the final
redactor),
they regard his sources as closer in time to the events which they
describe,
and in connection with this are more inclined to view chapters 8-12 as a
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 97
the
literary criticism of I Samuel 8-12 have often differed in
their
analysis of I Samuel 12, while contrarily, scholars who
hold
quite divergent views about the literary character of
I
Samuel 8-12 as a whole are in many instances in close
agreement
in their assessment of I Samuel 12. For this reason
we
will organize our survey of the literary criticism of I Sam-
uel
12 differently than our discussion of the literary criticism
of
I Samuel 8-12 as a whole (see Chapter V, Section 1).5 For
the
present our interest focuses primarily on the degree and
kind
of literary unity or disunity which is ascribed to I Sam-
uel
12, separating this as much as is possible from other
considerations.
We will reserve for Chapter IV, Section 2,B
and
Chapter V the discussion of questions related to the
process
or means by which I Samuel 12 has been given its
present
form, and its relationship to other pericopes in I Sam-
uel
8-12.6 In this way it is possible to classify the approaches
to
the composition of I Samuel, 12 in three general cate-
gories:
1) the chapter represents an original unity; 2) the
chapter
represents an original unity modified by varying
degrees
of redactional reworking and supplementation; 3) the
chapter
represents a composite-construction of originally dis-
parate
materials.
fairly
continuous unity, which has, among other things, implications for their
historical
reliability.
5. This has strange results. For
example, it means that in Section 1,A
Gressmann
is handled before Budde, and it means that Wellhausen and Noth come
into
discussion in close succession. This arrangement has its disadvantages, but it
also
has the benefit that lines of approach become clear that often remain
obscured.
6. At this point it is not our primary concern to deal with questions
such as
whether
or not the chapter is a free composition of a deuteronomistic historian of
exilic
(post-exilic) time; whether or not the chapter is part of the "E
source" of
pentateuchal
criticism extended into the historical books; whether or not the
chapter
is a separate independent tradition unit or part of a larger narrative
strand;
whether or not the chapter contains a historically trustworthy report of
the
Gilgal assembly; and whether or not the chapter contains discernible evidences
of
deuteronomistic redaction; but rather with the question of the chapter's unity
or
disunity. Nevertheless, it is not possible to separate totally the question of
the
chapter's
unity from many of the above mentioned questions (this is particularly
the
case with the question of evidences of deuteronomistic redaction). These
questions
will thus be referred to here, but only in so far as they have a relation to
the
extent and nature of the chapter's unity or disunity.
98 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit
1. I Samuel 12 as an original unity.
Those who view I Samuel 12 as an
original unity may be
divided
into three categories. There are, first of all, those who
view
I Samuel 12 as all-of-a-piece, and a historically reliable
record
of the proceedings of the Gilgal assembly. According
to
this view I Samuel 12 is included in the carefully con-
structed
books of I and II Samuel along with the accounts of
many
other events surrounding the lives of Samuel, Saul, and
David,
and particularly those concerned with the foundations
of
Israelite kingship. Secondly, there are those who view
I
Samuel 12 as the composition of a "deuteronomistic his-
torian"
who (even though the record of I Samuel 12 is a
fiction)
presents a picture of the Gilgal assembly which is
internally
consistent, since it is governed in its content by the
deuteronomist's
theologically determined view of
tory.
Thirdly, there are those who view I Samuel 12 as an
independent
tradition unit which has its own unique history
of
development, but which is nevertheless an organic unit.7
a. I Samuel 12 as a reliable
historical record.
1)
Representatives of "conservative biblical scholar-
ship."—There is
a long history of what is often termed
"conservative
biblical scholarship" which has maintained the
historical
reliability and unity of I Samuel 12 as the report of
the
Gilgal assembly which marked the close of the period of
the
judges and the beginning of the period of the monarchy.8
7. These categories cannot be
rigidly applied and are utilized here primarily
as
a means of organizing the material to be considered. There is, for example,
possibility
of overlap between the first and third categories as can be seen in the
approach
of Robertson (see further below 99 ff. and 103 ff.). Generally speak-
ing,
however, those we have placed in the first category have neither emphasized
nor
attempted to reconstruct the tradition-history of the component parts of the
books
of Samuel.
8. Representatives of this approach
do not deny that the author of I and
II
Samuel utilized various sources in his composition of the book, but they view
the
work as non-contradictory in its various parts. The advocates of this approach
have
given little or no attention to the bearing which a form critical analysis
might
have
on the chapter's unity and interpretation. See further below, Chapter IV.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 99
A
recent extensive treatment of this chapter from this per-
spective
is that of C. J. Goslinga, Het Eerste
Boek Samuel,
COT,
17-60, 191, 243-252.9
2) E.
Robertson.—Although Edward Robertson's general
approach
to the literature of the Old Testament must be
distinguished
from that of the above mentioned scholars, he
nevertheless
considers I Samuel 12 to be a unity and a his-
torically
reliable account of the Gilgal assembly. In his assess-
ment
of the composition of I Samuel 1-15 he concludes that
the
attempts to divide the material into two or three docu-
mentary
sources have not been convincing, and he adopts the
view
that the book is the work of a compiler who has utilized
numerous
literary fragments, which along with his own sup-
plementa, have been
ordered into the present carefully con-
structed
book.10 He maintains, however, that the principle of
organization
is more thematic than strictly chronological so
that
in some cases stress must not be placed on the present
sequence
of events.11
Robertson divides I Samuel 1-15 into
six sections, each of
which
is either concluded or introduced by supplementa
from
the compiler's own hand. His fourth section contains
the
narratives of the establishment of Saul's kingship and is
divided
into two sub-sections, I Samuel 8:1-10:27 (supple-
menta 10:25-27), and
I Samuel 11:1-15 (supplementa 11:
14-15),
and then a conclusion to the whole of I Samuel 8-12
which
he finds in I Samuel 12:1-25.12
9. For other representatives of this
basic approach see: W. Moller, Einleitung
in das Alte
Testament (
liche Einleitung (
Aalders,
Kanoniek, 181-191; Young, Introduction, 177-187; Harrison, Introduc-
tion, 695-718.
10. E. Robertson, Samuel and Saul (reprint from BJRL 28 [19441 175-206;
11. Robertson feels, for example,
that the election of Saul by lot (I Sam.
10:17-27)
may have chronologically followed the battle recorded in I Sam.
11:1-11;
and I Sam. 8:1-6 he feels is placed before the following pericopes
because
it raises the question of kingship and thus introduces a theme, although
some
of the events related after this he regards as having occurred before the
events
of I Sam. 8:1-6.
12. Ibid., 20-22.
100 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
Robertson regards the materials used
by the compiler as
dating
from the early days of the monarchy, and he main-
tains
that they have been arranged so that they can tell their
own
story without the infusion of the compiler's own view-
point
into the early history.13 He sees the age-long struggle
for
supremacy between civil and religious power reflected in
the
tensions between Samuel and Saul.14
b.
I Samuel 12 as the composition of a "deuteronomistic
historian."
The view that I Samuel 12 is to be
considered the work
of
a deuteronomistic historian of the 6th or 5th century B.C.
has
had many adherents.
1) J.
Wellhausen.—J. Wellhausen associated I Samuel 12
with
a late deuteronomistic, anti-monarchial strand of the
book
of Samuel which he felt was also discernible in I Samuel
7:2-17;
8:1-22; and 10:17-27. He viewed this strand as his-
torically
unreliable, asserting that there, "cannot be a word
of
truth in the whole narrative,"15 and considered it as a
product
of exilic or post-exilic Judaism which had lost all
knowledge
of the real conditions behind the rise of kingship
in
into
the earlier times.16 Yet as a part of this narrative strand
Wellhausen
considered I Samuel 12 to be all-of-a-piece and an
authentic
representation of the deuteronomist's theologically
determined
anti-monarchial reconstruction of the events asso-
ciated
with the establishment of the monarchy.
2) H.
P. Smith.—Similar to the view of Wellhausen as it
pertains
to I Samuel 12 is that of H. P. Smith. Smith detects
two
strands in the narratives of I Samuel 1-15 which he
labels
as a "life of Samuel" (Sm.) and a "life of Saul" (Sl.).
13. Ibid., 5, 32.
14. Ibid., 29, 31.
15. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel
(German
original:
19056 ;
16. J. Wellhausen, ibid., 245-256;
and Die Composition des Hexateuchs and
der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments (
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 101
He
assigns chapter 12 to the "Sm." source which he says
idealizes
persons and events and is dominated by a theologi-
cal
idea which is in line with, "the latest redactor of the Book
of
Judges, who embodied the Deuteronomistic theory of
history
in the framework of that book.”17 Smith rejects the
identification
of this narrative strand with E of the Penta-
teuchal
sources saying that there are too many resemblances
to
D or the deuteronomic school, and that there is not
sufficient
evidence for identifying these resemblances as sec-
ondary
deuteronomistic expansions as had been advocated by
K.
Budde.18 With regard to stylistic features of I Samuel 12,
Smith
notes affinities of language with J, E, JE, D, and RD
and
concludes that this chapter, along with the other passages
which
he assigns to the "Sm." source, shows indications of
being
composed at a late date, perhaps during or after the
exile.
3) M.
Noth (H. J. Boecker).—M. Noth
asserts that Well-
hausen
was entirely right when he declared that on the basis
of
their language and content I Samuel 7:2-8:22; 10:17-27
and
12:1-25 belong together, are deuteronomic in character,
and
presuppose the older tradition in I Samuel 9-11.19 He
then
assigns all of these passages to the anonymous deutero-
nomistic
historian whom he views as the author-editor of all
the
material contained in Deuteronomy to II Kings.
In Noth's opinion. I Samuel 12 is
particularly significant
because
it is one of the key passages of the deuteronomist's
own
composition by which he structured his history work
and
attempted to tie together the various epochs of
history.
It is Noth's view that at important junctures in the
historical
narrative of Joshua-II Kings the deuteronomistic
historian
inserted passages containing a retrospective evalua-
tion
of what had gone before and a preview of what was to
come.
According to Noth these interpretive reflections on
17. Smith, Samuel, ICC, xx. See further, xvi-xxii and 81-89.
18. For Budde's viewpoint see below,
104 f.
19. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 54-55.
102 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
of
a leading figure in the narrative in the form of a speech.20
Noth
regards Samuel's speech in I Samuel 12 as one of these
passages,
here serving to mark the end of the period of the
judges
and the beginning of the monarchy, and expressing the
deuteronomist's
own anti-monarchial assessment of the estab-
lishment
of kingship in Israel.21 Accordingly, he considers the
chapter
a unity. He sees little evidence of redactional rework-
ing
and rejects, for example, the view that I Samuel 12:12a is
an
insertion,22 viewing it instead as evidence for the depen-
dence
of the narrative strand represented in I Samuel 7:2-
8:22;
10:17-27a; 12:1-25 on the traditions contained in
9:1-10:16;
10:27b-11:15.23
4) R.
H. Pfeiffer.—Also adhering to this general view of
(
I Samuel 12 is R. H. Pfeiffer, who, while differing from
Wellhausen,
Smith, and Noth in discerning two pre-deutero-
nomic
narrative strands in I Samuel, isolates I Samuel 12
from
both of them, maintaining that the deuteronomists who
edited
the books from Genesis to Kings added this final
address
of Samuel as their own free composition.24 He says
of
I Samuel 12 (along with I Kings 2:1-12) that, "no other
20. Ibid., 5. According to Noth such
speeches are found in Josh. 1:11-15;
Josh.
23; I Sam. 12, and I Kings 8:14-61. Where a speech could not easily be
utilized,
the deuteronomist's reflections were inserted directly in the text as for
instance
in II Kings 17:7-23.
21. Ibid., 60. Noth says that the
deuteronomist had difficulty in combining
his
negative view of kingship with the traditions possessing a more positive
attitude
toward the monarchy which he incorporated in his history work. He
nevertheless
regards this negative assessment of kingship as one of the "wesent-
lichen
Zügen seiner Gesamtgeschichtsauffassung," and he says that the deutero-
nomist
gives an account of the rise of kingship which makes it very clear that
"dieses
eine zeitlich sekundäre und seinem Wesen nach sogar unsachgemässe und
daher
grundsätzlich abzulehnende Einrichtung war ..." (ibid., 110, 95,
resp.).
Boecker in his recent work (Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des
Königtums)
adopts
Noth's position with regard to the unity of I Sam. 12. Boecker, however,
rejects
Noth's view that I Sam. 8; 10:17-27; 12:1-25 are basically anti-monarchial.
See
further below, Chapter V, Section 1,B,2.
22. See above, Chapter I, n. 86.
23. Ibid., 60. In a note Noth
comments: "Auch die Bezeichnung des neuen
Konigs
als des ‘Gesalbten Jahwes’ dürfte eine Anspielung auf 10, 1 sein."
24. Pfeiffer, Introduction, 338-373 (esp. 359-368).
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 103
passages
in our book can be attributed with equal assurance
to
the Deuteronomic school."25
c.
I Samuel 12 as an independent tradition unit.
1) H.
Gressmann.—Hugo Gressmann pioneered in the ap-
plication
of the methodology developed by Herman Gunkel
to
I and II Samuel. Following Gunkel's lead he directed his
attention
to the independent narrative units of the book,
rather
than to the documentary sources or strands of the
then
prevalent literary critical approach. In the pericopes of
I
Samuel 8-12 he found examples of sagas and legends, but
viewed
I Samuel 11 as the only "Geschichtserzählung," and
thus
the only historically reliable record of the rise of
ite
kingship. I Samuel 12 he considered as one of the later
legends
in the entire section. In Gressmann's view the repre-
sentation
in this chapter of Samuel as a judge and administra-
tor,
as well as the notion that kingship was a violation against
God
are false ideas of a later time. He regarded the chapter as
an
independent tradition unit, and maintained that the book
of
I Samuel was constructed by a late editor from many such
independent
tradition units of varying lengths.26
2) A.
Weiser. —A. Weiser also maintains that the division
of
I Samuel 8-12 into either two or three literary strands has
proven
to be an unsatisfactory solution to the problem of its
literary
origin, and adopts the view that the material is
composed
of a collection of originally independent traditions
which
arose in different places and which later were placed
side
by side and welded into the literary composition which
we
now have.27 Weiser accordingly views I Samuel 12 as a
unity
but he objects to the assignment of the chapter either
to
an E strand or to the deuteronomistic historian because in
25. Ibid., 368.
26. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung, SAT II/1, 24-47.
27. A. Weiser, The Old Testament. Its Formation and Development, 158-
170;
idem, Samuel, FRLANT, 79-94.
104 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
his
opinion neither approach has been able to solve the
difficulties
encountered in the literary analysis of the chap-
ter.
Weiser seeks the origins of I Samuel
12 in the cult tradi-
tion
of the Gilgal sanctuary which he maintains was devel-
oped
in prophetic circles which regarded Samuel as their
ancestor.
In Weiser's opinion this is the reason that the
material
of I Samuel 12 shows a relationship to the E source
which
he feels arose later in these same circles. With regard to
the
"deuteronomistic" phraseology, in the chapter which has
often
led to theories of either deuteronomistic authorship or
deuteronomistic
redaction Weiser says, "Auf die Frage nach
dem
sog. deuteronomistischen Stil in 1. Sam 12, die meist in
der
Form einer äusserlichen Wortstatistik verhandelt wird,
näher
einzugehen, versage ich mir: so lange über das Wesen,
die
Herkunft und Geschichte dieses `Stils' keine Klarheit
gewonnen
ist, kann er nicht als Beweismittel für das literar-
kritische
Problem dienen."28
2. I
Samuel 12 as an original unity modified by redactional
reworking.
The second general category of
critical approaches to
I
Samuel 12 is that of those who view the chapter as an
original
unity but think its present form evidences varying
degrees
of later redactional reworking and additions.
a. K.
Budde
K. Budde divided the pre-deuteronomic
content of I Sam-
uel
into two sources which he identified with the J and E
strands
of the Pentateuch.29 He assigned I Samuel 12 to the E
strand
and said it originally connected directly with I Samuel
28. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 85, n. 80. See also R. C. G. Thornton,
"Studies
in Samuel," CQR 168 (1967)
413-423, for a view of I Sam. 12 very
similar
to that of Weiser's.
29. K. Budde, "Sauls
Ktinigswahl und Verwerfung," ZAW
8 (1888) 223-
248;
idem, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, xii-xx,
76, 77.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 105
10:24.
He saw a parallel between I Samuel 12 and the fare-
well
address of Joshua in Joshua 24, and said that as long as
Joshua
24 in its original form is ascribed to E, I Samuel 12 in
its
original form must also be viewed as belonging to E. He
maintained,
however, that just as the deuteronomistic school
reworked
Joshua 24, so also a deuteronomistic redactor re-
peatedly
intervened in I Samuel 7; 8; 10:17 ff. and 12 even
though
his reworking and additions are not always easily and
precisely
distinguishable from the elohistic original. Neverthe-
less
Budde felt that the deuteronomist's hand could be clear-
ly
seen in the following expressions of I Samuel 12: "he sold
them
into the hand of" (v. 9); "your enemies all around"
(v.
11); "and not rebel against the command of Yahweh"
(v.
14); "and rebel against the command of Yahweh" (v. 15);
"which
you have done in the sight of Yahweh by asking for
yourselves
a king" (v. 17).30 In addition "angesichts des
ldaren
Aufbaus, den Rje in Cap. 8ff. hergestellt hat," he
considered
the association of the Ammonite threat with the
request
for a king which is contained in verse 12 as, "so
grosse
Gedankenlosigkeit, dass nicht dieser, [Rje] sondem
nur
ein Überarbeiter dafür verantwortlich gemacht werden
kann."31
He accordingly maintained that the first half of the
verse
stemmed from Rd at the earliest. Verse 21 he viewed as
belonging
to neither E nor Rd, and labeled it as a very late
gloss.32
b. S.
R. Driver
S. R. Driver viewed the
pre-deuteronomic content of
I
Samuel 8-12 as a combination of two originally indepen-
dent
narratives. The later of the two narrative strands, to
which
he assigned I Samuel 12, he regarded as akin to the E
strand
of the Pentateuch, but not actually written by the
same
hand. The combined narrative he regarded as having
30. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 77-81.
31. Ibid., 80.
32. Ibid., 81.
106 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit
been
expanded by a later writer whose style and viewpoint
were
similar to Deuteronomy and the compiler of the book
of
Judges.33 This expansion is said by Driver to be particular-
ly
noticeable in I Samuel 12:9 ff. However, he specifically
designates
only the reference of Samuel to himself in
verse
11, and the association of the Ammonite threat with
the
request for a king in verse 12, as attributable to later
expansion.34
c.
0. Eissfeldt
0. Eissfeldt views I Samuel 12 as part
of the E strand of
the
Hexateuch and the book of Judges which later underwent
a
deuteronomistic redaction. He maintains, however, that the
deuteronomistic
redaction interfered with the material only
very
slightly and he gives no indication of specific evidences
of
this in I Samuel 12.35
d. G.
B. Caird
G. B. Caird finds an early and a late
source in I Samuel
which
in his opinion show affinity with the J and E sources
of
the Pentateuch, although he considers it unlikely that they
are
direct continuations of J and E. He assigns I Samuel 12 to
his
late source. He maintains that the two sources were
united
prior to a deuteronomistic revision, but he says that
the
language of the late source is not sufficiently different
from
that of the deuteronomist for one to be confident at
any
point in distinguishing between them.36
e. M.
Buber
M. Buber views the original core of I
Samuel 12 as a
unity,
but in his detailed literary analysis of the chapter he
33. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament (New
34. Expansions manifesting
characteristically deuteronomistic style and
viewpoint
are not specified by Driver.
35. Eissfeldt, Komposition, 6-11; idem, Introduction,
262, 263, 268-280.
36. Caird, IB, II, 855-862.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 107
limits
this original material to verses 1-5 and 13-15, 24, 25.
The
remainder of the chapter he regards as produced in late
prophetic
circles through a complex process of insertions. He
says,
for example, that the "Mirakelgeschichte" (vv. 16-19)
had
nothing to do with the original account, and he views
verse
21 as an insertion within an insertion, and the only
verse
representing a post-exilic voice in the chapter.37
Buber sees verses 1-5 as the record of
Samuel's discharge
after
completion of the task which is described in I Samuel
9:16.
He suggests that the last ten words of verse 12 original-
ly
appeared between verse la and lb, and were to be under-
stood
parenthetically ("Behold I have listened to your voice
in
all that you said to me,—you said, 'No but a king shall
reign
over us,' and Yahweh your God is your king!—and I
have
made a king over you").38 He also suggests that verse
2ab
("but I am old and gray, and behold my sons are with
you")
is not likely to be original.39
Buber considers verses 13-15, 24 and
25 to be the mes-
sage
which Samuel as the prophetic representative of Yahweh
gave
to the king and the people at the beginning of Saul's
rule.
Even within these verses Buber eliminates a number of
phrases
which appear to him to be later insertions40 and
proposes
a compact original text reading as follows:
"Und nun, da ist der König,
den ihr erwünscht habt, da,
gegeben
hat JHWH über euch einen König.
Werdet ihr JHWH
fürchten
und auf seine Stimme hören, dann sollt ihr leben, so
ihr,
so der König, der nach JHWH
eurem Gott über euch
König
wurde. Werdet ihr aber nicht auf JHWHs
Stimme
hören,
dann wird JHWHs Hand wider euch und
wider euren
37.
38. Ibid., 156, 157.
39. See above, Chapter I, n. 8.
40. In v. 13 he eliminates MtdHb
rwx
(see above, Chapter I, n. 93). In v. 14
he
eliminates the phrases, "and serve him," and "and not rebel
against the
commandment
of Yahweh," and he adopts MtyHv in place of Mtyhv (see above,
Chapter
I, n. 101). In v. 24 he eliminates, "and serve him in truth with all your
heart,"
because vxry
and vxr yk
belong close together as a word-play.
108 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
König
sein. Fürchtet nur JHWH! Denn seht,
welch Grosses er
an
euch erzeigt hat! Treibt böse, böse ihr's aber, dann werdet
ihr,
so ihr, so euer König, hinweggerafft."41
f G.
Wallis
G. Wallis sees in I Samuel 8-12 three
separate accounts of
Saul's
selection to be king, recorded respectively in: a) I
Samuel
11; b) I Samuel 9:1-10:16; and c) the narrative
strand
contained in I Samuel 8; 10:17-21ba, 24-26. To ex-
plain
the differences in the accounts he chooses a different
course
than the above named authors. It is his opinion that
these
accounts originated in different times and places and
represent
the gradual development and extension of Saul's
dominions
in the consolidation of his kingship over expand-
ing
areas.42
Wallis notes that I Samuel 12 links
appropriately with
I
Samuel 10:24 and can be regarded as an extension of this
tradition,
but he rejects the view that it reflects a late
negative
assessment of kingship. He views it rather as a record
of
Samuel's retirement as a judge, in which a cool and
reserved
attitude toward the new order under the monarchy
is
expressed. He comments that kingship was a legally deter-
mined
entity in the view of the judge Samuel, and its con-
tinued
existence was to be dependent on whether or not the
people
would reject the rule of Yahweh with the accession of
their
human king.43 Wallis thus feels that the basic core of
I
Samuel 12 can be traced back to Samuel himself or at least
to
the feelings of his contemporaries. Yet he regards the
miracle
account of verses 16-23 as a secondary element which
adds
nothing to the text and is actually disturbing; he thinks
the
survey of the conquest and period of the judges (vv. 6b-
41. Ibid., 161.
42. G. Wallis, "Die Anfange des
Konigtums in
239-247,
incorporated in G. Wallis, Geschichte und
Überlieferung (Arbeiten zur
Theologie,
II/3;
43. Wallis, "Die Hoheit des Königs
im Alten Testament," Geschichte und
Überlieferung, 88-108, esp.
93-95.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 109
11)
fits poorly in the mouth of Samuel; and he considers the
connection
of the request for a king with the Ammonite war
(v.
12) to be inconsistent with I Samuel 8.44 He therefore
regards
these passages as insertions of a deuteronomistic
revision,
leaving I Samuel 12:1-6a, 13-15, 24, 25 as original.45
g. B.
C. Birch
A recent extensive treatment of the
narratives of I Sam-
uel
8-12 is found in the dissertation of B. C. Birch, The Rise
of the Israelite
Monarchy: The Growth and Development of
I Samuel 7-15 (1970). Birch
views this part of Samuel as the
end
product of a long process of tradition development, the
various
stages of which he attempts to reconstruct. He con-
cludes
that initially a large variety of traditions concerning
the
rise of kingship in
pre-deuteronomic
editor belonging to northern prophetic cir-
cles
of the late 8th century B.C. brought the traditions
together
into a single edition which also included material of
his
own composition. Subsequently the deuteronomistic his-
torian
(whom Birch dates at approximately the time of
Josiah)
incorporated the prophetic edition into his own his-
tory
work adding only a few sections including I Samuel
7:3-4,
13-14; 8:8, 10-22; 12:6-24; 13:1. Birch claims that
although
the deuteronomist had a less positive view of king-
ship
than did the prophetic editor, his view was sufficiently
close
to that of the previous edition that he allowed the
earlier
material to remain relatively unchanged.46
As can be seen from the above summary
Birch divides
I
Samuel 12 into two sections (vv. 1-5 and 6-24) which he
assigns
to different stages of the tradition growth. He views
verses
1-5 as showing likeness to the material of preceding
chapters
which he assigned to the "prophetic edition." He
44. See above, Chapter I, p. 38 ff.
45. Wallis, Geschichte and Überlieferung, 94-96. Wallis eliminates some
additional
phrases even in these verses.
46. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy, 176-211.
110 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
cites
for example the use of the title Hywm for the king in
I
Samuel 12:3, 5 which previously appears only in I Samuel
9:16
and I Samuel 10:1. According to Birch this implies a
much
more positive attitude toward the king than is to be
found
in the remainder of I Samuel 12 (vv. 6-24) where the
term
Hywm
is not utilized. In addition he sees I Samuel 12:1-5
as
the logical continuation of the concern expressed in I Sam-
uel
11:12, 13 which he views as indicative of the transfer of
certain
sacral-legal responsibilities from Samuel to the king.47
Since
I Samuel 12:1-5 shows the king now functioning in the
sacral-legal
realm (vv. 3, 5), and Samuel retiring from office,
Birch
feels that these verses are best regarded as a report
added
to the notice of the Gilgal assembly recorded in
I
Samuel 11:12-14.48
Birch then assigns I Samuel 12:6-24 to
the deuter-
onomistic
historian and regards this section of the chapter as
having
been added in a supplementary fashion after the
previous
material in I Samuel 7-11 had been brought to-
gether
in the earlier prophetic edition. In verses 6-15 Birch
sees
evidence of the influence of the covenant form to which
a
theophanic sign is attached for additional force and author-
ity.
Verses 20-25 he finds to be similar to the paranetic
sections
of Deuteronomy, but with Samuel instead of Moses
in
the role of preacher and teacher. Whether verse 25 is to be
regarded
as part of the deuteronomist's final exhortation or
as
a post-exilic addition is not clear according to Birch.49
h. N.
Gottwald
N. Gottwald views I Samuel as the
product of a deuter-
onomistic
author-editor who worked with clusters of tradi-
tion
units (rather than extant parallel documentary sources).
He
associates I Samuel 12 with what he labels the "Mizpah-
47. Ibid., 102-105. Birch derives
his view on this matter from R. Knierim
("The
Messianic Concept," in Jesus and the
Historian, F. T. Trotter, ed.).
48. Ibid., 108-113.
49. Ibid., 113-121.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 111
Ramah
story of the rise of the monarchy" (I Sam. 7:3-12;
8:1-22;
10:17 ff.; 12; 15) and concludes that the original
tradition
unit has been reworked and expanded by the
deuteronomistic
compiler, although he attributes the
tial
structure of the chapter to the original source. He main-
tains
that I Samuel 12 and II Samuel 7 display the most
extensive
rewriting or expansion by the deuteronomistic
author-editor,
although he admits that the extent of the
deuteronomist's
work may be debated. He gives no further
indication
of the specific verses or phrases within I Samuel 12
which
he would assign to the deuteronomist.50
i H.
J. Stoebe
The view of H. J. Stoebe is rather
complex. He considers
I
Samuel 12 to represent in its original core an independent
tradition
unit rather than simply the continuation of the
documentary
source of I Samuel 8 and 10:17-27. He never-
theless
considers it unlikely that the chapter is a free com-
position
of the deuteronomistic school because of the ten-
sions
in details between this chapter and those preceding it.
He
also notes, however, that when measured on likenesses,
the
chapter is not to be totally separated from I Samuel 8
and
10:17-27, and that it therefore does belong with these
traditions
to a complex entity whose central ideas are
brought
to expression by the working together of various
traditions.
Stoebe does not regard I Samuel 12 to
be anti-monarchial
and
says that the impression that it is, arises from the
50. Gottwald, Encyclopedia Judaica, XXIV, 787-797. Gottwald's view has
affinity
with the positions of Fohrer (E. Sellin—G. Fohrer, Introduction to the
Old Testament [
NCB,
18-20, 31, 107-110). Fohrer, however, ascribes a lesser role to the deutero-
nomist
than does Gottwald. Mauchline sees the origin of I Sam. 12 in a "pro-
phetic
interpretation of history"; the strongly deuteronomic character of the
chapter
causes him to date its present form at the earliest in the late seventh
century
and perhaps in the sixth century BC. He does not attempt to specify the
extent
of the deuteronomic editing, but instead refers only to marks of the
deuteronomic
style which may or may not be due to a secondary reworking.
112 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
deuteronomistic
revisions which obscure its original positive
attitude
toward kingship. The particular difficulty which
Stoebe
finds in I Samuel 12 is that here, as contrasted with
chapter
8, it is not possible to clearly separate the original
tradition
from its revisions because the original account was
characterized
by prophetical thoughts.51
3.
I Samuel 12 as a composite of disparate
material.
a.
I. Hylander attempts to reconstruct
the history of tradi-
tion
development which lies behind the present literary de-
posit
in I Samuel 1-15.52 In doing this he begins, much like
Gressmann,
by concentrating on the character of the individ-
ual
tradition units, but he differs from Gressmann in that he
attempts
to disentangle what he regards as the interlaced
threads
of the various tradition units in the final literary
composite.
This accomplished, he attempts to reconstruct
each
tradition unit into what he regards as its original form.53
Hylander finds four stages of
tradition development re-
flected
in the present narrative, with his fourth stage repre-
senting
the coalescence of traditions into the present text He
divides
the bulk of the material of I Samuel 12 between two
of
these layers, assigning I Samuel 12:1-5 to the second
layer,54
and I Samuel 12:7-25 to the third layer.55 He views
verse
6 as belonging to the first stratum; this verse, Hylander
suggests,
perhaps originally preceded I Samuel 10:25.56 The
51. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 234-240.
52. I. Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul Komplex (I Sam.
1-15) tradi-
tionsgeschichtlich
untersucht
(
53. Hylander's argumentation is
extremely complicated and at points highly
arbitrary
in its conclusions. H. W. Hertzberg in his review of Hylander's work
(TLZ 59 [1934] 226) says "Der
Rezensent muss bekennen, noch nie ein Buch zur
Besprechung
durchgearbeitet zu haben, das ihn auch nur annähernd so viel
Geduldsaufwand
gekostet hat wie dieses."
54. He views this layer as having
originated in the priestly circles at Ana-
thoth
to which Abiathar fled after being expelled by Solomon (ibid., 301).
55. Hylander views this layer as
emanating from an elohistic circle in the
time
of Jeremiah (ibid., 237, 238).
56. Ibid., 130, 131.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 113
inevitable
conclusion of this approach for I Samuel 12 is that
it
comes to be regarded as a composite of at least two
originally
separate traditions which have been fused together
by
the compiler of the book.
b. H.
Seebass
H. Seebass views I Samuel 12 as a
construction of the
deuteronomistic
historian designed to portray kingship as an
unnecessary
and superfluous institution, the establishment of
which
was motivated by the desire of
other
nations.57
Seebass suggests that the
deuteronomist utilized an old-
er
tradition in I Samuel 12:1-15, but in doing so he signifi-
cantly
altered its original sense, especially by removing a
statement
of the "law of the king" and replacing it with a
resume
of the righteous acts of Yahweh which is now con-
tained
in verses 6-12. In Seebass's opinion the original form
of
I Samuel 12:1-15 was found by the deuteronomist in a
different
setting (i.e., between vv. 24 and 25 of I Samuel 10),
and
was part of a narrative strand which was primarily
interested
in showing how the request for a king led to the
formulation
of the "law of the king" in connection with the
inauguration
of Saul.58
Seebass suggests that verses 16-25
were modeled after
I
Samuel 7:5-12 and attached to verses 1-15 by the deutero-
nomist
in order to emphasize that even though Yahweh
consented
to the establishment of kingship, the request for a
king
was a sin against Yahweh, and earthly kingship was a
heathen
institution which did not properly belong to
essence
as a nation.59
57. H. Seebass,
"Traditionsgeschichte von 1 Sam 8, 10:17 ff. und 12," ZAW
77
(1965) 286-296 (esp. 288-292). See also by the same author: "I Sam 15 als
Schlüssel
für das Verstandnis der sogenannten königsfreundlichen Reihe I Sam
9:1-10:16;
11:1-15; und 13:2-14:52," ZAW 78 (1966) 148-179; and, "Die
Vorgeschichte
der Königserhebung Sauls," ZAW 79 (1967) 155-171.
58. Seebass, ZAW 77 (1965) 288-292; ZAW 79 (1967) 170, 171.
59. Seebass, ZAW 77 (1965) 289, 292-295.
114 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
4. Provisional conclusion.
As can be seen from the above summary
of positions, the
unity
of I Samuel 12 has had many advocates, including
representatives
of widely differing approaches to the literary
criticism
of I Samuel 8-12 as a whole. Those who regard the
chapter
as containing expansions of a deuteronomistic editor
admittedly
find it difficult to distinguish the deuteronomistic
additions
from the earlier material, and the more recent
advocates
of this position have given up the attempt to
identify
precisely the alleged deuteronomistic additions.
Those
who suggest that large segments of the chapter are
secondary,
or that the chapter is composed of originally
separate
traditions engage in highly speculative reconstruc-
tions
of the text which give insufficient weight to the chap-
ter's
inner unity in its present form. We will discuss these
questions
further in Chapter IV, Section 2,B when we consid-
er
the implications which a form critical analysis of the
chapter
has for its literary unity.
B. I Samuel 11:14-15
Aside from the position which
considers I Samuel 11:14-
15
to be an original and integral part of I Samuel 11 f., and
the
beginning of the authentic record of the assembly of all
"renew
the kingdom" (regardless of how this phrase may be
interpreted),61
there is nearly a consensus among scholars
that
verse 14 represents a redactor's effort to harmonize the
contents
of verse 15 with the account of Saul's selection to
be
king by sacred lot at Mizpah contained in I Samuel
10:17
ff. Verse 15 is then generally considered to contain the
most
credible of the two (or three) versions of how Saul
became
king which are alleged to be contained in the narra-
tives
of I Samuel 8-12.
60. See, e.g., Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuel, COT, 17-60,
240-242, and
the
other authors mentioned in n. 9 above.
61. See above, Chapter II, 61 ff.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 115
The extent of the redactional
insertion is, however, a
matter
of dispute. Some investigators regard the entirety of
verses
12-14 as redactional, while others confine the redac-
tor's
work to the phrase "renew the kingdom" in verse 14.
An
alternate position is to view I Samuel 11:12-14(15) or
I
Samuel 11:14-45 as a whole to be an originally separate
tradition
which has been linked to Saul's Ammonite victory.62
1.
I Samuel 11:14 as a redactional
introduction to I Samuel
11:15.
a. Entirety of I Samuel 11:12-14 as
redactional.63
1)
J. Wellhausen.—J. Wellhausen who was the most influ-
ential
advocate of the documentary approach to I Samuel
8-12
maintained that, "the renewal of the kingdom (xi. 14),
after
a month's interval, is a transparent artifice of the author
of
viii. 10, 17 seq. to incorporate in his own narrative the
piece
which he had borrowed from some other quarter [i.e.,
11:1-11]
: the verses xi. 12-14 are due to him.”64
2) H.
P. Smith.—In a similar way H. P. Smith, who
isolated
a "Sm. source" and a "Sl. source" in I Samuel 8-12,
claims
that while not many redactional alterations were made
in
the fusing of these two documents, "the most marked is
11:12-14
where the proposition to renew the
kingdom is a
concession
to the other document.”65 He says further, "the
62. There is not necessarily a
contradiction between this position and that
of
those mentioned in n. 60 above, although none of the above mentioned
scholars
have advocated it.
63. One must remember that our
concern is with the vv. 14 and 15 and thus
we
will not enter into discussion of problems related to vv. 12 and 13. Various
authors,
as will appear, consider vv. 12-14 as redactional, constituting a bridge
between
I Sam. 10:17-27 and I Sam. 11:15. Sometimes it is not clear whether
these
authors consider these verses as pure fiction simply to form the bridge or
whether
some historical reality lies behind them. In addition it should be noted
that
the line between our categories a and b is in certain cases not to be drawn too
rigidly
(cf. Driver's view below).
64. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 250, 251. See also, idem, Composition, 241.
Here
he comments, "die Erneuerung des Konigtums v. 14 ist eine hochst durch-
sichtige
Naivitat des Verfassers von Kap. 8, 10, 17-27. Kap. 12, der auf diese
Weise
das altere Stuck Kap. 11. seiner Version einverleibte."
65. Smith, Samuel, ICC, xxii. It seems clear that Smith considers vv. 12 and
116 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
word
renew the kingdom is a palpable
allusion to the preced-
ing
account and therefore redactional.”66
Similar positions are also advocated
by Budde,67
Schulz,68
Caird,69 and Birch.70
3) H.
Gressmann. —As we noted above, Hugo Gressmann
rejects
a documentary approach to the narratives of I Samuel
8-12,
and advocates a "fragmentary approach.”71 Neverthe-
less,
his assessment of the literary character of I Samuel
11:12-14
is in basic agreement with the above mentioned
advocates
of the documentary approach. In Gressmann's view
I
Samuel 11:1-11, 15 is an independent tradition unit repre-
senting
the only "Geschichtserzählung" about the rise of the
Israelite
kingship contained in I Samuel 8-12. In its present
form
he regards it as a continuation of the story in I Samuel
9:1-10:16,
but he maintains that the two stories originally
had
nothing to do with each other.72
In Gressmann's view after the
Ammonites were punished
for
their presumption, the thankful people crowned their
conquering
leader in Gilgal. He notes that the Hebrew text of
verse
15 does not mention the participation of Samuel in the
establishment
of Saul as king, and maintains that in the
original
narrative nothing separated verses 11 and 15, so that
verses
12-14 are to be regarded as a secondary insertion.
Gressmann
says nothing further, however, concerning the
origin
of this secondary material. Concerning verse 15, and its
relation
to I Samuel 9:1-10:16 he comments: "Wäre ein
innerer
Zusammenhang vorhanden, so hätte ein Hinweis auf
die
heimliche Salbung nicht fehlen dürfen; mindestens hatte
13
also to be the redactor's attempt to tie the two sources together (cf. 10:17).
It
seems
probable that, for example, Gressmann, Bentzen, et. al. have a similar view
of
vv. 12 and 13.
66. Ibid., 80.
67. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 73, 76; and ZAW 8 (1888) 227.
68. Schulz, Samuel, EH, 176, 177.
69. Caird, IB, II, 940.
70. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy, 99-105.
71. See above, Section 1,A,1,c,1).
72. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung, SAT, II/1, 43.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 117
Samuel
den Saul krönen massen, wie die griechische Uberset-
zung
(v. 15) mit Recht empfunden, aber mit Unrecht gelesen
hat."73
4) H.
Wildberger.—In H. Wildberger's analysis74 of the
narratives
of Saul's rise to kingship, I Samuel 11 is regarded
as
a separate and reliable tradition unit, but misplaced in the
present
narrative sequence. Wildberger maintains that I Sam-
uel
11 should precede the narratives of I Samuel 8-10, and
asserts
that the victory over the Ammonites could have
occurred
years if not decennia prior to Saul's elevation to
kingship.75
According to Wirdberger I Samuel 11:1-11 pic-
tures
Saul in the likeness of the charismatic leaders of the
period
of the judges, and after his victory over the Ammon-
ites
he became an obscure farmer again. Then, when the
Philistine
crisis arose, the elders in consultation with Samuel
turned
to Saul and entrusted him with a greater task, that of
the
kingship. In order to advance this theory, Wildberger
must
propose some explanation for the material in I Samuel
11:12-15
which stands in contradiction with this picture of
the
course of events. He does this by characterizing I Samuel
11:12-14
as a redactional insertion intended to link I Samuel
11
(in its at present misplaced position) with I Samuel 10:
17
ff. especially verse 27.76 Verse 15 he regards as the contin-
uation
of the old tradition, but he theorizes that something
has
been eliminated from the original account between
verses
11 and 15 which explained the long process by which
Saul
had risen from the position of an obscure farmer to that
of
the kingship.
Wildberger's reconstruction results in
the conclusion that
although
it now appears in the text of I Samuel 11 that Saul
was
made king in Gilgal directly after the victory at Jabesh,
in
actuality there was a long interval involving other impor-
73. Ibid., cf. above, Chapter II, 85
ff.
74. Wildberger, ThZ 13 (1957) 442-469.
75. Ibid., 466, 467.
76. Ibid., 449, cf., Chapter II, n.
19.
118 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit
tant
historical developments (including the rise of the Philis-
tine
threat) between this victory and Saul's being made
king.77
5) G.
Wallis. —As we noted above G. Wallis, as many
others,
discerns three separate traditions of Saul's selection as
king
contained in the narratives of I Samuel 8-12. Yet, unlike
many
others, Wallis rejects the supposition that these three
traditions
represent three divergent but parallel accounts. He
instead
advances the idea that Saul did not become king over
all
8-12
indicate that individual tribes at different times:
a)
anointed him to be nagid (Ephraim, I
Sam. 9:1-10:16); b)
acclaimed
him as king after victory in battle (armies of
Jabesh
and
king
by sacred lot (Benjamin, I Sam. 10:17-21). Each of
these
three actions Wallis claims were later represented as
involving
all
eliminate
any of them, they were connected and har-
monized.78
With regard to I Samuel 11, Wallis
maintains that the
acclamation
of Saul to be king after the victory at Jabesh
originally
took place in Jabesh itself, and that it was only at a
later
time associated with Gilgal (I Sam. 11:15) where other
traditions
of Saul's life were preserved.79 He accordingly
regards
I Samuel 11:12-14 as a redactional insertion and says
that
the expression "renew the kingdom" as well as the
indication
of Samuel's involvement in the crowning of Saul
are
disturbing in the context of the spontaneous acclamation
of
the people, by which Saul was made their king after his
striking
military victory at Jabesh.80
77. Ibid., 468.
78. Wallis, WZ 12 (1963) 239-247.
79. Ibid., 243.
80. Wallis, Geschichte and Überlieferung, 74, 75.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 119
b. The
phrase "renew the kingdom" (verse 14) as redac-
tional.
1) S.
R. Driver. —S. R. Driver who views I Samuel 8-12 as
a
composite of two independent documentary sources re-
gards
the expression "renew the kingdom" of I Samuel 11:14
as
a redactional adjustment made for the purpose of harmo-
nizing
I Samuel 11:15 with I Samuel 10:17 ff. He is not
certain
whether I Samuel 11:12, 13 should also be regarded
as
redactional, saying, "perhaps 11:12 f. are inserted likewise;
but
the precise relation of these verses to 10:25-27a is un-
certain.”81
2) R.
Press. —R. Press considers the material in I Samuel
1-15
to be derived from three different independent tradi-
tion
complexes whose origins he ascribes to priestly,
royal,
and
prophetic circles respectively. He regards I Samuel 11 as
a
unity and while he sees a certain disharmony in verses 12
and
13, he finds explicit altering only in the phrase "renew
the
kingdom" (v. 14) which he attributes to a redactor's
attempt
to link I Samuel 10:17 ff. and I Samuel 11 in a
temporal
sequence.82
3) K.
Möhlenbrink.—K. Möhlenbrink maintains that
Saul's
victory over the Ammonites recorded in I Samuel 11
was
originally the victory of only three tribes (Gad, Reuben,
and
Benjamin) rather than that of all
Gilgal
had once been the cultic center of these three tribes,
before
it was replaced by the prominence of Shechem and
campaign
of Saul against the Ammonites represents for
Möhlenbrink
the restitution of the old amphictyony of Gilgal
in
a time of crisis,. In connection with this he views the
"core"
of I Samuel 11:14 to be historical. That is, he consid-
81. Driver, Introduction, 176. A very similar view is expressed by Pfeiffer
(Introduction, 364).
82. R. Press, "Der Prophet
Samuel. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung,"
ZAW 56 (1938) 177-225 (esp. 204-205).
120 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
ers
it likely that Samuel did issue an invitation to assemble at
Gilgal
after the victory of the three tribes over the Ammon-
ites.
But he regards the expression "renew the kingdom" and
also
the indication that this gathering involved all
secondary
accretions. His view is that the summons to assem-
ble
was issued to only the part of
enjoyed
esteem, namely Ephraim and Manasseh, and that the
significance
of this is to be seen in assuming that this was an
attempt
by Samuel to erase the old opposition between the
Gilgal
confederation and the
latter
no longer functioned, by reestablishing a tribal league
centered
in Gilgal.83
4) M.
Noth.—M. Noth regards the phrase "renew the
kingdom"
as the attempt of the deuteronomistic historian to
harmonize
I Samuel 11:15 and I Samuel 10:17-27.84 He
views
I Samuel 11:15 as the authentic record of Saul's estab-
lishment
as king and I Samuel 10:17-27 as a later construc-
tion
of the deuteronomistic historian. He comments: the
original
sense of I Samuel 11:14, 15 "musste Dtr mit Rück-
sicht
auf 10, 17ff. verwischen durch die unmotivierte und
unbeholfene
Bemerkung, dass es sich jetzt nur noch urn eine
‘Erneuerung
des Königtums' gehandelt habe.”85
5) A.
Weiser.—A. Weiser, as we have seen above, views
I
Samuel 8-12 as the combination of dissimilar literary tradi-
tions
which originated in different localities, but which have
been
placed side by side without extensive adjustment of
their
differences. He accordingly considers the accounts of
Saul's
rise to kingship in I Samuel 10:17-26 and I Samuel
10:27-11:15
to be parallel accounts, the former deriving
from
Mizpah and the latter from Gilgal. The collector linked
the
two traditions by designating Saul's inauguration in Gilgal.
83. K. Möhlenbrink, "Sauls
Ammoniterfeldzug und Samuels Beitrag zum
Königtum
des Sauls," ZAW 58 (1940) 57-70.
84. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 54-59; and, The History of
85. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 59, n. 2.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit 121
as
a "renewing of the kingdom."86 In spite of this editorial
subordination
of the Gilgal tradition to the Mizpah tradition,
Weiser
regards I Samuel 10:27-11:15 as preserving the oldest
material
concerning Saul's rise to kingship, so that it presents,
in
his opinion, a closer approximation of the actual historical
events
than the traditions of chapters 8 and 10.87
6) H.
W. Hertzberg.—H. W. Hertzberg, much like Wiser,
regards
I Samuel 8-12 as the combination of a variety, of
traditions
preserved in different localities. He says that occa-
sionally
the hand of the compiler is evident in ordering and
connecting
his material, and the description of the enthrone-
ment
in Gilgal as a "renewal of the kingdom" is one such
instance.88
According to Hertzberg this was originally not a
renewal
but rather the institution of kingship.89
2. I Samuel 11:2-14(15) as part of an
originally separate
tradition.
a. Th. C. Vriezen
Th. C. Vriezen feels that the great
mistake made in
literary
critical research on the Samuel books is that penta-
teuchal
criticism has often been the starting poirt, and this
has
brought with it the search for the J and E sources.. In
Vriezen's
view I and II Samuel are a great political-historical
work
that describe and defend the right of David's descen-
dants
to the throne of
that
the literary analysis of the books must begin with the
"succession
narrative" contained in II Samuel 11-I Kings 2.
This
succession history is, however, tied to a history of
David,
which is tied to a history of David's relationship to
Saul,
which in turn is tied to the stories of Saul's rise to the
kingship.
86. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 69, 78.
87. Ibid., 78. See also Weiser's
earlier discussion of the composition of
I
Samuel in The Old Testament. Its
Formation and Development, 163, 165-170.
88. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 133.
89. Ibid., 94.
122 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit
Vriezen finds great difficulties in
the Saul narratives and
concludes
that the origin of Saul's kingship is told in three
separate
versions (I Sam. 9:1-10:16; 10:17 ff., and 11). In
Vriezen's
opinion I Samuel 11:1-11, 15 was part the
original
Saul-David-Solomon narrative. The other two ac-
counts
of the rise of kingship were worked into the pesent
narrative
at different times in the process of the gradual
enlargement
and modification of the original Saul-David-
Solomon
history. I Samuel 11:12-14 was in Vriezen's opinion
originally
tied to the complex of traditions now found in
I
Samuel 7; 8; 10:17 ff.; 11:12-14; 15. This Samuel-Saul
history
was worked into the beginning of the Saul-David
complex
by placing I Samuel 7 and 10:17 ff. before I Samuel
11:1-11
while I Samuel 11:12-14 which tells of the confirma-
tion
at the Gilgal sanctuary of the previous selection of Saul
to
be king (at Mizpah), was given a place before the old Gilgal
tradition
of the original story (I Sam. 11:15). In this way the
noticeable
splitting of the verses I Samuel 10:27 and I Sam-
uel
11:12-14 are explained in a natural manner, and the
expression
"renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14) is explained
by
its connection with the Mizpah tradition of I Samuel
10:17-27.90
b. H.
Seebass
H. Seebass subjects the narratives of
I Samuel 1-15 to a
drastic
rearrangement in the course of which he separates
I
Samuel 11:1-11 from I Samuel 11:12-15 and places them in
widely
divergent historical contexts. He views Saul's victory
over
the Ammonites (I Sam. 11:1-11 as the first sign in a long
time
that Yahweh was again ready to help his people. Subse-
90. Vriezen, "Compositie,"
in Orientalia Neerlandica, 167-189
(esp. 172,
173,
177, 181). Note that Vriezen's position requires the interpretation of the
phrase
"renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14) as a "confirmation"
("bevestiging,"
181)
of the Mizpah ceremony (see, however, above, Chapter II, 62 ff.). Cf. also
Th.
C. Vriezen, A. S. van der Woude, Literatuur
van Oud-Israël (Wassenaar:
19734)
207-213, where Vriezen in broad lines maintains the position developed in
1948.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 123
quent
to this victory a Philistine threat arose and Samuel who
was
a judge in the
ed
Saul as nagid with the instruction
that he was to defeat
the
Philistines (I Sam. 9:1-10:16). To the Israelites' surprise
Saul
defeated the Philistines in a first encounter at Geba
(I
Sam. 13:4). Later he was victorious over the Philistines at
Michmash
in a manner which could only be described as a
miracle
of Yahweh (I Sam. 13:5-14:23). It was only then, in
Seebass's
opinion, that the elders of
nagid-calling of Saul
a political form by establishing a king-
dom
(I Sam. 8). Since the land was freed from the threat of
the
Philistines, Samuel could call an assembly in Mizpah in
order
to obligate the people to the "law of the king" (I Sam.
10:17-25).
After this the people elevated Saul to be king in
Gilgal
(I Sam. 11:12-15). Seebass thus avoids designating
I
Samuel 11:12-15 as redactional, but he does place the
events
recorded in these verses in an entirely different his-
torical
context than they presently occupy in I Samuel 11.91
c. N.
Gottwald
material
that does not fit smoothly into either what he terms
the
"Gilgal" or "the Mizpah-Ramah" story clusters which tell
of
the rise of the Israelite kingship. Therefore he regards
I
Samuel 11:12-15 as a third version of the enthronement of
Saul
which the deuteronomistic compiler had at his disposal
in
addition to the Gilgal story (I Sam. 9:1-10:16; 13 1-
14:46)93
and the Mizpah-Ramah story (I Sam. 7:3-12; 8:1-
22;
10:17 ff.; 12; 15). He concedes that I Samuel 11:1-11
may
have belonged to the Gilgal source, aiming to demon-
91. Seebass, ZAW 79 (1967) 164-169, cf. above, p. 113. Seebass' position
bears
certain similarities to those of Wildberger (see p. 117 f. above) and Wallis
(see
p. 118 above).
92. Gottwald, Encyclopedia Judaica, XXIV, 793-796.
93. Gottwald links this material to
Gilgal because of the reference to Gilgal
in
10:8 and the offering of sacrifices by Saul at Gilgal to initiate the war
against
the
Philistines (13:4, 8 ff.).
124 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
strate
Saul's inspired military prowess against the Ammonites
preparatory
to his attacks on the more powerful Philistines.
Yet
he says that I Samuel 11:12-15 can only be understood
as
another version of how Saul was made king. The disrup-
tion
of the story line, he feels is only partially reduced by the
harmonizing
reference of the redactor, "Let us go to Gilgal
and
there renew the kingdom."
d. H.
J. Stoebe
H. J. Stoebe does not consider I
Samuel 11:12-15 origi-
nally
to have been part of the account of Saul's victory over
the
Ammonites contained in I Samuel 11:1-11. He considers
it
also unlikely that I Samuel 11:12, 13 were originally con-
nected
with I Samuel 10:27 because of differences in the
choice
of words and nuance of meaning. And he considers
verses
12 and 13 to be subordinate and supplementary to
verse
14 and perhaps to verses 14 and 15. Stoebe finds it very
difficult,
however, to establish the origin of the tradition
contained
in the latter two verses. He comments that this
tradition
can not have arisen too late. He considers the
"contorted"
and in itself impossible use of wdH to be an
indication
that an old tradition or at least the memory of an
old
tradition is represented here. He then comments that this
points
to a parallelism between these verses and I Samuel
10:17
ff. which is difficult to explain. He rejects the explana-
tion
that the one tradition concerns the selection of Saul to
be
king (I Sam. 10:17 ff.), while the other relates the con-
firmation
or celebration of his kingship (I Sam. 11:14-15).
He
concludes that I Samuel 11:14-15 show the strength of
the
memory that the root of the kingship of Saul lay in his
charismatic
leadership, and in addition that Samuel played an
important
role as a prophetic figure in Saul's rise to kingship;
this
memory stood in Stoebe's opinion in close connection
with
the Benjaminite sanctuary in Gilgal. Stoebe concludes
that
because originally parallel accounts have been coordi-
nated
to a sequence, a type of temporal succession has been
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 125
developed
in the present narrative behind which one cannot
go
in order to reconstruct the actual course of historical
events.94
e. E.
Robertson
As was noted above95 Edward
Robertson considers
I
Samuel 1-15 to be the work of a compiler who has linked a
number
of literary fragments and his own supplementa
into a
unified
literary document. He points out that each of the six
sections
into which he divides I Samuel 1-15 is either con-
cluded
or introduced by what he terms the supplementa.
These
supplementa contain brief summary
notes or addition-
al
bits of information. In the MT they are invariably sepa-
rated
from the preceding and following section by p or s.96
Robertson
comments, "So far as the supplementa
are con-
cerned,
the paragraphs so distinguished, appear to be inde-
pendent
pieces of information with no intimate connection
with
the preceding text and would seem to be drawn from
other
sources."97 Robertson considers I Samuel 11 to be a
subdivision
of the fourth of the six major sections into which
he
divides I Samuel 1-15. The beginning of this subdivision
he
places at I Samuel 11:1, and he designates verses 14 and
15
as a supplementum. He notes that
these two verses are
isolated
before and behind respectively by s and p, and he
regards
them as the conclusion to the subsection, with I Sam-
uel
12 as the conclusion to the whole of his fourth section of
the
book (I Samuel 8-12).98
94. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 228, 229, see further comments
on
pages 177, 178.
95. See above 99 f.
96. See, E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (
How
much significance is to be attached to these markings is difficult to
determine.
97. Robertson, Samuel and Saul, 17.
98. Ibid., 20.
126 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
3.
Provisional conclusion.
I Samuel 11:14, especially the
expression "renew the
kingdom,"
has rather generally been regarded by critical
scholars
as a redactor's attempt to harmonize I Samuel 11:15
with
I Samuel 10:17 ff. As was noted above (cf. Chapter II,
61-68,
85-88) the expression "renew the kingdom" is ad-
mittedly
puzzling if it is to apply to the
How
is it to be satisfactorily related to the subsequent phrase
in
verse 15 that "they made Saul king in Gilgal?" What is the
explanation
for the appropriateness or necessity of a "renew-
al"
of Saul's kingdom at this particular time?
It is our contention, however, that
the phrase in question
does
not have reference to the
the
sity
to regard it as a redactional attempt to harmonize I Sam-
uel
11:15 with I Samuel 10:17 ff., nor is there sufficient
warrant
for considering I Samuel 11:14, 15 to be one of
several
separate accounts in I Samuel 8-12 which reflect a
gradual
extension of Saul's dominions.99 I Samuel 10:17 ff. is
an
account of Saul's selection to be king, while I Samuel
11:15
has reference to Saul's inauguration which took place
in
Gilgal as part of a ceremony in which the people not only
made
Saul their king (v. 15), but also renewed their allegiance
to
Yahweh as the supreme authority over the nation.100
The other alternative which has been
suggested by a few
scholars
is to regard I Samuel 11:12-14(15) as a separate
tradition
unit in which "renew" is understood as meaning
"celebrate"
or "confirm." This suggestion (Vriezen, Seebass),
however,
does not do justice to the meaning of wdH,101
and
when
verse 15 is also included as part of the separate tradi-
99. Cf. the views of Wildberger, p.
117 above and Seebass, p. 122 f.
above.
100. See above Chapter II.
101. See above Chapter II, 61-68.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 127
tion
unit (Seebass), the tension remains between wdH and the
subsequent
phrase, "they made Saul king in Gilgal.”102
Section 2
The Structure of I Samuel 11:14-12:25
A.
The relationship of I Samuel 11:14-15 to I Samuel
12:1-25.
As we have noted above there is nearly
universal agree-
ment
among scholars that I and II Samuel show evidence of
having
been written by someone who utilized a greater or
lesser
variety of sources for the composition of his historical
narrative.
In certain places it appears that these source mate-
rials
were incorporated into the narrative by the author with
little
or no modification of their original form. The resulting
unevenness
in the narrative flow has occasioned certain prob-
lems
of interpretation and contributed to many elaborate
theories
on the literary origins of the book. While it is
indisputable
that the author utilized different sources in his
composition
and that in places this causes certain difficulties
in
interpretation, it is quite a different matter to conclude, as
some
have, that the final form of the book includes contra-
dictory
parallel accounts of the same event which the author
has
attempted to link together in a sequential fashion. It is
our
contention that a proper analysis of the content of the
book
does not lead one to such a conclusion, and in particu-
lar
that the narratives of I Samuel 8-12 do not lend support
to
such a theory.
Nevertheless the fact remains that
when one examines the
pericopes
of the books of Samuel with a view to establishing
their
mutual relationships, one must consider the possibility
that
the author has utilized more than one source in his
description
of a given historical event.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 provides a good
illustration of this
102. See above, Chapter II, 85-88.
128 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
point.
It seems quite apparent that the author intended the
reader
to conclude that Samuel's words to "all
tained
in I Samuel 12:1 ff. were spoken on the occasion of
the
assembly called to "renew the kingdom" at Gilgal which
is
introduced in I Samuel 11:14;103 I Samuel 12 begins with
no
additional time or place designation, but simply relates
what
Samuel said to a national gathering. Had it been the
author's
intent to separate the assembly described in I Sam-
uel
12 from the Gilgal assembly referred to in I Samuel
11:14-15,
it is only reasonable to assume that he would have
inserted
some indication that I Samuel 12 was descriptive of
a
separate occasion.104
Furthermore, when one studies the
content of I Samuel
12
it becomes apparent that it is complementary to that of
I
Samuel 11:14-15. In I Samuel 12 there are two subordinate
matters
which receive special attention. First, there is the
establishment
of Samuel's covenant faithfulness in his past
leadership
of the nation (I Sam. 12:1-5), as well as an indica-
tion
of his continuing role in the future (I Sam. 12:23) as the
human
kingship assumes its legitimate place in the structure
of
the theocracy (I Sam. 12:13). Secondly, there is the peo-
ple's
confession of their sin particularly as this related to
their
wrongly motivated desire for a king. These two foci of
attention,
namely transition in leadership and confession of
sin,
are both set in the context of Samuel's forceful challenge
to
the people to renew their allegiance to Yahweh, which is
103. On the basis of literary
critical considerations the events of I Sam. 12
have
often been assigned to Mizpah in spite of the indications in the context to
the
contrary. See, e.g.: Nowack, Richter,
Ruth and Bücher Samuelis, HK 1/4, 52;
Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 97.
104. See further the comments of
Goslinga (Het Eerste Boek Samuël,
COT,
243)
who notes that the time factor is also a significant consideration. After the
victory
over the Ammonites the Israelites could expect a counter action by the
Philistines.
"Israël moest zich gereedmaken voor de strijd tegen de erfvijand en
onderdrukker
en zo mogelijk de eerste slag toebrengen. Aan to nemen is dan ook
dat
de gebeurtenissen van cap. 11v, zeer spoedig door die van cap. 13 gevolgd
zijn."
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 129
the
dominating and major emphasis of the chapter (I Sam.
12:14,
15, 20, 24, 25).
The foci of attention in I Sam.
11:14-15 parallel those of
I
Samuel 12. I Samuel 11:14-15 speaks of an assembly at
which
transition in leadership was formalized with the in-
auguration
of Saul (I Sam. 11:15a), and fellowship with
Yahweh
was restored with the sacrificing of peace offerings
(I
Samuel 11:15b).105 All of this was done in an assembly
called
for the primary purpose of renewing allegiance to
Yahweh
(I Sam. 11:14).
I Samuel 12 differs from I Samuel
11:14-15 in that while
both
pericopes are concerned with transition in national
leadership,
this transition is seen in I Samuel 12 in a discus-
sion
of the past and future role of Samuel in the life of the
nation,
as well as in the indication that the human kingship
was
now to occupy a legitimate place in the new order of the
theocracy,
while it is seen in I Samuel 11:14-15 in the refer-
ence
to the act of the formal investiture of Saul (v. 15a). In
addition,
while both pericopes are concerned with the matter
of
restoration of fellowship with Yahweh, this is indicated in
I
Samuel 11:15 by the reference to sacrificing of peace offer-
ings,
while it is indicated in I Samuel 12 by recounting the
people's
confession of their sin in requesting a king and their
appeal
to Samuel to intercede for them and by relating
Samuel's
reassuring (v. 20a, 22) and admonishing (v. 20b, 24,
25)
words. It is then certainly reasonable to assume that in
connection
with their confession and Samuel's intercession,
peace
offerings were offered signifying and sealing the resto-
ration
of fellowship between Yahweh and his people.
Thus both I Samuel 11:14-15 and I
Samuel 12 speak of
an
assembly which was convened to provide an occasion for
the
people of
105. Cf. Ex. 24:5 f. and note the
comment of Nic. H. Ridderbos (De
Psalmen, II [KV;
Kampen: 1973] 155) on Ps. 50:5 with regard to the peace
offering:
".. . elk brengen van een (vrede) offer
verbond
genoemd worden...." See above, Chapter II, 88-91.
130 I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite Unit
time
in which the need for restoration of fellowship with
Yahweh
was apparent, and kingship was being formally in-
augurated.
It is accordingly our position that
instead of regarding
I
Samuel 11:14 as a redactional attempt to connect I Samuel
11:15
with I Samuel 10:17 ff., it is much more appropriate
to
regard the brief resume of the Gilgal ceremony contained
in
I Samuel 11:14-15 as a sort of "lead sentence" or "sum-
marizing
introduction" prefacing the more detailed account
of
the same Gilgal ceremony contained in I Samuel 12. While
these
two accounts are complementary and not contradic-
tory,
and while in their major emphases they agree, they
nevertheless
reflect differences in detail and formulation to
an
extent that suggests they must have had separate origins.
The
author of the book has utilized both however, in order
to
give a fuller although still not complete picture of what
transpired
at the Gilgal assembly.
It is for these reasons that we
maintain that I Samuel
11:14-12:25
is best regarded as a composite unit descriptive
of
the important Gilgal ceremony where
allegiance
to Yahweh. Whether or not I Samuel 11:14-15 was
originally
separate from I Samuel 11:1-13 is a question that
cannot
be answered with certainty. It is clear that the last
phrase
of I Samuel 11:13 brings the narrative of the Ammon-
ite
conflict to its conclusion, with the statement that "today
Yahweh
has accomplished deliverance in
ment
also provides the basis for Samuel to call for an assem-
bly
at which the people can renew their allegiance to Yahweh
and
install Saul as their king. The Gilgal assembly is the
sequel
to the victory which Yahweh gave over the Ammon-
ites
under Saul's leadership, and is the final episode in the
series
of events which led to the establishment of kingship in
a
part of the narrative of I Samuel 11:1-13 is not of great
importance,
but it is important to recognize that it now
serves
as the introduction to I Samuel 12.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a Composite
Unit 131
B. Structural Elements of I Samuel 12:1-25
Although clearer insight into the
structural elements of
I
Samuel 12 and the inter-relationship of its parts may be
gained
by a form critical analysis of the chapter, it is never-
theless
possible to divide the chapter into the following
sections
based on the exegetical observations given above.
The chapter as a whole presents
Samuel's challenge to
the
introduction of kingship into the socio-political structure
of
the nation.
I Samuel 12:1-5. Samuel secures a
vindication of his own
covenant
faithfulness during the previous conduct of his
office
as he presents the one who is to assume the responsi-
bilities
of kingship.
I Samuel 12:6-12. Samuel utilizes a
recapitulation of the
righteous
acts of Yahweh in the events of the exodus and the
period
of the judges in order to judicially establish
apostasy
in requesting a king.
I Samuel 12:13. Samuel indicates that
in spite of this
apostasy,
Yahweh has chosen to utilize kingship as an instru-
ment
of his rule over his people.
I Samuel 12:14-15. By a restatement of
the "covenant
conditional"
Samuel confronts
obligation
of total loyalty to Yahweh with the integration of
human
kingship into the structure of the theocracy.
I Samuel 12:16-22. A sign is given
from heaven at Sam-
uel's
request serving to underscore the seriousness of
apostasy
in asking for a king to replace Yahweh (vv. 16-18a).
This
leads to a confession of sin (vv. 18b-19), a challenge to
renewed
covenant faithfulness (vv. 20, 21), and a reminder of
the
constancy of Yahweh's faithfulness to his people (v. 22).
I Samuel 12:23-25. Samuel describes
his own continuing
function
in the new order (v. 23) and concludes his remarks
with
a repetition of
(v.
24) reinforced by the threat of the covenant curse if
again
apostasizes (v. 25).
IV
THE COVENANT
FORM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
AND I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25
Section 1
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
A. The Covenant-Treaty
Analogy
Ever since G. Mendenhall's ground
breaking work, Law and
Covenant in
attention
has been devoted to the covenant form in the Old
Testament.2
Mendenhall's work demonstrated the corre-
spondence
between the structural elements of the second
millennium
B.C. Hittite suzerainty treaties3 and certain cove-
1. G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in
(
Biblical
Archaeologist Reader
3 (New York: 1970) 3-53.
2. The number of studies stimulated
by Mendenhall's work is far too great
to
list here. See the comprehensive review by D. J. McCarthy (Old Testament
Covenant. A
Survey of Current Opinions [
extensive
bibliography on pages 90-108. See further the many literature citations
in
the remainder of this chapter. G. E. Wright (The Old Testament and Theology
[
Mendenhall's
work, so many fresh studies of various aspects of
life
have been stimulated that one must say that his thesis has been the single
most
suggestive and provocative hypothesis of this generation in Old Testament
studies."
3. There have been a number of
international treaties uncovered in the
excavations
at Boghazkoi amid the ruins of the capitol of Hattusas and the royal
archives
of the Hittite empire. The treaties all derive from the new Hittite empire
during
the reigns of the "Great Kings," Suppiluliumas I, 1380-1346; Mursilis
II,
1345-1315;
Muwatallis, 1315-1296; Hattusilis III, 1289-1265; and Thudhaliyas
IV,
1265-1235 (chronology taken from 0. R. Gurney, The Hittites [Harmonds-
worth:
19697] 216). The transcriptions and translations of these treaties
may be
found
in various places, but unfortunately they have not been collected and made
available
in a single volume. See the following:
and
Letters," AJSL 37 (1921)
161-211; E. F. Weidner, Politische
Dokumente aus
132
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 133
nantal
passages in the Old Testament. In agreement with V.
Korosec's4
earlier juristic analysis of the Hittite treaty form,
Mendenhall
noted six basic elements in the composition of
the
treaty texts including: 1) preamble; 2) historical pro-
logue;
3) stipulations; 4) provision for deposit in the temple
and
periodic public reading; 5) lists of gods as witnesses;
6)
curses and blessings formula.5 In addition to the written
form,
Mendenhall also noted other standard elements associ-
ated
with the ratification of the treaty document including:
7)
an oath by which the vassal pledged his obedience; 8) a
solemn
ceremony accompanying the oath; 9) a form for
initiating
procedure against a rebellious vassal.6 The signifi-
cance
of Mendenhall's essay, however, lay primarily in its
calling
attention to the presence of many of these same
Kleinasien. Die
Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archie von
Boghazköi (Boghazkoi
Studien, VIII and IX; Leipzig: 1923); J. Friedrich, "Staats-
vertrage
des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache," MVÄG 31/I (1926) and 34/I
(1930);
A. Goetze, trans., "Hittite Treaties," ANET, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Prince-
ton:
19552) 201-206.
Here it can also be noted that
besides these Hittite treaties, there are also
other
treaties under discussion. Attention is given below to the treaties of
Esarhaddon,
which concern his succession, and the Aramaic treaties of Seffire.
There
are also other treaties (see, e.g., the enumeration of S. R. Külling, Zur
Datierung der
"Genesis-P-Stücke" [Kampen: 1964] 229-237, and R. Frankena
"The
Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy," OTS, XIV
[1965]
122 f.) which did not appear necessary to discuss further.
4. V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsverträge. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen
Wertung (Leipziger
Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 60; Leipzig: 1931).
5. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant,
31-34. K. Baltzer (The Covenant Formu-
lary, 9-18) gives a
slightly different schema for the component parts of the treaty
form
in which he eliminates element four (provision for deposit and public
reading)
of Korosec and Mendenhall and inserts between element two (historical
prologue)
and element three (stipulations) what he terms a "statement of sub-
stance
[Grundsatzerklärung] concerning the future relationship of the partners to
the
treaty." Baltzer's schema thus includes: 1) preamble; 2) antecedent
history;
3)
statement of substance; 4) specific stipulations; 5) invocation of gods as wit-
nesses;
6) blessings and curses. In the opinion of this writer Baltzer's classification
is
an improvement over that of Korosec and Mendenhall because references to
deposit
and public reading are not constant enough in the extant Hittite treaties
to
warrant inclusion as a regular characteristic of the treaty form and because
the
"Grundsatzerklärung"
expressing general imperatives for loyalty on the part of
the
treaty signatory is of such importance that it deserves a place in any
schematization
of the treaty form.
6. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 34-35.
134 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
elements
in the Old Testament covenantal pericopes of Ex-
odus
20 and Joshua 24.7 Others following Mendenhall's lead
have
pointed out similar treaty-covenant parallels in numer-
ous
additional covenantal passages in the Old Testament,
including,
as most notable, the structure of the book of
Deuteronomy.8
The potential literary, exegetical, and theo-
logical
implications of Mendenhall's thesis are many and it is
to
be expected that they will continue to receive a great deal
of
attention in the future.
It is beyond the scope of our
investigation to enter into a
lengthy
discussion of the Old Testament concept of cove-
nant,
yet it is necessary to give some indication of the sense
in
which we use the word "covenant" when we speak of the
"covenant
form" in the Old Testament. In general it can be
said
that the term "covenant" (tyrb) is used in the
Old
Testament
to designate an arrangement between two parties
which
is established under sanctions,9 and which involves
7. Ibid., 35-44.
8. See particularly: H. B. Huffmon,
"The Covenant Lawsuit in the Proph-
ets,"
JBL 78 (1959) 285-295; J. Muilenburg,
"The Form and Structure of the
Covenantal
Formulations," VT 9 (1959)
347-365; Baltzer, The Covenant Formu-
lary; F. C. Fensham,
"Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern
Vassal-Treaties
and the Old Testament," ZAW 74
(1962) 1-9; W. L. Moran, "The
Ancient
Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 25
(1963)
77.87; F. C. Fensham "Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and
the
Old Testament," VT 13 (1963)
133-143; Kline, Treaty of the Great King;
McCarthy,
Treaty and Covenant; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old
Testament
Prophets
(BibOr 16; Rome: 1964); J. A. Thompson, The
Ancient Near
Eastern Treaties
and the Old Testament (
Eastern
Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of
Kulling,
Zur Datierung der "Genesis-P-Stucke"; J. Wijngaards, Vazal van Jahweh
(Baarn:
1965); Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament, 90-102; Kline, By
Oath Consigned; D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea
(Balti-
more:
1969); J. B. Payne, "The B'rith of Yahweh," in New Perspectives on the
Old Testament, J. B. Payne,
ed. (
Covenant
with Moses and its Historical Setting, JETS
14 (1971) 141-155; Kline,
The Structure of
Biblical Authority.
9. G. Vos (Biblical Theology, 277) points out that the only idea always
present
in the Old Testament use of the word berith is that of, "a solemn
religious
sanction"
(see further, ibid., 33, 137-138). It is in this connection that the
ratificatory
oath assumes great importance in the biblical covenants. Indicative of
this
importance is the use of covenant (tyrb) in parallelism
with oath (hlx), and
the
expression "to make a covenant" (tyrb trk) in parallelism
with "to swear"
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 135
certain
specified obligations. Covenants are represented as
being
concluded between individuals (e.g., Gen. 21:22-34;
31:44-55;
I Sam. 18:3; 23:18), between states or their repre-
sentatives
(e.g., Josh. 9; I Kings 15:19; 20:34), and most
importantly
between God and man (e.g., Gen. 15; 17; Ex.
19-24;
II Sam. 7:4-17). From the wide variety of relation-
ships
for which tyrb
is used in the Old Testament it is clear
that
while the above definition is valid as a generalization,
further
differentiation between various types of covenants is
necessary.10
This is apparent not only because tyrb is used
of
agreements between man and man on the one hand, and
man
and God on the other, but also because not every
covenant
in either of these categories is of an identical type.
There
is a noticeable difference, for example, between the
covenants
which Yahweh made with Abraham (Gen. 15;17)
and
David (H Sam. 7:4-17) on the one hand, and the cove-
nant
he made with his people
19-24,
Deut.). M. Kline, noting the distinction between these (
covenants,
has designated the former as "promise covenants"
and
the latter as a "law covenant."" It is particularly, al-
(fbw). See, e.g.:
Gen. 26:28a, 31; Gen. 21:31, 32; Deut. 29:11(12), 13(14); Josh.
9:15;
II Kings 11:4; Ezek. 17:13, 16, 18, 19. See further, G. M. Tucker, "Cove-
nant
Forms and Contract Forms," VT 15
(1965) 487-503, and particularly Kline,
By Oath
Consigned,
14-25, and Payne, "The B'rith of Yahweh," in New Perspec-
tives on the Old
Testament,
243, 244.
10. For extended discussions of the
Old Testament concept of covenant see
the
following recent articles: M. Weinfeld, "tyrb," TWAT, I (1972)1781-808;
idem,
"Covenant," Encyclopedia
Judaica, V, 1012-1022;
Verpflichtung,"
THAT, I (1971) 339-352; W. Eichrodt,
"Covenant and Law:
Thoughts
on Recent Discussion," Int 20
(1966) 302-321; D. N. Freedman,
"Divine
Commitment and Human Obligation. The Covenant Theme," Int 18
(1964)
419-431; G. E. Mendenhall, "Covenant," IDB, I, 714-723; A. Jepsen,
"Berith.
Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit," in Verbannung und Heimkehr
(Rudolph
Festschrift, A. Kuschke, ed.; Tubingen: 1961) 161-179; G. Quell,
"The
OT Term tyriB;,"
TDNT, II, 106-124. See further, E.
Kutsch, Verheissung und
Gesetz.
Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament (BZAW 131;
Israel, 31, n. 2.
11. M. Kline (By Oath Consigned, 13-19) points out that both of these
types
of covenants are sanction-sealed commitments to maintain a particular
relationship,
and that this commitment is expressed by an oath sworn in the
covenant
ratification ceremony. According to Kline it is in the swearing of the
136 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
though
not exclusively,12 the "law covenant" pericopes in
the
Old Testament to which parallels have been noted with
extra-biblical
vassal treaties. For the purpose of our discus-
sion
we include only covenantal pericopes of this type in our
references
to the covenant form in the Old Testament.
It is also not within our purpose to
enter extensively into
the
intricacies of the treaty-covenant analogy discussions.13
Some
have questioned the validity of the analogy itself,14 and
ratificatory
oath that a means is provided for distinguishing a law covenant from a
promise
covenant. He maintains (16) that, "if God swears the oath of the
ratification
ceremony, that particular covenantal transaction is one of promise,
whereas
if man is summoned to swear the oath, the particular covenant thus
ratified
is one of law." In the opinion of this writer, Kline has pointed out an
important
distinction between these two types of covenants in the Old Testament
although
it is sometimes maintained that an oath was not foundational to the
Sinaitic
covenant (see, e.g., Mendenhall, Law and
Covenant, 40). For Kline's
treatment
of this question as well as whether or not the Deuteronomic covenant
was
based on a bilateral oath, see, By Oath
Consigned, 17-21. For Kline's dis-
cussion
on the compatibility of the Sinaitic "law covenant" with the Abra-
hamic
"promise covenant" see, ibid., 22-38. M. Weinfeld
("Covenant," Encyclo-
pedia Judaica, V, 1018) makes
a similar distinction between the Mosaic covenant
and
the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants, terming the former the "obligatory
type"
and
the latter the "promissory type." In his article, "The Covenant
of Grant in
the
Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East" (JAOS 90 [1970] 184-203)
Weinfeld
notes that while the covenant between Yahweh and
the
ancient Near East treaty pattern and is of the obligatory type, the covenants
with
Abraham and David are modeled on the "royal grant" the classical form
of
which
is found in the Babylonian kudurru
documents (boundary stones) but
which
occurs also among the Hittites and others, and is of the promissory type
(cf.
esp. 184-186).
12. See, e.g., Külling, Zur Datierung der "Genesis-P-Stücke,"
228-249; and
the
more recent resume of this dissertation by the same author, "The Dating of
the
So-Called ‘P-Sections’ in Genesis," JETS
15 (1972) 67-76.
13. In the enormous volume of
literature which has grown up around the
treaty-covenant
analogy in the past two decades, different directions have been
taken
in the assessment of its significance and the implications which may be
drawn
from it, even among those accepting the validity of the analogy. We will
discuss
these matters only in so far as they have a bearing on the covenantal
character
of I Sam. 11:14-12:25.
14. See, e.g., the scepticism of A.
Jepsen ("Berith," in Verbannung
und Heim-
kehr, Rudolph Festschrift,
161, 175) based largely on his view that berith
in the Old
Testament
designates an assurance or promise of God rather than a legal relationship.
Cf.,
however, Eichrodt's (Int 20 [1966]
303-306) critical analysis of Jepsen's posi-
tion.
See further the negative attitude of C. F. Whitley ("Covenant and Command-
ment
in
treaties
offer a close parallel to the Hebrew covenant." F. Nötscher (“Bundes-
formular
und ‘Amtsschimmel,’” BZ 9 [1965]
181-214) also raises serious ques-
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 137
others,
while granting its presence elsewhere,15 have denied
the
presence of the treaty pattern in the Old Testament
passages
which record the establishment of Yahweh's cove-
nant
with his people at Sinai (Ex. 19-24). Nevertheless, it is
the
opinion of this writer that compelling evidence exists that
the
treaty form is reflected in varying degrees in Old Testa-
ment
passages concerned with both the
establishment and
perpetuation
of the Sinaitic covenant between Yahweh and
his
people.16
tions
concerning the treaty-covenant analogy, but cf., D. J. McCarthy's (Der
Gottesbund im
Alten Testament
[ Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 13;
37-40)
critique of Nötscher's article. Note further the rejection of the parallel
between
treaty and covenant by L. Perlitt (Bundestheologie
im Alten Testament
[WMANT
36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1969] ), but again see the extensive critical
review
of Perlitt's book by McCarthy ("berit
in Old Testament History and
Theology,"
Bib 53 [1972] 110-121).
15. See particularly D. J. McCarthy
(Treaty and Covenant, 154) who finds
only
a remote resemblance to the treaty form in Exodus 19-24, although
generally
he is one of the leading defenders of the treaty-covenant analogy.
McCarthy
comments: "if our present text in Ex. 19 ff. does reflect the covenant
form,
it reflects it only remotely.... Moreover, we must ask ourselves how much
of
the resemblance to the covenant form is due to the present composite and
rearranged
text." Cf., however, the critique of McCarthy's position on this issue
by
Kline (By Oath Consigned, 38, n. 10)
and Kitchen (Ancient Orient and Old
Testament,
101, n. 53). G. Fohrer (History of
Israelite Religion [
1972]
80, 81) is also sceptical of the treaty-covenant analogy particularly with
respect
to the Sinai traditions. He says, "Quite apart from the fact that the word
beri't does not mean
'treaty, covenant,' there is really no parallelism: the Sinai
tradition
is not modeled after a treaty form."
16. For advocacy of the presence of
the treaty form in Ex. 19-24 in
addition
to Mendenhall (Law and Covenant,
35-44) see: W. Moran ("Moses und
der
Bundesschluss am Sinai," VD 40
[1962] 3-17), and
History of the
Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, 50-77). Beyerlin considers the treaty
form
to have had a formative influence on the various tradition units included in
what
he regards as the composite account of the establishment of the covenant at
Sinai
in Ex. 19-24. He says (54, 55), e.g., of the decalogue that, "the
parallels
between
the above Hittite covenant-treaties and the Israelite Decalogue are so
numerous
and so striking that one can hardly avoid the view that the Ten
Commandments
are—formally—modeled on the covenant-form that is revealed in
the
vassal-treaties of the Hittites and was probably in general use in the
of
the second millennium B.C." See further in a similar vein: Huffmon, CBQ 27
(1965)
101-113; Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary,
27-31; Hillers, Covenant: The
History of a
Biblical Idea,
46-71; J. A. Thompson, "The Cultic Credo and the
Sinai Tradition," RThR 27 (1968) 53-64, esp. 55-56; Rogers, JETS 14 (1971)
141-155.
Apart from the discussion over the
presence of the treaty form in Ex. 19-24
138 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
We will not here enter into detailed
analyses of individual
covenantal
pericopes in order to demonstrate either the struc-
tural
and terminological treaty-covenant parallels or the repe-
tition
of characteristic features of the Old Testament "cove-
nant
form" in various covenantal pericopes in the Old Testa-
ment.
This has been detailed elsewhere and need not be
repeated
here.17 A general indication of the results of these
investigations
is, however, necessary.
B. Characteristic Features of
the
Old Testament Covenant Form
In a number of instances investigators
have simply uti-
lized
the literary pattern of the Hittite treaties as a structural
model
for elucidating the corresponding structural elements
in
various Old Testament covenantal pericopes.18 Although
this
has sometimes been done with a rigidity which tends to
there
is widespread agreement with regard to its presence in other passages which
are
concerned with the perpetuation of the Sinaitic covenant. The point of issue
then
becomes not the presence or absence of the treaty form in the Old
Testament
but rather the time of its origin and reason for its utilization in the
covenantal
traditions of the Old Testament. For further discussion of these
questions,
see below. For the present, however, note the comment of G. von Rad
(Old Testament Theology, I, 132):
"Comparison of ancient Near Eastern treaties,
especially
those made by the Hittites in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries
B.C.,
with passages in the Old Testament has revealed so many things in common
between
the two, particularly in the matter of the form, that there must be some
connexion
between these suzerainty treaties and the exposition of the details of
Jahweh's
covenant with
result,
with particular passages and groups of passages, we may speak of a
‘covenantal
formulation,’ in which the various formal elements found in the
treaties
recur feature for feature, though sometimes freely adapted to suit the
conditions
obtaining in
Commentary (
Covenant, 14),
"Despite many difficulties in detail, the evidence that
the
treaty-form in some, at least, of its religious literature, and uses it to
describe
its
special relationship with Yahweh is irrefragable. There is not another literary
form
from among those of the ancient Near East which is more certainly evident
in
the Old Testament. The question is, just where and at what stage of the
tradition
it is to be found."
17. See especially the literature
cited in n. 8 above.
18. This has been done with minor
variations by a number of scholars
particularly
with Ex. 19-24, the entire book of Deuteronomy, and Josh. 24. See,
e.g.:
Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 35-44;
Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary,
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 139
obscure
the variations of the Biblical material from the treaty
documents
in a way that does not do justice to the unique-
ness
of the covenantal traditions of the Old Testament, it
nevertheless
has served to draw attention to the treaty-
covenant
parallel and to delineate a number of the character-
istic
features of the covenant form in the Old Testament. The
following
resume of J. A. Thompson's and K. A. Kitchen's
presentations
of the correspondence between structural ele-
ments
of the treaty formulary and similar features in the
composition
of Exodus 19-24, Deuteronomy 1-32 and
Joshua
24 illustrates this approach.19
1.
Preamble: (Kitchen) Ex. 20:1; Deut. 1:1-5; Josh. 24:2.
(Thompson) Ex. 19:3; 20:2a; Josh. 24:2a.
2.
Historical prologue: (Kitchen) Ex. 20:2; Deut. 1:6-3:29;
Josh. 24:2-13. (Thompson) Ex. 19:4; 20:2b;
Deut. 1-4;
Josh. 24:2b-13.
3.
Statement of substance: (Kitchen) Ex. 20:3-17, 22-26;
Deut. 4-11.
(Thompson) Ex. 19:5a; 20:3; Deut. 5-11;
Josh. 24:14.
4. Stipulations: (Kitchen) Ex. 21-23; Deut. 12-26; Josh.
24:14-15.
(Thompson) Ex. 20:4-17; Deut. 12-26; Josh.
24:25.
5.
Witnesses: (Kitchen) Ex. 24:4; Deut. 31:16-30; 31:26;
32:1-47; Josh. 24:22. (Thompson)... Josh.
24:22, 27.
19-36;
Kline, Treaty of the Great King,
13-49; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant,
109-151
(excluding Ex. 19-24, see n. 15 above); Thompson, The Ancient Near
Eastern Treaties
and the Old Testament,
20-23; Hillers, Covenant: The History of
a Biblical Idea, 46-71;
Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament, 92-102.
It is also noteworthy that G. von
Rad pointed out similarities in the struc-
tural
elements of Ex. 19 ff., Deuteronomy and Josh. 24 (Das formgeschichtliche
Problem des
Hexateuchs
[BWANT 4/26;
sions
of the treaty-covenant analogy were popular. Von Rad considered these
similarities
to be reflections of a cultic setting for the Sinai tradition which he
localized
in an ancient covenantal festival at Shechem. As was noted above (cf.
n.
16) von Rad has more recently pointed out the relationship between the Old
Testament
covenantal formulations (including those of Ex. 19 ff., Deuteronomy,
and
Josh. 24) and the suzerainty treaty form.
19. Our resume (with modified
terminology) is taken from the works of
Thompson
and Kitchen as mentioned in n. 18 above and is representative merely
of
the basic skeleton of their presentations. They both give added details and
discuss
various problematic aspects of the parallels.
140 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
6.
Curses and blessings: (Kitchen) Deut. 28:1-14, 15-68;
Josh. 24:19-20. (Thompson) Ex. 19:5b, 6a;
20:5b, 6, 7b,
12b, Deut. 27-30.
While there is value in such analyses
for drawing attention
to
the treaty-covenant analogy, the noting of recurring struc-
tural
features in the Old Testament covenantal passages them-
selves
is of far more importance, for this points to the
existence
of a covenant form intrinsic to the Old Testament.
It
is in this area that J. Muilenburg's work is of particular
value.20
Muilenburg's analysis of Exodus 19:3-6 led him to
the
conclusion that this passage, "is a special covenantal
Gattung, and it is
scarcely too much to say that it is in
nuce
the
fons et origo of the many covenantal
pericopes which
appear
throughout the Old Testament.”21 Although Muilen-
burg
notes that it is likely that the pattern distinguished in
Exodus
19:3-6 and other covenantal pericopes is an ancient
literary
form and that its terminology and structure may be
derived
from royal compacts or treaties, he is not interested
so
much in the extra-biblical parallels as he is in tracing the
consistency
of the covenant form in the Old Testament. He
does
this with Exodus 19:3-6, Joshua 24, and I Samuel 12.
He
concludes that although there is diversity in these passages
because
covenant speech comes to include more varied and
richer
terminology, and because the formulations are influ-
enced
by their particular settings, nevertheless the essential
features
originally derived from Exodus 19:3-6 are often
reiterated.22
The features which Muilenburg presents
as persistent in
20.
21. Ibid., 352.
22. Muilenburg (ibid., 350-351, 360)
ascribes priority to the Ex. 19:3-6
pericope
over both Deuteronomy and Josh. 24. He says (350): "The Book of
Deuteronomy
is the covenant book kat ] e]coxh>n. But it comes
to us as a 'second
law'
and is based in its prevailing terminology upon the formulation of the
covenant in Ex. xix-xxiv. G. von Rad has shown convincingly
that the general
structure
of the two correspond." He says further (360) with regard to Josh. 24
that
a "comparison of the relationship between the two passages favors the
priority
of Ex. xxiv (sic, xix) 3b-6."
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 141
many
covenant contexts include the following elements:
1)
the presence of the covenant mediator; 2) the motif of the
witness
("you have seen for yourselves"); 3) the pronounced
I-Thou
style; 4) the recital of the mighty acts; 5) the em-
phatic
call to obedience; 6) the inclusion of apodictic require-
ments;
7) the conditional sentence; 8) the transitional and
now
(htfv).
He notes also that the deliverance from
continues
to be the decisive redemptive event (Josh. 24; Lev.
26:45; Deut. 8:11-20; 11:3-4; I Sam. 12, etc., etc.).23
It is the repeated occurrence of many
of these features in
Old
Testament passages concerning either the establishment
or
the perpetuation of the Sinaitic covenant which legitima-
tizes
the use of the term "covenant form" in the Old
Testament.24
23. Ibid., 355-356. As can readily
be seen there is an overlap between the
features
which Muilenburg finds to be characteristic of the covenantal formula-
tions
in the Old Testament and the features of the treaty form outlined above
(note
particularly Muilenburg's features 4, 5, 6 and 7).
24. We are using the term
"form" here in the broad sense of a literary
category
characterized by certain structural and terminological features: or in
certain
instances of elements of such a category combined in different ways. We
have
refrained from using the more technical term Gattung because of the variety
and
freedom which is apparent in the adaptation of what we have labeled as
"covenant
form" to different uses in the Old Testament. Various distinctions can
be
made between the divergent uses of the covenant form according to the
particular
purpose and setting of a given passage (e.g., covenant lawsuit, covenant
renewal
account, etc., see further below). Baltzer (The
Covenant Formulary, 38)
believes
that on the basis of his analysis of Josh. 24, Ex. 19-24, and Deuter-
onomy,
"it is possible to say that the covenant formulary, as a literary type,
was
familiar
in
in
which this formulary was employed and transformed." Von Rad (Theology of
the Old
Testament,
I, 132) concludes, as we noted above, that
as a result of the
correspondence
between treaty and covenant forms it is possible with particular
Old
Testament passages and groups of passages to "speak of a 'covenantal
formulation,'
in which the various formal elements found in the treaties recur
feature
for feature though sometimes freely adapted to suit the conditions
obtaining
in
lar
mag es in
untersuchten Texte (Jos 24; Ex 19-24; Dt 1, 1-4, 40;
5-11; 28-31) annimmt, aber
darin eine festgefügte literarische Gattung zu sehen,
heisst doch wohl dem
Formdenken zu grosse Bedeutung beimessen and die freie
geistige Beweglichkeit
zu
gering einschäzen."
142 The
Covenant Form in the Old Testament
C. Extent and Variety of
Utilization of the
Old Testament Covenant Form
In addition to Exodus 19-24, the book
of Deuteronomy,
and
Joshua 24, the covenant form has been found to be
reflected
in numerous other places in the Old Testament. K.
Baltzer
traces the pattern, noting the variations and adapta-
tions
for different settings, in the following passages: Exodus
34;
Nehemiah 9-10; Ezra 9-10; Daniel 9:4b-19; Joshua 23;
I
Samuel, 12; I Chronicles 22-29; II Kings 11.25 Others have
noted
the reflection of the covenant form in the "covenant
law-suits"
etc. of especially the prophetic books where Yah-
weh
is depicted as entering into judgment with his people
for
breaking the covenant (note particularly: Deut. 32;
Isa.
1:2-3, 18-20; 3:13-15; Jer. 2:4-13; Hos. 2:4-17; 4:1-3,
4-6;
12:3-15; Mic. 6:1-8; Mal. 3:5).26 In addition,
the reflec-
25. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary.
26. The covenantal nature of the
prophetic function and the influence of
the
covenant form in the writings of the latter prophets has been noted in recent
years
in a number of studies. W. F. Albright (From
the Stone Age to Christianity,
17)
has stated that his earlier analysis of the origin and development of the
prophetic
movement in
failed
to grasp the full significance of the Covenant principle... the dominant
pattern
of prophecy, as found in the earliest rhapsodist (‘writing’) Prophets of the
eighth
century, is firm belief in the validity of the ancient Covenant between God
and
His people according to whose terms
sins,
both moral and cultic, but would ultimately be ‘restored’ because of the
mercy
or grace of God (hesed) which
exceeded the formal terms of the Covenant
and
thus made it more binding than it would otherwise have been." R. E.
Clements
(Prophecy and Covenant [SBT 43;
London: 1965] 127) says that the
distinctiveness
of the canonical prophets "lay in their particular relationship to,
and
concern with, the covenant between Yahweh and
concludes
his article "The 'Office' of the Prophet in Ancient Israel," (in The Bible
in Modern
Scholarship J. P. Hyatt, ed. [
that
the prophets were "Yahweh's messengers, his covenant mediators, interces-
sors
for the people, speakers for God. They are sent from the divine King, the
suzerain
of the treaties, to reprove and to pronounce judgment upon
breach
of covenant." M. Kline (The
Structure of Biblical Authority, 58) describes
the
prophets as "representatives of Yahweh in the administration of his
covenant
over
tion."
P. A. Verhoef (Maleachi [COT; Kampen:
1972] 59) comments: "De
verbondsgedachte
is niet alleen maar de grote veronderstelling achter Maleachi's
prediking
maar wordt ook met zoveel woorden uitgesproken terwijl we ook
verscheidene
typische elementen van het verbond in zijn prediking terugvinden."
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 143
tion
of the covenant form in varying degrees in certain Psalms
has
been noted by various investigators and may suggest that
the
covenant form exerted its influence to some degree on
the
liturgy of the temple worship.27 Others have
discussed
He
mentions among these the preamble, the historical prologue, stipulations,
sanctions
and blessings and curses.
On the covenant lawsuit itself and
the question of its derivation see: E.
Würthwein,
"Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede," ZThK 49 (1952)
1-16; J. Harvey, "Le 'RIB-Pattern,' requisitoire
prophetique sur la rupture de
l'alliance," Bib
43 (1962) 172-196; idem, Le Plaidoyer
prophetique contre Israël
apres la rupture de l'alliance, (Studia 22;
Paris: 1967) 9-30; Boecker, Redeformen
des Rechtslebens
im Alten Testament,
91 f. Each of the above discusses the
question
of where the form of the byr originated; whether in the sphere of
the
court
at the gate (Boecker), the cult (Würthwein), or international relationships
(
byr and the Prophetic Lawsuit
Speeches," JBL 88 [1969] 304)
concludes that it
"appears
that the prophet, speaking as Yahweh's messenger, is employing forms
of
speech which originated in the sphere of international relationships. The
figure
of
the royal messenger, bringing a complaint against a people, provides a kind of
model
for understanding the figure of the prophet, announcing that Yahweh has a
complaint
against his people."
For additional discussions of the
covenant form in the prophetic books, see:
Huffmon,
JBL 78 (1959) 285-295; G. E. Wright,
"The Lawsuit of God: A
Form-Critical
Study of Deuteronomy 32," in
burg
Festschrift, B. W. Anderson, W. Harrelson, eds.;
C.
Fensham, "Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and
Kudurru-inscriptions
Compared with the Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah," ZAW
75
(1963) 155-175; idem, "The Covenant-idea in the book of Hosea," in Studies
on the books of
Hosea and Amos
(OTWSA; Potchefstroom: 1964/65) 35-49;
Hillers,
Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets;
IV
4-13 and
"Micha
II 7a and der Bund Jahwes Mit
Holladay,
Jr., "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of
29-51;
R. North, "Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?" ZAW 82 (1970) 31-67; M.
O'Rourke
Boyle, "The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III 1-IV 13," VT
21
(1971) 338-362; T. M. Raitt, "The Prophetic Summons to Repentance," ZAW
83
(1971) 30-49.
27. J. Muilenburg ( VT 9 [1959] 356) comments: "A
cursory inspection of
such
psalms as 1, lxxxi, lxxxix, and cxxxii will reveal the degree to which the
covenant
terminology and form was adapted for use in worship." A. Weiser (The
Psalms [
structed
"covenant festival" to be the source of the majority of the Old
Testa-
ment
psalms. Weiser's theory has been applied in a modified way by M. Manatti
and E. de Solms (Les
Psaumes, 4 vols. [Cahiers de la Pierre-qui-Vire, 26-29:
theory
here, but as Kline (Structure of Biblical
Authority, 63) points out, "the
covenantal
function of the Psalter does not depend on a theory (like Weiser's)
that
would assign much in the Psalter a role in some one annual covenant renewal
festival,
speculatively reconstructed. Rather, the Psalter served broadly as a cultic
144 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
the
relationship of the covenant form to the wisdom litera-
ture
of the Old Testament.28 M. Kline has
argued that the
various
component parts of the Old Testament itself, includ-
ing
history, law, wisdom, and prophecy are functional exten-
sions
of the main elements of the treaty-covenant form, and
the
Old Testament is therefore best characterized as a "cove-
nantal
corpus."29 It is not possible for us here
to do more
than
indicate something of the prevalence of the covenant
form
in the Old Testament. For detailed discussions of the
various
ways in which the form is utilized one must consult
the
literature cited above. There is, however, substantial
evidence
that the covenant form was persistently utilized
throughout
and
applications.
D. Sitz
im Leben of the Old Testament Covenant Form;
Historical Implications of Its
Presence
As has been noted, there is widespread
agreement that
the
"covenant form" is a discernible and important literary
feature
of the Old Testament. There is, however, no corre-
sponding
agreement on the origin of this phenomena and
consequently
on the historical implications which may or
may
not be drawn from its admitted presence. In fact, there
is
an expressed resistence to the attempts which some have
made
to draw historical conclusions from the presence of the
literary
form.30 Caution is certainly in order at this
point,
instrument
in the maintenance of a proper covenantal relationship with Yahweh."
See
further: R. Millard, "For He is Good," TB 17 (1966) 115-117; N. H.
Ridderbos,
OTS, XV, 213-226; J. H. Tigay,
"Psalm 7:5 and Ancient Near Eastern
Treaties,"
JBL 89 (1970) 178-186. For a survey
of Psalm research since 1955 see:
D.
J. A. Clines, "Psalm Research Since 1955: I. The Psalms and the
Cult," TB, 18
(1967)
103-126; idem, "Psalm Research Since 1955: II. The Literary Genres," TB
20
(1969) 105-125.
28. D. A. Hubbard, "The Wisdom
Movement and
TB 17 (1966) 3-33;
Kline, The Structure of Biblical
Authority, 64-67.
29. Ibid., 47.
30. Baltzer (The Covenant Formulary, 7, n. 49) commenting on
hall's
article "Law and Covenant in
[1954]
26-76) says: "He is more interested in historical questions, while the
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 145
particularly
because one of the most serious weaknesses of
the
form critical method as it has often been practiced is its
tendency
to encourage speculative and hypothetical recon-
structions
of a Sitz im Leben for particular
forms, sometimes
with
little or no corroborating evidence. While recognizing
the
danger in this procedure and the excesses to which it has
led,
there nevertheless remains a definite validity to the
notion
that the presence of a particular form presupposes a
historical
setting which has given rise to the form in question
and
which accordingly provides insight into the reasons for
and
significance of its utilization. It is therefore apparent that
judicious
attempts to delineate the historical setting for par-
ticular
forms can be a useful interpretive tool, and in the case
of
the "covenant form" the questions of when and how it
was
adopted in
significance
whose avoidance impoverishes the study of the
forms
and may contribute to misinterpretation of their signif-
icance.
present
work limits itself to the form-critical approach. No doubt further conclu-
sions,
not least in the historical sphere, can be drawn on the basis of this
beginning;
but I consider it methodologically dangerous to bring both sets of
questions
together prematurely." J. J. Stamm ("Dreissig Jahre Dekalog-
forschung,"
ThR 27 [1961] 214) says that W.
Zimmerli while admitting the
treaty-covenant
parallel, warns rightly against too hastily drawn historical conclu-
sions,
commenting: "Die geschichtlichen Wege, auf denen sich die Nähe der
hethitischen
Vasallenvertragstexte zu den alttestamentlichen Bundesformulier-
ungen
erklären lässt, sind noch ganz undurchsichtig...." (TLZ 85 Sp. 481-498).
P.
J. Calderone (CBQ 25 [1963] 138)
notes in his review of Baltzer's, The
Covenant
Formulary:
"B. insists throughout on a sharp separation between his
form
critical investigation and the historicity of the episodes narrated. This
reserve
toward matters historical, which still lies far short of skepticism, owes its
vigor
to the influence of Alt, Noth, and von Rad. In this way B. has successfully
avoided
hasty and premature conclusions. An author has the right to delimit his
scope
and material, but it is disappointing that B. eschews historical
conclusions."
McCarthy
(Biblica 53 [1972] 120) in his review
of Perlitt (Bundestheologie im
Alten Testament) says
concerning the treaty-covenant analogy: "No doubt too
much
has been claimed for the analogy, and, especially, illegitimate historical
conclusions
have been drawn from it. Still, this does not invalidate such evidence
as
there is for the analogy...."
146 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
1.
The nature of the covenant form and its
origin—cultic or
historical?
Some have sought the explanation for
the widespread
occurrence
of the "covenant form" in Old Testament litera-
ture
by positing its derivation from the cult. We cannot here
enter
into the complexities of this thesis whose most promi-
nent
advocate has been G. von Rad,31 but in this
writer's
opinion,
there is good reason to conclude that a cultic-origin
hypothesis
does not provide an adequate or complete ex-
planation
for the nature of the form in question. This is not
to
deny the possibility of a recurring covenant festival in
ancient
either
in connection with the feast of tabernacles every seven
years
(cf. Deut. 31:9-13), or, perhaps, even more frequently.
Nor
is this to deny that cultic observances may have con-
tributed
to the perpetuation and shaping of various utiliza-
tions
of the "covenant form" as represented in the literature
of
the Old Testament. Nevertheless, such cultic observances
in
themselves do not provide an answer to the more funda-
mental
questions of the reason for and the time of the initial
adoption
of this particular form in ancient
J. A. Thompson,33 in discussing
von Rad's view, writes:
"There
seems little reason to doubt that the historical pro-
logue
in the secular treaties was a basic aspect of any treaty.
Nor
need we doubt that it represented, albeit, perhaps, in
some
enhanced form, a correct outline of the preceding
31. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, 1-78; see also, Schmidt, Der
Landtag von
Sichem,
87-88. The dilemma "cultic or historical origin" is deficient,
but
the sense in which I use it should be clear. In his later writings von Rad
himself
seems also to indicate that a purely cultic explanation cannot provide the
final
answer. He comments (Deuteronomy,
22): "However, the question is still
quite
open how and when
form
of these early Near Eastern treaties with vassals."
32. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship (
Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts (Leipzig: 1934), ET: Essays on Old
Testament
History and Religion
(New York: 1968) 103-171; von Rad, The
Problem of the
Hexateuch,
1-78; Weiser, The Psalms, 23-35.
33. Thompson, RThR 27 (1968) 53-64.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 147
historical
events which were paraded as a strong argument for
the
acceptance of the treaty by the vassal. . . . Von Rad does,
of
course, take note of the historical recital of the Sinai
events
when he discusses Deuteronomy and Exodus 19-24.
But
for him this historical narration is merely a cultic legend
of
very doubtful historicity.34 But the
question should be
asked
whether a cultic legend could serve the purpose de-
manded
by the historical prologue to a covenant demand. . . .
It
ought not be assumed that a cultic liturgy should be
divorced
from underlying historical events."35
It is possible to find fault with
Thompson's article. For
example,
von Rad's view of the historicity of Old Testament
history
writing is more complex than would appear from
Thompson's
discussion. Nevertheless the remarks of Thomp-
son
cited above merit serious consideration.
In any case, as we have seen above, a
purely cultic
derivation
for the covenant form is unsatisfactory. The rela-
tionship
between Yahweh and his people, of which the estab-
lishment
or renewal is narrated in connection with the ap-
pearance
of the covenant form in the Old Testament, is
explicitly
and conceptually connected with the antecedent
historical
relationship of the covenant partners. Such a rela-
tionship,
while it may be renewed or celebrated in the cult,
presupposes
a specific historical occasion on which it was
originally
and formally established (which, of course, could
also
have taken place in a cultic ceremony, see n. 31). The
question
is: what was this occasion?
M. Noth has suggested that the real
historical event be-
hind
the traditions which are joined together in what has now
been
identified as the "covenant form" is the assembly held
at
Shechem described in Joshua 24, where an amphictyonic
twelve-tribe
league was established under the leadership of
34. Thompson's contention has
particular relevance to von Rad's suggestion
that
the "exodus tradition" and the "Sinai tradition" were
originally separate. See
further
below, p. 161 ff., n. 68.
35. Ibid., 57, 58.
148 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
Joshua
in which covenantal allegiance to Yahweh was the
unifying
force.36 There are serious objections,
however,
which
can be advanced against the amphictyonic hypoth-
esis,37 and even if one
accepts Noth's general theory38 there
are
good reasons for seeking the origins of Israelite unity and
covenant
allegiance to Yahweh prior to the assembly at
Shechem.39 G. W. Anderson,
after pointing out various weak-
nesses
in Noth's reconstruction, comments: "It seems natu-
ral,
therefore, to look for the establishment of this unity, not
in
the emergence of an amphictyony in Canaanite soil in the
wake
of the invasion, but rather, where so much ancient
Israelite
tradition would lead us to expect to find it, in the
period
before the settlement, and, more specifically, in the
establishment
of the Sinai covenant between Yahweh and the
Israelite
tribes.”40
It is the Sinai event described in
Exodus 19-24 which
provides
the most likely setting for the entrance of the
"covenant
form" into the experience of ancient
36. M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme
The History of
37. See: H. Orlinsky, "The
Tribal System of
the
Period of the Judges,"
of Ancient
‘AM;
KAHAL; 'EDAH," in Translating and
Understanding the Old Testament,
Essays in honor
of H. G. May;
H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed, eds. (
I
135-151; A. D. H.
of Israelite
Religion,
89-94).
38. See, e.g., Bright, A History of Israel, 158, n. 45.
39. F. C. Fensham ("Covenant,
Promise and Expectation in the Bible," ThZ
23
[1967] 313, 314) comments: "Some scholars are of the opinion that in Jos.
24
the real historical background of the covenant of Sinai occurs. The conquering
tribes
from the desert and those tribes which were already in possession of the
country
for a long time decided to make a covenant accepting Yahweh as God
and
each other as brothers of the covenant.... Taking into consideration its final
form,
however, and its relation to covenantal descriptions in the Pentateuch, it
seems
as if this chapter gives a description of a renewal of covenant. It is quite
probable
that groups which had associated themselves with the conquering tribes,
were
taken into the covenant at Shechem, but not as a covenant for the first time
instituted."
40.
ing the Old
Testament,
149.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 149
significance
of this event for
including
the nature of her faith, the forms of her worship
and
literature should not be obscured or de-historicized as
many
have done in the past. The increasing recognition in
recent
years of the formative importance of the Mosaic era, is
at
least partially. due to the growing admission that the
historical
basis for the extensive utilization of the covenant
form
in the life and literature of ancient
in
the event of the establishment of the covenant at Sinai
under
the leadership of Moses.41
41. W. Eichrodt (Int 20 [1966] 308, 309) after noting the
Hittite treaty
structure
and manner of treaty making says that "the oldest traditions of the
Sinai
Covenant are filled with the same conceptions of the content and way of
making
a covenant." He notes that Beyerlin has shown how this conception was
preserved
and renewed in cultic celebrations, but he also states, "it is quite clear
that
the origin of this liturgical tradition is not to be sought in the cult but in
history.
The tradition originated in the decisive hour in which the tribes, led out
of
exclusive
service of the God known for his mercy at the Exodus and while they
wandered
in the wilderness, the God who then received them into a covenant
relationship....
The tenacity with which the Hittite type of treaty maintained
itself
throughout the centuries in
covenant-making,
given the constancy of fixed liturgical form. A covenant formu-
lation
with great authority, going back into remote antiquity must have so
impressed
itself on
have
been inconceivable. The literary application of the form in the Old Testa-
ment
texts confirms such an influence in spite of the various styles. This renders
hopeless
any attempt to explain the adoption of the form as a fortuitous and
arbitrary
event of a later time and the means of theological reflection and
interpretation."
J. Bright, (A History of Israel,148,
149) speaking of the treaty-
covenant
parallel and of the "extreme antiquity and centrality of the covenant in
Israel,"
says: "... we may believe that this form was determinative for Israel's
self-understanding
and corporate life since the beginning of her history as a
people—indeed
brought her into existence as a people." See further: E. F.
Campbell,
"Moses and the Foundations of Israel," Int 29 (1975) 141-154.
Although
this view is finding increasing support it is by no means universally
accepted.
Note, e.g., the comment of M. Smith ("The Present State of Old
Testament
Studies," JBL 88 [1969] 30):
"The historicity of the Sinai covenant
was
argued from its similarity to Hittite treaties, but the same essential
structure
appears
in the treaties of Esarhaddon of Assyria where the parallels are so close to
Deuteronomy
as to argue its literary dependence ... so one has to ask, When did
the
Israelites become familiar with this enduring Mesopotamian diplomatic con-
vention?
And the answer is surely not while they were slaves in
along
the desert, but after they became a kingdom, and perhaps, indeed, only
after
the revival of
150 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
2.
The evolution of the treaty form and its
implications for
the date of the
book of Deuteronomy.
Recognizing the "covenant
form" in the description of
the
Sinai event recorded in Exodus 19-24 and ascribing the
adoption
of this form to the Mosaic era is further substanti-
ated
by the structural, terminological and conceptual paral-
lels
to the Hittite treaties which are to be found in the book
of
Deuteronomy.
M. Kline has argued that the book of
Deuteronomy "is a
covenant
renewal document which in its total structure ex-
hibits
the classic legal form of the suzerainty treaties of the
Mosaic
age.”42 Kline's case for the origin of
Deuteronomy in
the
Mosaic era is made in part by noting what he describes as
a
"discernible evolution" of the documentary form of the
suzerainty
treaties, and by pointing out that Deuteronomy
agrees
with the classic stage in the evolution of the treaty
form.
It is his contention that the suzerainty treaties of later
times
diverge from the pattern followed by the Hittites, and
it
is the classic pattern of the Hittite treaties which is reflect-
ed
in the book of Deuteronomy.43 Whether or not
the Hittite
treaties
of the 14th-13th centuries B.C. exhibit a "classical
form"
which does not survive in the treaties of later times, as,
for
example, in the 8th century Aramaic treaties from Sefire
is
actually evidence for a rather late date." (However, see our discussion of
this
view
below.)
It should also be noted in this
connection that the infrequent use of the
word
"covenant" by the prophets before Jeremiah is not necessarily
evidence for
the
late origin of the concept. As Eichrodt (Theology
of the Old Testament, I, 17,
18)
has pointed out: "The crucial point is not as an all too naive criticism
sometimes
seems to think—the occurrence or absence of the Hebrew word berit,
but
the fact that all the crucial statements of faith in the OT rest on the
assumption,
explicit or not, that a free act of God in history raised
unique
dignity of the People of God in whom his nature and purpose were to be
made
manifest. The actual term 'covenant' is, therefore, so to speak, only the
code-word
for a much more far-reaching certainty, which formed the very deepest
layer
of the foundations of
have
been
42. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 28; see also 42 ff.
43. Ibid., 43.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 151
in
northern
Esarhaddon
of Assyria,45 is therefore a matter of
importance
for
Kline's argument, as well as our own position, and thus
merits
further consideration.
a. The
vassal treaties of Esarhaddon compared with the
Hittite suzerainty treaties.
An examination of the vassal treaties
of Esarhaddon
reveals
that certain elements of these treaties are much the
same
as those of the earlier Hittite treaties. Yet in spite of
these
basic similarities, one cannot but notice that there are
important
differences as well. Perhaps the most noticeable
difference
is that of the schema or arrangement of the As-
syrian
treaties.
1) Absence
of a historical prologue.—As we noted
above46 the Hittite
treaties adhere to a rather consistent form
with
little deviation. The most striking contrast between the
Assyrian
and Hittite treaties is that the second section of the
schema
in the Hittite treaties, the historical prologue, is not
found
in the Assyrian treaties. This is an important difference
because
the historical prologue sets the tone for the Hittite
treaties.
It is on the basis of his prior beneficent acts that the
Great
King justifies his demand for observance of the stipula-
tions
which follow. This historical prologue follows immedi-
ately
after the preamble in every presently available Hittite
44. Cf.,
Andre Dupont-Sommer and Jean Starcky, "Les inscriptions ara-
meennes de Sfire (Steles I et II)," Memoires presenter par divers savants a
l'Acadamie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 15 (1958) 197-351, plus 29 plates.
Also
by the same authors: "Une inscription arameenne inedite de Sfire," Bulletin
du Musee de
Beyrouth
13 (1956) 23-41, (Stele III). See also: F. Rosenthal,
"Notes
on the Third Aramaic Inscription from Sefire-Sujin," BASOR 158 (1960)
28-31;
J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire I and II," JAOS 81
(1961)
178-222; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic
Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr, 19;
45. Cf., D. J. Wiseman, "The
Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,"
(1958)
1-91. These treaties are essentially duplicates, differing only in the names
of
the various rulers with whom they were made and concern the subject of the
royal
succession of Ashurbanipal to the Assyrian throne.
46. See p. 132 ff.
152 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
treaty
of the 14th-13th centuries B.C.47 The historical
pro-
logue
immediately introduces the pronunciation of the loyal-
ty
obligation of the vassal to the Great King.48
The absence of a historical prologue
contributes to the
very
cold and harsh tone of Esarhaddon's treaties. The word-
ing
of these treaties typifies the ruthless Assyrian imposition
of
its power over surrounding nations, and the lack of a
historical
prologue is consistent with this spirit. There is no
hint
of any merciful Assyrian actions on behalf of the vassals
which
would merit their loyalty and thankfulness, but rather
only
the blunt declaration of their obligation, secured by
threats
of horrible curses if they are not followed. The lack
of
the historical prologue therefore is not only an important
difference
in the literary form, but it also indicates from the
outset
the vast difference in spirit between the Hittite and
Assyrian
treaties. Consequently, a difference in the quality of
the
relationship established between the suzerain and his
vassal
exists.
2) Absence
of a Grundsatzerklärung.—A second struc-
tural
difference is the lack of an Assyrian equivalent for the
"Grundsatzerklärung"
of the Hittite treaties. The declaration
of
allegiance to the head partner by the vassal flows from the
historical
prologue in the Hittite treaties. This is an extremely
important
element in the Hittite treaties because this, more
than
anything else expresses the spirit of the relationship
between
the treaty partners. Because of the gracious acts
performed
in the past by the Great King, the vassal expresses
47. Korosec (Hethitische Staatsverträge, 13) says of the historical
prologue
that,
"Das ständige Wiederkehren von solchen Ausführungen zeigt, dass man
sie in
Hattusas
als einen wesentlichen Bestandteil jedes Vasallenvertrags ansah...." D.
J.
McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 26,
30-31, 98-99) contests this assertion and
argues
that several of the Hittite treaties do not have a historical prologue and
consequently
that "the history was not an essential element of the treaty form."
For
a detailed analysis of McCarthy's position on this question see H. Huffmon,
CBQ 27 (1965)
109-110, whose analysis supports the statement of Korosec
above.
48. This is Baltzer's
"statement of substance (Grundsatzerklärung)
concern-
ing
the future relationship of the partners to the treaty," cf. n. 5 above,
and, The
Covenant
Formulary,
12, 13.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 153
his
thanks by declaring his allegiance and loyalty. Naturally,
such
a declaration following the historical prologue does not
appear
in the Assyrian treaties because in these treaties the
historical prologue is non-existent. Instead of this
the As-
syrian
treaties contain an oath of allegiance which, however,
appears
in a very different context immediately after the first
section
of curses." Here the oath is taken in a context of fear
rather
than trust and the relationship established between the
treaty
partners is consequently quite different from that of
the
Hittite treaties.
3) Absence
of blessings. —In keeping with the harsh tone
in
the Assyrian treaties another structural difference arises. In
the
Esarhaddon treaties no blessings are enumerated for keep-
ing
the treaty stipulations. This is one of the permanent
features
of the Hittite treaties. Its absence is another rather
important
difference when one is comparing the two groups
of
treaties not only from the structural viewpoint, but also
with
respect to the nature of the relationship which is estab-
lished.
4) Conclusion.—On
the basis of these observations it
appears
that M. Kline has adequate foundation for his asser-
tion
that the Assyrian treaties are essentially different from
those
of the earlier Hittites.50 Although
certain elements are
similar,
as is to be expected in treaties between a greater and
49.
50. Mendenhall, Albright, Bright,
Kulling and others are in agreement with
Kline
on this point. Mendenhall (Law and
Covenant, 30) says, "This covenant
type
is even more important as a starting point for the study of Israelite
traditions
because
of the fact that it cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the
great
Empires of the late second millennium B.C. When empires again arose,
notably
is
entirely different." He notes further (ibid., n. 19) "In all the
materials we have
the
'historical prologue' is missing, and only the Assyrian deities are listed as
witnesses.
The entire pattern is also radically different. It is, of course, possible
that
the form survived elsewhere, but the writer has been able to find no evidence
for
it. We should also expect that even if it did survive, more or less
far-reaching
changes
in the form would also have taken place." Albright (From the Stone Age
to Christianity [
comments:
"The structure of half a dozen Assyrian, Aramaean, and Phoenician
treaties
which we know from the eighth century B.C. and later, is quite differ-
154 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
lesser
power, these similarities are not sufficient to warrant
the
statement of Wiseman that, "the form of treaties was
already
'standardised' by the Hittite Empire and this text
[i.e.,
the Vassal treaty of Esarhaddon] shows that it re-
mained
basically unchanged through Neo-Assyrian times.”51
b. The
Aramaic treaties from Sefire compared with the
vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and with
the Hittite suzer-
ainty treaties.
1) Similarities
of the Sefire treaties to the Assyrian
treaties. —With the
presently available Aramaic treaties from
Sefire52 one finds no
historical prologues53 or Grundsatzerklä-
rung as is found in
the Hittite treaties. In this respect it can
be
said that the Aramaic treaties are closer to the Esarhaddon
treaties
than they are to the Hittite treaties. In addition, the
stipulations
which remain preserved are decidedly one-sided.
They
regulate the conduct of the vassal towards the more
powerful
partner, but are not reciprocal except in the matter
ent."
See also, Bright, A History of Israel,
148-149; Külling, Zur Datierung der
"Genesis-P-Stücke,"238-239.
51.
supports
Wiseman on this matter commenting: "It is said that the Assyrian and
other
treaties of the first millennium B.C. are entirely different in structure from
the
Hittite form in the second millennium. It seems to me that the analysis just
completed
fails to bear this out." More recent and even more dogmatic on this
point
is Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School [
60)
who comments: "There is no justification, then, for regarding the
formulation
of
the Hittite treaties as being unique, nor is there any basis for Mendenhall's
supposition
that only Hittite treaties served as the model and archetype of the
Biblical
covenant." Cf. also idem, TDOT,
II, 267.
52. Cf. n. 44 above.
53. Fitzmyer (The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, 122) comments: "One
element
in particular is significantly absent, the historical prologue. Whatever
reason
may be assigned for the omission of this element in the Aramaic treaties,
the
absence of it constitutes a major difference between the Aramaic and Hittite
treaties.
This element is basic to the Hittite conception of the covenant; it
constitutes
the 'legal framework' of the Hittite suzerainty treaty. Hittite suzerains
recalled
their favors toward the vassals as well as those of their predecessors in
order
to establish the obligation of the vassal's loyalty and service.
Indeed, it is precisely this element
which is absent from covenants of the
first
millennium B.C., whether they be Aramaic or Assyrian. This qualification
seems
to be necessary in view of the claim made by Wiseman that the covenant
form
'remained basically unchanged through Neo-Assyrian times.'"
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 155
of
fugitives.54 In the Hittite treaties,
however, there is a
solidarity
of the two treaty partners so that the head partner
promises
protection for his vassal. He also promises that the
enemies
of the vassal will be defeated when the vassal remains
loyal
to his suzerain.55 Both the
treaties of Sefire and the
Assyrian
treaties lack any such protection clause for the
vassa1.56 In the Aramaic
treaties the section which calls upon
the
gods as witnesses follows immediately after the introduc-
tory
paragraph. This also deviates from the Hittite form
which
refers to the gods after the stipulations rather than
before.
In this respect the Aramaic treaties are in agreement
with
those of Esarhaddon.
2) Similarities
of the Sefire treaties to the Hittite treat-
ies. —There are
certain features of the Aramaic treaties, how-
ever,
which seem closer to the Hittite treaties than to the
later
Assyrian treaties of Esarhaddon. In the selection of gods
called
upon as witnesses to the treaty the Aramaic treaties
cite
the gods of KTK and Arpad, that is, the gods of both the
great
king and the vassal. The Hittite treaties also name the
gods
of both partners as witnesses, while the Assyrian treaties
name
only the Assyrian gods. The Sefire treaties also more
54. In the case of fugitives the
treaty says: "and/if a fugitive of mine flees to
one
of them, and their fugitive flees and comes to me if he has restored mine, I
shall
return/ his and you shall no/t cause me trouble yourself. And if you do not
do
so, you will have betrayed this treaty." This is the only place which
records
any
obligation placed on the more powerful partner. Cf. Rosenthal, BASOR 158
(1960)
28-31.
55. Fensham (VT 13 119631 140) comments: "One of the most humane
stipulations
in the Hittite treaties is the promise of protection of the vassal against
enemies.
This protection might have been promised to safeguard the head part-
ner's
kingdom, but was still a most encouraging experience for the vassal. There
was
no enemy to fear. Under such conditions small kingdoms could prosper and
times
of peaceful co-existence could develop." See, e.g., the protection clause
in
the
treaty between Muwattalg and Alakandus of Wiltga (Friedrich, MVAG,
1930,
56-57).
56. Fensham (ibid., 141) comments:
"It is immediately clear from the
treaties
of Esarhaddon and those of Sefire that no clauses of protection of the
vassal
are inserted. Both the Assyrian and Aramaean treaties are one-sided and
have
no humane attitude to the vassal.... Especially the Assyrian treaties show
on
the one hand, a lack of consideration for the minor partner and on the other
hand,
strict commandments and rigorous maledictions."
156 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
closely
resemble the Hittite treaties than the Assyrian treaties
in
the clauses which protect the rights of the head partner.
The
subject matter of these clauses is much broader in the
Sefire
treaties than in the Assyrian treaties (this is perhaps to
be
expected since the Assyrian treaties are concerned exclu-
sively
with the succession problem). In addition, the style of
the
formulation is closer to that of the Hittite treaties than to
that
of the Assyrian treaties.57
3) Conclusion.
—It may be concluded, then, that the
treaties
of Sefire exhibit certain close affinities with the
earlier
Hittite treaties, but at the same time they also contain
important
differences, particularly the absence of a historical
prologue
and Grundsatzerklärung, and the
one-sided nature
of
the stipulations.58
c. Implications
of the treaty-covenant analogy for the
date of Deuteronomy.
From the present evidence it appears
that the Hittite
suzerainty
treaties can be said to represent a unique early
form
which is not duplicated in the later treaties of either
Esarhaddon
or Sefire. Connected with the difference in form
is
the distinctive spirit reflected in the Hittite treaties which
57. Cf. Fensham, ibid., 138.
Fitzmyer (The Aramaic Inscriptions of
Sefire,
124)
also points out certain similarities between the Sefire treaties and those of
the
Hittites. He notes: "Several of the stipulations in the Hittite treaty
between
Mursilis
and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru end with a formula which is quite similar to
the
concluding clauses in these steles: 'If you do (or do not do) such things, you
act
in disregard of your oath.' This is the Hittite counterpart of the Aramaic whn
lhn clause. Still
more significant is the alternate formula: 'you act in disregard of
the
gods of the oath.' Cf. Sf I B 27, 33; II B 9; III 4, 14, 17, 23. Dupont-Sommer
has
also called attention to the striking parallel in Sf III 4-7 to the Hittite
treaty
of
Mursilis with Duppi-Tessub, ( §13): 'If anyone of the deportees from the
Nuhassi
land or of the deportees from the country of Kinzu whom my father
removed
and I myself removed escapes and comes to you, (if) you do not seize
him
and turn him back to the king of the Hatti land, and even tell him as follows:
‘Go!
Where you are going to, I do not want to know,’ you act in disregard of your
oath"
(see ANET, pp. 203-5)."
58. This conclusion seems warranted
on the basis of presently available
evidence.
It should be noted, however, that we have only three Aramaic treaties
from
Sefire and none of these is complete.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 157
is
rooted in the fact that gratitude and respect of the vassal
for
the suzerain is an essential characteristic of the treaty
relationship.
As we have noted the Assyrian treaties are of a
different
structure and also an entirely different mood or
spirit.
The treaties of Sefire exhibit more similarities to the
Hittite
treaties than do the Assyrian treaties, but they still
lack
the important historical prologue and Grundsatzerklär-
ung which are vital
to both the form and spirit of the Hittite
treaties.
M. Kline, therefore, speaks with good
reason of the
"evolution
of the documentary form of suzerainty treat-
ies."59 He admits that
the differences should not be exag-
gerated
and that it is "indeed one species that we meet
throughout
Old Testament times."60 Yet he does
find a
definitely
discernible evolution, and as we have noted, Deu-
teronomy
corresponds more closely in its structure and spirit
to
the earlier Hittite treaties than it does to either the 8th
century
Sefire treaties or the 7th century Assyrian treaties.
Kline's
conclusion, which in our view has a great deal of
merit,
and which deserves more attention than it has thus far
received,
is that "while it is necessary to recognize a substan-
tial
continuity in pattern between the earlier and the later
treaties,
it is proper to distinguish the Hittite treaties of the
second
millennium B.C. as the 'classic' form. And without
any
doubt the book of Deuteronomy belongs to the classic
stage
in this documentary evolution. Here then is significant
confirmation
of the prima facie case for the Mosaic origin of
the
Deuteronomic treaty of the great king.”61
59. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 42.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., 43. J. A. Thompson (Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Corn-
mentary [TOCT:
strength
of Kline's argument. He comments: "The possibility must be allowed
that
Deuteronomy was cast in the shape of an ancient treaty by someone who
wrote
long after Moses' day." In addition, he questions the view that the
historical
prologue was uniquely characteristic of treaties of the 2nd millennium
B.C.,
citing an article by A. F. Campbell ("An historical prologue in a seventh
century
treaty," Bib 50 [1969] 534-535).
Thompson concludes: "Hence the fact
158 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
Such a conclusion is admittedly in
sharp contrast to the
entrenched
position of critical Old Testament scholarship on
the
origin of Deuteronomy. W. M. D. deWette in 1805 first
advanced
the view that Deuteronomy (which, as others be-
fore
him, he regarded as Josiah's law-book) originated in the
7th
century B.C. Although deWette's thesis has been attacked
from
various angles in the century and a half since its promul-
gation,
it has remained the dominant critical viewpoint.62
Only
recently have serious reservations about his theory
that
Deuteronomy has a historical introduction is not necessarily an argument for
a
date in the second millennium, although it may be." In response to these
objections
it should be noted that the "historical prologue" found by
a
seventh century document is not a clear cut example. Cf. the comment by E. F.
Campbell,
Jr. (no relation to A. F. Campbell!) that "the reading is far from
clear"
(Int 29 [1975] 149, n. 13). See further
the original publication by K. Deller and
(1968)
464-466. In addition, while the possibility that someone cast Deuter-
onomy
in the shape of the treaty form long after Moses' day cannot be totally
ruled
out, Kline's position is scarcely invalidated in this way and his model still
has
a great deal of evidence in its favor. Kline comments (The Structure of
Biblical
Authority,
10): "If it is once recognized that the Deuteronomic treaty
must
have been produced whole for a particular occasion, the pervasive orienta-
tion
of the book to the situation of
central
concern of this treaty with—of all things—the dynastic succession of
Joshua,
always awkward for advocates of a seventh-century origin of the book,
become
quite inexplicable for them."
62. It is not possible for us here
to discuss the history of the debate
surrounding
the origin of the hook of Deuteronomy. For a representative state-
ment
of deWette's theory see: Driver, Deuteronomy,
ICC; idem, Introduction,
69-103.
For a more recent survey of Deuteronomy studies see the discussion and
literature
citations in E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy
and Tradition (
1967).
Nicholson (ibid., 37) notes: "The problems surrounding the date, author-
ship
and provenance of Deuteronomy are amongst the most controversial in the
study
of the Old Testament. At one time or another almost every period in
composition,
whilst its authorship has at various times been attributed to Moses,
Samuel,
levitical priests, the
the
origin of the book has been traced to
elsewhere."
See further the extensive survey of R. J. Thompson, Moses and the
Law in a Century
of Criticism Since Graf (SVT XIX; Leiden: 1970). Thompson
(p.
163) concludes: "In 1965 then, a century after its publication, the
Grafian
hypothesis
is still favoured by the majority of scholars. Prophecies of its demise
by
Orr in 1905, Sayce in 1910, Neubauer in 1918, Du Bose in 1923, Urbach and
Coppens
in 1938, Levy in 1947 and Ginsberg in 1950 have not been fulfilled.
Instead,
it has turned the tables on its critics and eroded the Conservative bastions
in
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 159
begun
to gain wider acceptance, and this has been due in
great
measure to the reevaluations of the origin of the book
arising
from the recognition of the "covenant form" in its
structure.63 Although no
consensus has developed concerning
the
historical conclusions to which the covenant form may
point
(see Appendix), there is a recognition by many that at
least
a Grundschrift of the book emanates
from a time much
earlier
than Josiah and has its roots in the covenant traditions
associated
with the amphictyonic center of Shechem.64 As
was
noted above, however, in connection with the "covenant
form"
in Exodus 19-24, there are good reasons to look back
even
beyond the Shechem ceremony to the Sinai event itself
for
the origin of Israelite unity and adoption of the covenant
form.
While one can never speak in terms of "proof" in
matters
of this sort, it appears to this writer that M. Kline
and
K. Kitchen have constructed a model which is consistent
with
available evidence and ,which provides a basis for the
pursuit
of Deuteronomic studies which is superior to either
the
Wellhausian or other more recent models which reject
Deuteronomy's
Mosaic origin.65
63. See: G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT 9; London:
1953);
idem,
Deuteronomy; G. E. Wright,
"Deuteronomy," IB, II (New York: 1953);
Deuteronomy and
Tradition;
Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament, 90-
102,
128; idem, "Ancient Orient, `Deuteronism,' and the Old Testament," in
New
Perspectives on
the Old Testament,
ed. J. B. Payne (
64. See the discussion in the Appendix.
Muilenburg ( VT 9 [19591 347, 348,
350)
comments: "It has become increasingly clear that behind the promulgation
of
the Deuteronomic Code of 621 B.C. lies a long history of literary and cultic
activity....
The present book of Deuteronomy is composed of various strata of
tradition,
but at its base there is a Grundschrift emanating from a much earlier
period
than the time of Josiah.... It'is now generally held that the Reformation
of
621 was a movement of restoration, and that its ultimate origin is to be
discovered
in the amphictyony of Shechem.... The problem of the dates of the
Elohist
and of Urdeuteronomium needs review.
The arguments which led to the
eighth
century date of E have little force today in view of modern reconstructions
of
the early history of
Deuteronomic
language, style, and literary structure are to be traced to the latter
part
of the eighth century and before that period to the Shechemite amphictyony
in
the period of the settlement, then it is clear that the history of
faith
requires restatement."
65. K. A. Kitchen ("Ancient
Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testa-
160 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
Section 2
The Covenant Form in I Samuel
11:14-12:25.
A. Characteristic Features of
the Covenant
Form in I Samuel
11:14-12:25.
The presence of certain characteristic
features of the Old
Testament
covenant form in I Samuel 12 has been noted
previously
by a number of scholars.66 Although here no more
than
in other covenantal pericopes does one find a stereo-
typed
adherence to a tightly constructed literary pattern
modeled
on the extra-biblical treaty form, nevertheless ele-
ments
of the terminology and structural features generally
characteristic
of covenantal pericopes elsewhere in the Old
Testament
are present. Bearing in mind that in this instance
they
are utilized in the unique setting of a ceremony associ-
ment,"
in New Perspectives on the Old Testament,
4) has aptly summarized this
position
as follows: "The present writer [Kitchen] cannot see any legitimate way
of
escape from the crystal-clear evidence of the correspondence of Deuteronomy
with
the remarkably stable treaty or covenant form of the fourteenth-thirteenth
centuries
B.C. Two points follow here. First, the basic structure of Deuteronomy
and
much of the content that gives specific character to that structure must
constitute
a recognizable literary entity; second, this is a literary entity not of the
eighth
or seventh century B.C. but rather from ca. 1200 B.C. at latest. Those who
so
choose may wish to claim that this or that individual 'law' or concept appears
to
be of later date than the late thirteenth century B.C.; but it is no longer
methodologically
permissible gaily to remove essential features of the covenant-
form
on a mere preconception (especially if of nineteenth-century [A.D.] vin-
tage)
of what is merely thought—not proven—to be 'late.' "
66. Muilenburg ( VT 9 [1959] 361) says of I Samuel 12 that "it is often said
that
the report has been fashioned after the model of Joshua xxiv, but it is more
likely
that both accounts go back to the literary genre which receives its classical
form
in the Sinaitic pericope and was perpetuated in the active cult at the
amphictyonic
centers. Here we have the same terminology, the same style, the
same
major motifs, key words, historical memories, and other characteristic
features
of the covenant Gattung." Baltzer (The
Covenant Formulary, 67) says,
"In
short, the schema of the covenant renewal is preserved almost intact. All that
is
missing is explicit mention of a new ratification on the part of the
people."
McCarthy
(Treaty and Covenant, 143) comments,
"What we have in all this is the
application
of the covenant structure to a special end, a warning about the
dangers
of monarchy in
The Samuel
Traditions: An Analysis of the Anti-Monarchical Source in I Samuel
1-15 (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1967) 260-
263,
and Birch, The Rise of the Israelite
Monarchy, 113-121.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 161
ated
with the establishment of kingship in
this
chapter is not the text of the concluding of a covenant,
but
rather the description of an assembly led by Samuel in
which
covenantal issues were of central importance, it is not
surprising
that the arrangement of the features of the cove-
nant
form exhibits a certain freedom. Nevertheless, it is clear
that
Samuel's words and actions at the Gilgal assembly are
not
simply ad hoc remarks or an
arbitrarily constructed
agenda
of
lished
legal-ceremonial forms of the covenant tradition. Ele-
ments
of the covenant form which are particularly noticeable
are:
1) the appeal to antecedent history (I Sam. 12:6-12);
2)
the challenge to the basic covenantal obligation of un-
divided
allegiance to Yahweh introduced by the transitional
and
now Sam. 12:13a, 14a, 15a, 20-21, 24); 3) blessing
and
curse sanctions (I Sam. 12:14b, 15b, 25); 4) a theo-
phanic
sign (I Sam. 12:16-22).
It is our purpose to examine each of
these elements in
order
to ascertain its function in the chapter and, in addition,
to
determine what implications this combination of features
has
for denoting the character of the Gilgal assembly as well
as
the unity of the description of the assembly contained in
Samuel
11:14-12:25.
1.
Appeal to antecedent history (I Sam.
12:6-12).
As was noted above the use of a
historical summary is a
characteristic
feature of the Old Testament covenant form.67
Such
summaries are utilized in different ways in different
covenantal
contexts, but the central idea that Yahweh's gra-
cious
acts in history provided the basis for
of
loyalty, and service to Yahweh, which was to be expressed
in
obedience to the covenantal law, remains constant.68 Here
67. See above, 139. Although the
presence of a brief historical summary is
an
important characteristic feature of the covenant form, it does not follow that
its
use is confined only to passages displaying all aspects of the covenantal form.
68. The presence in Old Testament
literature of brief historical summaries
162 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
(I
Sam. 12:6-12) Samuel utilizes a historical recapitulation of
the
"righteous acts of Yahweh" in order to judicially estab-
of
Yahweh's previous relationship to his people has long been recognized and
various
theories have been advanced to explain the origin and function of these
summaries.
G. von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch,
1-78) considered Deut.
26:5b-9
to be presumably the earliest example known to us of a distinct literary
type
(Gattung) which he termed the
"historical credo"; this literary type consti-
tuted
the nucleus around which the entire Hexateuch was constructed. (It would
lead
us too far astray to discuss here von Rad's separation of the Exodus and
Conquest
traditions from the Sinai tradition and the relationship of this to his
credo
thesis [see above, Section 1,D,1] .) For a critique of von Rad's position on
this
issee see: Weiser, The Old Testament: Its
Formation and Development,
83-88;
and, Huffmon, CBQ 27 [1965] 101-113.)
Von Rad (ibid., 8) found other
examples
of this same literary type in Deut. 6:20-24 and Josh. 24:2b-13, and
concluded
that, "the solemn recital of the main parts of the redemption narrative
must
have been an invariable feature of the ancient Israelite cultus...." He
mentions
(ibid., 9) I Sam. 12:8 as a free adaptation of the Credo in the cultic
setting
of the Mizpah (rather than Gilgal, see above, 9, 127-128) assembly. Although
von
Rad 's thesis has been widely accepted, C. H. W. Brekelmans ("Het ‘historische
Credo’
in
the
short historical Credo is an independent Gattung.
He points out that the
historic
summaries in Deut. 6:20-25; Ex. 12:26-27; 13:14-15; Josh. 4:6-7, 21-24
are
not roperly treated when they are separated from their context and that they
are
more properly assigned to the Gattung
of "catechetical instruction" than to
that
of "historical credo." Brekelmans then notes that the historical
summary in
Josh.
2 :2b-13 must be viewed in connection with its appearance in a chapter
which
is a description of a covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem. He points out
that
verses 2b-13 are an integral part of the Gattung
to which the chapter belongs
which
is that of the "covenant formulary." Von Rad (Old Testament Theology I,
122,
12z) considers Josh. 24:2b-13 to be representative of the transformation of
the
Credo into words spoken by God (Gottesrede). Brekelmans comments, (ibid.,
8)
"De stilering als ‘Gottesrede’ van Jos. 24
een
omvorming of een afwijking van de oorspronkelijke belijdenisformule. Van
een
'formgeschichtliche' ontwikkeling van het een naar het ander
zijn. Be de, de katechese en het Verbondsformulier zijn
eigenstandige litteraire
grootheden,
die in het geheel niet uit elkaar zijn ontstaan. Dat de feitelijke
heilsdaden
die in beide ter sprake komen vrijwel hetzelfde zijn, komt hieruit
voort, at de vermelde heilsdaden het wezen van
door
warden deze feiten op alle terreinen van het godsdienstig leven benut: bij de
verbondshernieuwing,
in de katechese en ook in de eredienst." Brekelmans then
protests
against von Rad's separation of Deut. 26:5-9 from verse 10 (noting
particularly
the we'atta with which
verse 10 begins) because the historical sum-
mary
p ovides the basis for the motivation to bringing the first fruits. He
comments,
"Het zg. Credo is dus inleiding, historische proloog en motivering van
het
opdragen der eerstelingen uit dankbaarheid voor de weldaden door God aan
Israël
bewezen. Men doet ook hier de tekst geweld aan, wanneer men de vv. 5-9
van
v. 10 scheidt alsof zij niet met elkaar to maken hebben...Het lijkt mij niet
onmogelijk,
datade litteraire vorm van deze verzen zeer sterk beinvloed is door het
zg. Verbondsformulier: men zou er de historische proloog
en de loyaliteitsverklar-
The Covenant Form in the Old Testament 163
lish
it
is important for Samuel to bring the historical summary up
ing,
verbonde door we'atta, in
kunnen herkennen. Dan zouden we hier een
liturgische
toepassing van het Verbondsformulier voor ons hebben. Dit lijkt
minstens
waarschijnlijker dan de verklaring, die von Rad heeft voorgesteld."
In our opinion J. P. Hyatt
("Were There an Ancient Historical Credo and an
Independent
S nai Tradition?" in Translating and
Understanding the Old Testa-
ment [H. G. M y
Festschrift;
"We
must agree with Brekelmans that von Rad has not successfully isolated a
Gattung that can
correctly be called 'historical Credo.' What he calls by this name
are
in fact historical summaries, short or long, embedded within Gattungen that
should
be designated as catechesis, covenant formulary (or more fully: the form
for
ceremony of covenant making or renewal), or prayer to be made with the
offering
of first fruits" (p. 164). It then follows that the fact that historical
summaries
are utilized in various ways in Old Testament literature is simply a
reflection
of the fundamental importance of the "righteous acts of Yahweh" for
the
conceptual structure of the Sinitic covenant and the essence of
Th.
C. Vriezen ("The Credo in the Old Testament," in, Studies on the Psalms [6th
Meeting,
OTWSA; Potchefstroom: 1963] 5-17) who considers von Rad's credo
theory
as "far from a success" and "not very probable" makes the
following
comment
in his discussion of the nature of the historical summary contained in
Deut.
26:5 ff.: "It is a pity that, at least according to my knowledge, we have
no
formula
for the presentation of tribute by vassals to great kings; specially those of
the
Hittite palace would have been very interesting. A formula like the one
prescribed
here seems to me to hail from the sphere of the covenant; a conception
which
(as is known generally), just as that of election, dominates Dt." (15-16).
For further discussion of brief
historical summaries in the Old Testament
see:
L. Rost, "Das Kleine Geschichtliche Credo" in Das Kleine Credo and andere
Studien zum
Alten Testament
(
(1968)
53-64; C. Carmichael, "A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic
Credo,"
VT 19 (1969) 273-289; D. J. McCarthy,
"What Was
Creed?"
LTQ 4 (1969) 46-53.
69. See above, Chapter I, 24-31
Baltzer (The Covenant Formulary, 66)
comments,
"The antecedent history in vv. 8-13, together with the introduction in
v.
7, is clearly defined.... The antecedent history extends from Jacob to the
suppose
[sic] present. It recounts Yahweh's saving acts in contrast to the sins of
the
Judges in more detail. Despite the apostasy of
promise
made in the covenant—this is the tenor of the discourse. In the express
listing
of sins, this antecedent history is closely related to those discussed in the
previous
section, in the circumstances of a covenant renewal occasioned by
to
miss the import of the use of the appeal to antecedent history by Samuel when
he
says, "The history which is cited, rather than giving a ground for
accepting
what
follows, leads up to a reprobation of
kingship (emphasis mine). After
pointing
up the infidelity of
concludes
with what must be taken as a negative view of the monarchy. Kingship
164 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
to
date70 which he does not only by
mentioning his own role
as
a deliverer sent by Yahweh (I Sam. 12:11), but also by
pointing
out the implicit rejection of the kingship of Yahweh
which
was involved in
in
battle when Nahash the Ammonite threatened her borders.
2. The
challenge to the basic covenantal obligation of un-
divided allegiance
to Yahweh introduced by the transitional
"and now"
(I Sam. 12:13a, 14a, 15a, 20-21, 24).
The htfv with which
verse 13 begins is characteristic
of
the transition from the historical recapitulation to the
"statement
of substance"71 in a number of covenantal con-
is
an imitation of the ways of the nations; Yahweh is
proper
historical prologue to the presentation of the king, for the implication is
that
the kinship involves some infidelity. This is scarcely motivation for accept-
ing
the king; it would point rather to rejection." It may be questioned,
however,
if
we really have a "reprobation of kingship" implied in these verses if
the
implication
is given that "kingship involves some infidelity." It is not kingship
itself
which is reprobated or which involves infidelity. It is
Yahweh
as expressed in her wrongly motivated desire for a king which is the issue,
not
kingship in and of itself. On the other hand, the intent of v. 12 is not to
give
"motivation
for accepting the king." As is repeatedly (vv. 9a, 10a) the case in the
historical
summary (vv. 6-12)
righteous
acts of Yahweh.
70. When one compares the historical
summaries in Ex. 19:4; 20:2b; Deut.
1:5-4:49;
Josh. 24:2-13 and I Sam. 12:6-12 it is clear that on the occasions when
the
covenant was renewed the antecedent history was brought up to date. Kline
(Treaty of the Great King, 52) comments,
"The historical prologue of the Sinaitic
Covenant
hay referred to the deliverance from
begins
at the scene of the Sinaitic Covenant and continues the history up to the
covenant
renewal assembly in
victories.
When, still later, Joshua again renewed the covenant to
continued
the narrative in his historical prologue through the events of his own
leadership
of
I
Sam. 12:6-12 extends this progressive enlargement to the end of the period of
the judges.
71. See n. 5 above. Baltzer (The Covenant Formulary, 12, 13)
considers the
"statement
of substance concerning the future relationship of the partners to the
treaty"
to be a characteristic feature of the treaty form. He notes that in the
Hittite
treaties the "statement of substance itself comprises primarily general
imperatives.
Their basic requirement is loyalty on the part of the treaty signa-
tory."
Baltzer also finds the statement of substance to be a characteristic feature
of
Old Testament covenantal pericopes as is seen, e.g., in Josh. 24:14; Ex. 19:5,
6;
Deut.
29:8(9); Neh. 10:30(29); I Chron. 28:8. This list of Baltzer's can be
enlarged
and formulations of the "statement of substance" in conditional
phrase-
ology
stating the general conditions of the covenant obligation are certainly to be
included (se., e.g.: Ex. 23:22; Deut. 8:19; 11:13-15,
22-25, 26-28; 28:1 ff.,
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 165
texts.72 In these places
it points to the conclusion which is to
be
drawn from the antecedent history. In our context, the
description
of Samuel's presentation of the king to the peo-
ple,
coupled with the statement that Yahweh has chosen to
give
his people a human king in spite of the sinfulness of their
request
(I Sam. 12:13) is set between the historical recapitu-
lation
and the “statement of substance.”73 This intervening
material
is of particular importance here because it provides
the
backdrop against which the exhortation to covenant
faithfulness
which follows is brought to focus ("behold the
king
whom you have given preference to, whom you have
requested"),
while at the same time it conveys a very positive
attitude
toward the incorporation of human kingship into the
theocratic
structure of the nation ("and behold, Yahweh has
set
a king over you"). It is in this very carefully construed
setting
tliat Samuel enunciates the basic covenantal require-
15
ff.; 30:11, 18; Josh. 20:24; I Sam. 7:3). In his discussion of I Sam. 12,
however, Baltzer
cites
only vv. 20-21 as reflective of this particular feature of the treaty-covenant
form.
72. For the use of htfv in covenantal
contexts see:
(1959) 353-355, 359, 361-363; Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 21, 28, 32, 75,
148, 149; 1-id J. L'Hour, "L'Alliance a
Sichem," RB 69 (1962) 5-36.
L'Hour
comments (ibid., 25), "Cette conjonction n'a que tres
exceptionnellement dans la
Bible un sens temporel. Elle exprime communement la
consecution logique,
decision ou, action, decoulant d'un fait ou d'une
declaration. Tres souvent elle est
employee comme ici, apres une narration historique et on
la recontre en particu-
Her dans les contextes d'Alliance. Son usage cultuel en
Ex 19,5 et Jos 24 parait
etre technique et anterieur i son utilisation par les
prophetes." See
further,
Laurentin
[Bib 45 (1964) 169, n. 1 and 177,
178] who comments, "Kai nun
n'appartient pas seulement aux formules de demande
d'Alliance, mais aux formules
qui scellent' ou proclament cette Alliance. Ces dernieres
ont deja ete etudiees par
Muilenburg; Baltzer et L'Hour, qui ont mis en valeur le
role de we'attah et le
caractere de serment que cette locution leur
confere." Even
though the studies of
Laurentin
and Brongers [ VT 15 (1965) 289-299]
make it clear that htfv is used
in
a great variety of ways and, in addition, even though htfv is utilized in
I
Samuel 12 in three other places (vv. 2, 7, 10; htf-Mg, 16) its
specialized use in
v.
13 as an introduction to the statement of substance following the historical
recapitulation
is supported by comparison with its occurrence in other covenantal
pericopes
(cf. Ex. 19:5; Josh. 24:14).
73. When the htfv of v. 13 is
taken as leading up to the -Mx clause of v.
14,
with
the two hnh
clauses of v. 13 interjected, then the wording of the covenant
conditional
here closely parallels that of Ex. 19:5.
I Sam. 12:13, 14: vlvqb Mtfmwv ...
–Mx... htfv
Ex. 19:5: ylvqb
vfmwt fvmw-Mx htfv
166 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
ment
of loyalty to Yahweh in the characteristic terminology
of
"statements of substance" in other covenantal contexts.74
He
does this at first in conditional phraseology (I Sam. 12:
14a,
5a) confronting the people with the alternatives which
were
open to them as they entered the new era of the
monarchy.75 Samuel's
evident purpose is to emphasize that
allegiance
to Yahweh is not to be impinged upon or chal-
74. For xry (hvhy-tx
vxryt-Mx)
see: Deut. 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6;
10:12,
20; 13:5(4); 28:58; 31:13; Josh. 24:14; II Kings 17:35, 39. For 1:7
(vtx
Mtdbfv)
see: Deut. 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 13:5(4); Josh. 22:5; 24:14;
II
King 17:35, For fmw (vlvqb Mtfmwv) see: Ex. 19:5;
Deut. 4:30; 11:13; 27:10; 30:2, 8; 31:13;
Judg.
2:2; 6:10; Ezek. 20:8. For hrm (hvhy
yp-tx vrmt xlv)
see: Ezek. 21:8; Neh. 9:26.
75 Muilenburg (VT 9 [1959] 363) comments that the "covenant condi-
tional"
occurs here in a form "closer to Exod. xix than to Josh. xxiv but more
expanded,
yet preserving the very heart of the Mosaic formulation: Mtfmwv
hvhy lvqb vfmwt xl Mxv .... vlvqb (14-15). . .
." Baltzer (The Covenant Formulary,
66,
67) does not view vv. 14 and 15 as a "statement of substance" (see
above,
n.
71) and thus considers these two verses as a "departure from the structure
observe
elsewhere." Part of the reason for this is Baltzer's interpretation of v.
14
in
whic he finds "no blessing formula such as we might expect ..." (see
above,
p.
41 ff , however, for a discussion of the interpretation of the apodosis of v.
14).
Baltzer
feels that the negative character of these verses is probably due to the
redactor
who omitted the blessing formula. He labels vv. 14 and 15 as "the
announcement
of the curse." In taking this
position Baltzer misses the import of
vv.
14, 15 as well as the correspondence of their form and function in this
pericope
to the statement of substance in other covenantal contexts. McCarthy
(Treaty and Covenant, 142) in agreement
with Baltzer, comments that vv. 14 and
15
"are a remnant of a blessing-curse formula, but the negative, threatening
tone
is
emphasized" because the "wish for good, the apodosis of v. 14 is
missing." He
adds,
" the blessing is not merely omitted, a procedure which would not call
attention
to itself, but it is begun and never finished so that the reader cannot fail
to
remark the absence of the blessing." In addition, McCarthy feels that vv.
14
and
15 are "peculiar in another respect." He is of the opinion that they
should
assure
the proper functioning of the office of the king and the proper relation
between
the king and the people. In other words, he interprets this "remnant of a
blessing-curse
formula" as applicable to a covenant between the king and the
people,
yet he recognizes that it is difficult to fit vv. 14 and 15 with this concept.
He
comments, "But this is not the case; vv. 14-15 look to the relation of the
whole
nation to Yahweh. This may well reflect
fundamental
covenant relationship, but it is not quite to the point here." Leaving
aside
the question whether or not two covenants existed in connection with
kingship
in
the
other between the king and the people, cf. II Kings 11:17) it seems clear to
this
writer that the focus of vv. 14 and 15 on Israel's fundamental covenant
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 167
lenged,
in any way by the accession of the human king whom
he
had just presented to them, yet at the same time he clearly
indicates
that kingship in itself need not be in conflict with
covenant
fidelity to Yahweh.
After the unusual thunder storm (I Sam.
12:16-18) and
the
people's response to it by repentance and confession of
their
sin in requesting a king (I Sam. 12:19), Samuel reassures
them,
but he then again emphasizes their fundamental cove-
nantal
obligation of undivided allegiance to Yahweh with two
additional
exhortations:
I Samuel 12:20b, 2176
. . . only do not any longer
turn away from following
Yahweh, but serve Yahweh with all your
heart.
And turn not away after vain
things which do not
profit or deliver because they are
vain things.
I Samuel 12:2477
Only fear Yahweh, and serve
him faithfully with all
your heart, for consider what great
things he has done for
you.
The threefold repetition of the
challenge to covenant
faithfulness
in the brief compass of this description of the
Gilgal
gathering suggests in itself the prominent place which
covenant
renewal occupies in the proceedings of the as-
sembly.
3.
Blessing and curse sanctions (I Sam.
12:14b, 15b, 25).
Samuel's formulation of the basic
covenantal obligation
in
a conditional expression connects directly with the bless-
ing
and curse sanctions of verses 14b and 15b. If
remains
loyal to Yahweh with the introduction of human
kingship
into her national life she will then be continuing to
recognize
Yahweh as her sovereign (hvhy rhx... Mtyhv)78
and
'therefore can expect to enjoy the benefits contingent
relationship
to Yahweh precisely at the moment of the inauguration of the
monarchy
is very much to the point (see above, Chapter I, pp. 41-46) and, in fact,
the
central concern of the Gilgal assembly.
76. See above, Chapter I, 53-55.
77. See above, Chapter I, 59-60.
78. See above, Chapter I, 41-46.
168 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
upon
that loyalty. If she turns away from following Yahweh,
his
hand will be against her as it was against her fathers.79
The
warning inherent in the curse sanction of 14b is empha-
sized
again in the concluding statement of the chapter (v. 25)
where
it is said that persistence in wickedness (i.e., rejection
of
the kingship of Yahweh in whatever form this may take cf.
vv.
17, 19, 20, 21) will lead to the destruction of the nation
and
its human.80
4.
Theophanic sign (I Sam. 12:16-18a).
Although theophany cannot be said to
be a regular fea-
ture
of the covenant form,81 and in addition
one might
question
whether or not this section of I Samuel 12 is rightly
interpreted
as theophanic,82 it is
nevertheless noteworthy
that
the covenant form is associated with theophany in a
79. The attachment of blessing and curse
sanctions to the covenant condi-
tional
is attested elsewhere in covenantal contexts (cf. Ex. 19:5, 6; 23:22; Deut.
8:19;
11:13-15, 22-25, 26-28; 28:1 ff., 15 ff.; 30:17, 18; Josh. 24:20; I Sam.
7:3).
80. Note the similar formulation at
the conclusion of certain Hittite treaties
(Goetze,
ANET2 , 205-206). In the
treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of
Amurru: should Duppi-Tessub not honor these
words of the treaty and the
oath,
may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with his person,
his
wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land and together with everything
that
he owns.
"But if Duppi-Tessub honors
these words of the treaty and the oath that are
inscribed
on this tablet, may these gods of the oath protect him together with his
person,
his wife, his son, his grandson, his house (and) his country."
In the treaty between Suppiluliumas
and Kurtiwaza: "If you, Kurtiwaza, the
prince,
and (you) the sons of the Hurri country do not fulfill the words of this
treaty,
may the gods, the lords of the oath, blot you out, (you) Kurtiwaza, and
(you)
the Hurri men together with your country, your wives and all that you
have....
If (on the other hand) you, Kurtiwaza, the prince, and (you), the
Hurrians,
fulfill this treaty and (this) oath, may these gods protect you, Kurti-
waza,
together with your wife, ... May the throne of your father persist, may the
81. The reason for this may be found
largely in the fact that Yahweh
addresses
his covenant people through a mediator or spokesman (cf. the first
person
address of the covenant-treaty form in many instances), and this may or
may
not be accompanied by some sort of theophany as it was at Sinai.
82. See above, Chapter I, 50-51. The
thunderings and rain are more an authenti-
cating
sign than a theophany in the technical sense of the word, yet the nature of
the
sign with its overtones of the Sinai theophany causes it to assume theophanic
significance.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 169
number
of instances (cf. Deut. 31; I Kings 8; Ps. 50).83 And
as
we noted above, the manifestation of the power of Yah-
weh
in the thunderings and rain serves a theophanic purpose
in
its functional role in the proceedings of the Gilgal assem-
bly.
The people are reminded that the God who appeared at
Sinai
amidst thunderings and lightnings (Ex. 19:16; 20:18) is
still
concerned with his people and capable of actualizing the
covenant
curses on them for their disobedience and rejection
of
himself. The response of the people here (vv. 18-19) is
indicative
of the deep impression which it made on them and
reminiscent
of the response of their ancestors previously to
the
manifestation of Yahweh's presence at Sinai (Ex. 20:18-
20).
It is this remarkable act of Yahweh in sending thunder-
ings
and rain at Samuel's behest which evokes fear, repen-
tance,
and the request for intercession. At the same time this
event
is described as a great thing (lvdgh rbdh) which the
people
are to witness (vxr), thus assuming the form of a sign
or
wonder. This call to witness an extraordinary act of
Yahweh)
as a basis for expression of covenant allegiance to
Yahweh
is also found in other covenantal pericopes (cf. Ex.
19:4a;
0:22; Deut. 29:1[2] ; Josh. 23:3; 24:7a).
B. Implications of the Covenant
Form in
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 for its Interpretation
and Unity.
1.
Implications for its interpretation.
Recognition of the covenantal
character of I Samuel 11:
14-12:25
is important because it provides a perspective for
understanding
the overall purpose of the Gilgal gathering
which
in turn clarifies the integral relationship between the
various
transactions of the assembly. Clarity on the overall
purpose
of the assembly also contributes to a more complete
understanding
of a number of terms and expressions appear-
ing
in the report of the assembly.
83. See N. H. Ridderbos, OTS, XV, 213-226 and the literature
there cited.
170 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
a. Elucidation
of the covenantal character and purposes
of the Gilgal assembly.
It has long been customary to
designate I Samuel 12 as
the
"farewell address" of Samuel.84 This or some
similar
designation
of the chapter is so uniformly adopted even by
proponents
of the most widely divergent positions on other
aspects
of the analysis of the chapter that it might well be
termed
the traditional view. Although new attention has been
drawn
to I Samuel 12 in recent years because of the investiga-
tions
into the covenant form initiated by Mendenhall and
related
to I Samuel 12 by Muilenburg,85 Baltzer,86 Weiser,87
and
McCarthy,88 this has not produced a
satisfactory identifi-
cation
of the nature of the Gilgal assembly which does justice
to
all the factors occasioning the gathering.
In Muilenburg's treatment of I Samuel
12 he does not
break
with the traditional idea of a "farewell address" when
he
comments that "Samuel pronounces his great valedictory
to
the people" (italics mine), yet he does point out that this
was
done "in language which belongs to a long history of
covenants
tradition.”89 His explanation for this is that
I Sam-
uel
12 as well as Joshua 24 go back "to the literary genre
which
receives its classical form in the Sinaitic pericope and
was
perpetuated in the active cult at the amphictyonic cen-
ters."90 It is
Muilenburg's purpose to point out the common
features
of the passages he investigates (Ex. 19:3-6; Josh. 24;
I
Sam. 12), but not to specify further the precise differentia-
84. Smith, Samuel, ICC, 81-82; Budde, Die
Bücher Samuel, KHC, 82;
Schulz,
Samuel, EH, 164; De Groot, I Samuël,
TeU, 123; Schelhaas, GTT 44
(1944)
270 Goldman, Samuel, SBB, 63; Caird,
"Samuel," IB, II, 941;
Gottwald,
Encyclopedia
Judaica,
XXIV, 792. Note also the discussions in: Eissfeldt, Intro-
duction, 13;
Sellin-Fohrer, Introduction, 224.
85.
86. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 66-68.
87. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 79-94.
88. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 141-145.
89.
90. Ibid., 361.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 171
tions
between the nature of the occasions with which the
covenant
form is connected. He thus comments with regard
to
I Samuel 12: "It has not been our concern here to identify
the
precise occasion; it is likely, however, that the events at
Shechem
and Gilgal(?) are thought of in some sense as
covenant
renewals."91 In exactly what
sense he does not say,
although
later he indicates that in I Samuel 12 one finds the
"meeting
of kingdom and covenant at the end of the old
amphictyony
at Gilgal(?)."92
From Muilenburg's study it would
appear that he con-
siders
I Samuel 12 as a record of Samuel's "valedictory ad-
dress"
given in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony
at
the time of the transition between the amphictyonic and
kingdom
periods in ancient
As we noted above, K. Baltzer's study
of the covenant
formulary
includes a great many more Old Testament pas-
sages
than does Muilenburg's. Among these are those which
he
classifies as "covenant renewal" texts (Ex. 34; Neh. 9-10;
Ezra
9-10; Dan. 9:4b-19; 1 QS 1.18-2.18). The "new ele-
ment"
which Baltzer finds in these texts which he does not
find
in those he initially examined (Josh. 24; Ex. 19:3-8; Ex.
24:3-4a
7; Deut. 1-4; 28:69-30:20) is "the interpolation of
a
confession of sins.”93 This confession
of sin then turns into
a
prayer for forgiveness in order that the state of shalom
might
be restored.
Baltzer next examines a number of
passages (II Chron.
29:5-1.1;
II Chron. 14:8-15:15; II Kings 22-23; Jer. 34:8-22;
II
Kings 18-19; Jer. 21:1-7; Josh. 7-8; I Kings 8) from which
he
attempts to define more precisely the specific occasions
which
necessitated covenant renewal. He concludes that there
was
no fixed date for covenant renewal, but that "the cove-
nant
had to be renewed whenever it was broken.
learned
that the covenant had been broken when the Mvlw
91. Ibid., 364.
92. Ibid.
93. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 50.
172 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
associated
with the covenant ceased, but also definitively
through
Yahweh's statement."94
The next category of passages which
Baltzer finds utiliz-
ing
the covenant formulary are those associated with the
confirmation
or reaffirmation of the covenant in connection
with
transfer of authority. It is in this category that he places
I
Samuel 12 (otherwise including: Josh. 23; Deut. 31-Josh. 1;
I
Chron. 22-29; 11 Kings 11). Baltzer feels the necessity for
this
additional category of covenant texts because "the expla-
nation
that in
taken
when the covenant had been abrogated through the sin
of
texts
. . . which record a covenant renewal in greater or lesser
detail."95
In his analysis of I Samuel 12,
Baltzer, as Muilenburg,
does
not break with the traditional idea that the chapter
contains
a "farewell address" by Samuel. He comments: "the
occasion
of the covenant renewal is 'Samuel's abdication' " in
which
he introduces the king "who will succeed him in
leading
the nation" because Samuel has become too old for
the
exercise of his office (Baltzer's interpretation of Samuel's
statement:
"I am old and grey-headed").96 Baltzer then
con-
cludes
that "in I Samuel 12 a covenant renewal is linked with
a
transfer of office. Concretely, we have the transfer of the
leadership
of
Baltzer thus classifies I Samuel 12 as
a record of a cove-
nant
renewal linked with the transfer of office. He sees the
chapter
as a representative of this particular sub-category of
the
covenant formulary which is elsewhere to be found in
Joshua 23; Deuteronomy 31-Joshua 1; I Chronicles 22-29;
II
Kings 11. His association of I Samuel 12 with these texts
94. Ibid., 59.
95. Ibid., 63.
96. Ibid., 67.
97. Ibid., 68.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 173
which
also are concerned with covenant renewal upon trans-
fer
of office certainly has merit, yet in classifying the chapter
this
way he fails to do justice to certain other important
features
of I Samuel 12 which should not be overlooked in an
attempt
to delineate the character of the Gilgal assembly.
Two
things in particular to which Baltzer does not give
adequate
attention are the serious sin of
king,
and Samuel's continuing function as described in I Sam-
uel
12:23 which Baltzer fails to even mention.
Baltzer does make the brief comment in
discussing the
use
of the antecedent history in I Samuel 12 that its use here
is
"closely related to those discussed in the previous section,
in
the circumstances of a covenant renewal
occasioned by
certainly
needs to be included in any attempt to specify the
nature
of the Gilgal assembly. In Baltzer's treatment of
Nehemiah
9-10, which he classifies as a use of the covenant
formulary
at the renewal of the covenant after abrogation
because
of sin, he says that the "antecedent history .. .
becomes
a list of Yahweh's saving acts, in which he has
shown
himself to be qydc (9:8; cf. 9:33), i.e., in this case,
faithful
to the covenant. The antecedent history is at the
same
time a confession of
acknowledges
the justice of the curse. The prayer therefore
concludes
as a plea for help."99 I Samuel 12
shows certain
resemblances
to this Nehemiah covenant renewal text which
contains
a confession of sin and a plea for forgiveness in
order
that the state of shalom might be
restored (cf. I Sam.
12:19-22).
Baltzer's treatment of I Samuel 12 and his desig-
nation
of the character of the Gilgal assembly as covenant
renewal
upon transfer of office does not give adequate atten-
tion
to this factor which is prominent in its structure and
important
in relation to the historical situation with which it
is
connected. It is clear that the Gilgal assembly is not only
98. Ibid., 66.
99. Ibid., 46, 47.
174 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
concerned
with transition in leadership, but also with cove-
nant
renewal after abrogation.
In addition, it must also be
questioned whether it is
sufficiently
accurate to maintain that I Samuel 12 really
contains
a record of covenant renewal on the occasion of
"Samuel's
abdication." Samuel certainly does not abdicate in
the
sense of a blanket resignation and total retirement. It
might
also be questioned if it is proper to speak of a "transfer
of
office" from Samuel to Saul. Although Samuel does invest
Saul
with certain functions which he previously had assumed
himself,
there is no exact equivalence between the office of
judge
and that of king. In addition, I Samuel 12:23 clearly
indicates
that Samuel is not abdicating his own position of
continued
leadership. This is confirmed by his important role
in
the events connected with the rejection of Saul by Yahweh
and
his replacement by David. The question is thus raised if it
is
not misleading to designate Samuel's speech in I Samuel 12
as
a valedictory, abdication, or farewell address.
It is in this context that the
suggestions of A. Weiser have
served
to place the chapter in a new perspective. Weiser100
maintains
that the determination of the Gattung
of I Samuel
12
is not helped much by the normal designations such as
"farewell
address" or "sermon" as long as there is not clarity
on
the form of the chapter as a whole and the relationship of
the
individual structural elements within the chapter to each
other.
Weiser maintains that the traditional farewell address
assessment
of the chapter creates an "unüberbrückbare and
unerklärliche
Kluft" between verses 1-5 and the remainder of
the
chapter.101 He, therefore, concludes that
these verses do
not
represent a procedure for an elderly man at the point of
retirement
to step down from his office, but rather represent
a
clever strategy by Samuel to secure a basis for confidence in
his
own continued leadership. Weiser thus departs drastically
100. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 83; cf. above, Chapter I, 18-20.
101. Ibid., 84.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 175
from
the traditional categorization of the chapter as Samuel's
farewell
address.
From these differences in viewpoint it
becomes apparent
that
a significant issue which needs resolution when one
attempts
to specify the nature of the Gilgal assembly is that
of
exactly what Samuel was seeking to accomplish and how
the
covenant form might relate to this. Muilenburg and
Baltzer
view the chapter as a record of a covenant renewal
ceremony
in connection with Samuel's farewell and transfer
of
office to the king. Weiser views the chapter as a record of
the
way lin which Samuel secured a basis for his continued
function
as "Repräsentant des Jahwebundes" in the restruc-
turing
of
epoch
of the judges to that of the kingdom.102
Weiser's position, however, has not
gone without chal-
lenge.
C. J. Goslinga, in our view, rightly contests Weiser's
assertion
that "von einer Amtsniederlegung . . . mit keinem
Wort
die, Rede ist." Goslinga says, "Wel ontbreekt een uit-
drukkelijk
'ik leg mijn ambt als richter neer,' maar Samuel
doet
niet, en kdn niet doen, alsof er na de instelling van het
koningschap
niets veranderd is. De achtergrond van heel het
stuk
(zie vooral vss. 2, 13) is juist dat zijn taak in zeker
opzicht
beëindigd is en hij zijn gezag aan de koning moet
overdragen.
Daarom vraagt hij eervolle decharge (vss. 1-5) en
belooft
hij spontaan wat hij voor het yolk wil blijven doen,
vs.
23, welk woord immers veronderstelt dat hij op
een of
andere wijze zich
terugtrekt, en wel als richter, als magistraat,
als
de hoogste gezagsdrager in Israël onder Jahwe" (italics
mine).103
It is here that the recognition of the
covenantal character
of
the Gilgal assembly is helpful by providing a perspective
within
which the significance of these various aspects of the
Gilgal
assembly can be understood and integrated.
It appears from the biblical text that
covenant renewal at
102. Ibid., 83.
103. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 243.
176 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
times
of important transition in leadership was customary in
ancient
occasions,
namely the transition in leadership from Moses
(Deut.
27; 31-34; Josh. 1); Joshua (Josh. 23, 24); Samuel
(I
Sam. 11:14-12:25); and David (I Chron. 22-29). Each of
these
occasions have their own distinctive settings differen-
tiating
them from each other, but in each case an important
leader
has come to the point in life where it is clear that his
time
of service in the leadership of the nation is drawing to a
close.
Each of these occasions is introduced in the biblical
narrative
with a similar statement by which this idea is
conveyed.
In Deuteronomy 31:2 Moses says, "I am an hun-
dred
and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and
come
in" (cf. also Deut. 31:14, 16). In Joshua 23:2 Joshua
says,
"I am old and striken in age." In I Samuel 12:2 Samuel
says,
"I am old and grey-headed." In I Chronicles 23:1 it is
said,
"When David was old and full of days." In the cases of
Moses
and David the transition in leadership which was about
to
take place involved a direct transfer of
office to another
designated
individual (Joshua and Solomon respectively) to
whom
specific tasks were assigned (Joshua was to lead the
people
into the promised land, Deut. 31:7, 8, 23; Solomon
was
to build the house of Yahweh, I Chron. 28:6, 20), and to
whom
the people gave their allegiance (Deut. 34:9; I Chron.
29:23-25).
In the cases of Samuel and especially Joshua the
transition
in leadership does not involve an explicit transfer
of
office to another single individual who is to carry on quid
pro quo as the departed
one's successor. In Samuel's case one
might
at best speak of a partial transfer of office since the
entire
task of Samuel was not being given to the newly
chosen
king.
What becomes clear then, particularly
in the cases of
Samuel
and Joshua, is that covenant renewal at the time of
transition
in leadership is concerned more with insuring cove-
nant
continuity than it is specifically and only with the
transfer
of office to another designated individual. Even in
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 177
the
cases of Moses and David where concern for covenant
continuity
focuses on a commitment to follow a designated
successor
by transfer of office, the most important thing is
continued
adherence to covenantal obligations (Deut. 31:3-
30;
32:44-47; I Chron. 28:8, 9, 20). The change in leadership
is
important, but it is subordinated to the more weighty issue
of
covenant continuity and leaves the fundamental cove-
nantal
obligations for the nation undiminished.
The purpose then, of the covenant
renewal ceremony
described
in I Samuel 11:14-12:25 is primarily to insure
covenant
continuity in and beyond an important transition in
leadership.
Here, as on other occasions, a prominent leader
has
become old and the nation must be prepared for the time
when
he no longer would serve them. But in addition this
assembly
was called at a time when the people had abrogated
the
covenant by desiring a king like the nations round about,
and
by requesting his appointment by Samuel. Furthermore,
in
spite of the wickedness of the people in their request for a
king,
Yahweh had told Samuel to "make them a king," and
now
the time had come for Saul to be inaugurated and to
assume
his role of leadership over the nation.
come
to the moment of a major restructuring of the ad-
ministration
of the theocracy. It is the combination of all
these
factors which created the unique situation for the
calling
of a covenant renewal assembly at Gilgal.
In all of this the over-riding issue
is Samuel's attempt to
provide
for covenant continuity in the future life of the
nation.
This necessitated first of all repentance and confes-
sion
of sin by the people for their wickedness in asking for a
king,
and then recognition of the continuing suzerainty of
the
monarchy.
With the establishment of the monarchy
Samuel would
relinquish
some of his previous functions to the king, particu-
larly
that of leading the nation in war against her enemies.
But
this does not mean that he is simply turning his own
178 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
previous
responsibilities over to Saul and going into retire-
ment.
Samuel was clearly not relinquishing his prophetic
function.104 He says
specifically that he will continue to
instruct
and guide the people in the way which they should
go,
and he will remain an intercessor on their behalf.105 Here,
then,
is no simple transfer of office en toto
from Samuel to
Saul,
but rather the initiating of a new order of administra-
tion
of the theocracy in which there is a new division of
responsibility
among
relationship
between prophet and king is to be of great
significance
in both the immediate and more distant future.
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 should,
therefore, be understood
as
the record of a covenant renewal ceremony held for the
dual
purpose of providing for covenant continuity at a time
of
transition in leadership and covenant restoration after
abrogation.
It is misleading to characterize the chapter as
either
Samuel's "farewell address" or as a ceremony designed
solely
to enable Samuel to continue to function as "Reprä-
sentant
des Jahwebundes." Neither of these characterizations
does
justice to the total picture. Samuel was approaching the
end
of his life, and was preparing the nation to carry on
without
him as she entered a new epoch in her history. Yet
Samuel
is not retiring nor is he simply transferring his former
functions
en toto to the king. His purpose is
to provide for
covenant
continuity by establishing the new order of the
theocracy
with the inauguration of Saul; by setting the pat-
tern
for the future relationship between the kings and proph-
ets
in
renewed
allegiance to Yahweh with a view to the future
well-being
of the nation.
104. Cf. above, p. 59 (and n. 141).
105. That intercession is often
associated with the prophetic function is
indicated
in a number of O.T. passages (cf., e.g.: Gen. 20:7; Jer. 37:3). Rowley
(Worship in Ancient
man
who brought the word of God to man. He was also the spokesman of man to
God,
and as intercessor he figures frequently in the Old Testament." Cf.
further:
De
Boer, OTS, III, 157 ff.; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, 51 ff.
The Covenant Form in the Old Testament 179
b.
Elucidation of the covenantal background for various
statements and terms occurring in I
Samuel 11:14-12:25.
Recognition of the "covenant
form" in I Samuel 11:
14-12:25
not only aids in clarifying the significance and
purpose
of the Gilgal assembly, but also provides a perspec-
tive
within which, certain expressions and concerns in the
pericope
are made more perspicuous.
1) "Renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14).—First of all,
Samuel's
statement, "Come, let us go to Gilgal and renew the
kingdom
there" (I Sam. 11:14) is placed in a new light. As
we
have noted, the people are invited to Gilgal in order to
renew
the abrogated covenant with Yahweh at a time of
transition
in national leadership. Samuel's primary concern at
the
Gilgal assembly is provision for covenantal continuity in
this
historical context. The presence of the covenant form
and
the emphasis, on covenant renewal in I Samuel 12 is an
added
indication that the "kingdom" referred to in I Samuel
11:14
is best understood as the
Understanding
the phrase in this way clarifies the relationship
between
I Samuel 11:14 and 15 and provides a concise state-
ment
of the purpose of the Gilgal assembly. It is not Saul's
kingdom
that is to be renewed, his kingdom is rather to be
established
(cf. I Sam. 11:14, "they made Saul king before
Yahweh
in Gilgal"), but this is to be done in the context of
renewal
of allegiance to Yahweh. It was allegiance to Yah-
weh,
not Saul, which had dissipated and needed reaffirma-
tion;
and it is this to which Samuel challenges the people as
he
presents their king to them (I Sam. 12:2, 13-15) remind-
ing
them that their wickedness was great in asking for a king
(I
Sam. 12:17).
2)
20).—Recognition
of the covenantal character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25
also contributes to a better understanding of
106. See above, Chapter II; Chapter
III, Section 2,A.
180 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
the
reason why
ered
to be so serious by Samuel (cf. I Sam. 12:17, 20). As is
indicated
in I Samuel 8:20 the Israelites desired a king who
would
"go out before us and fight our battles." The Israelites
were
apparently gravely concerned for their national security
in
the face of the continuing Philistine threat, and also the
anticipated
hostile actions of the Ammonites under the lead-
ership
of Nahash (cf. I Sam. 12:12). In these circumstances,
instead
of crying out to Yahweh and requesting deliverance,
they
sought to provide for their security by setting a king
over
them to lead them in battle as was customary with the
nations
round about. This action constituted a most serious
breach
of covenant, in that it represented a lack of confi-
dence
in the covenantal promises of Yahweh, their Great
King,
by seeking national security in the person of a human
leader.
In addition, it showed complete disregard for previous
demonstrations
of Yahweh's covenant faithfulness in provid-
ing
for
It is noteworthy here that one of the
prominent features
of
the Hittite treaties is the Great King's promise of protec-
tion
to his vassal against enemies. In Yahweh's covenant with
Yahweh
promises to be the protector of his people when
they
remain faithful to their covenantal obligations.108 Yah-
weh
says (Ex. 23:22) "I will be an enemy unto thine ene-
mies,
and an adversary unto thine adversaries." In addition,
Yahweh
promised to give the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites,
Perizzites,
Hivites, and Jebusites into the Israelite's hand as
they
enter the
assurances
of protection that
national
security. J. Broekhuis comments, "De oorlogen, die
Israël
voerde, waren Jahwe's oorlogen. Ze zijn uitdrukking
van
het bewustzijn van de Israëliet, dat de verbondsgod bij
107. See above, Chapter I, 20-40.
See further, G. E. Wright's discussion of
"God
the Warrior" (The Old Testament and
Theology, 121-150).
108.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 181
alle
dingen oorzakelijk is betrokken."109
the
promised land to conquer its people while maintaining
her
security by resting in the promises of Yahweh's protec-
tion.
In Deuteronomy 20:1-4 the Israelites are told that when
they
go out to battle against an enemy whose forces are
greater
and stronger than their own, they are not to be
"afraid
of them; for Yahweh your God, who brought you up
from
the
hearted.
Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them
for
Yahweh your God is the one who goes with you, to fight
for
you against your enemies, to save you." Because of this
promise
weh
(Ex. 14:13; Num. 14:9; Josh. 10:8; II Sam. 10:12;
II
Chron. 20:17). Because of this promise
always
to remember that her victories were Yahweh's vic-
tories,
and all the glory and honor was due to him and not to
the
human leader in battle (Ex. 15; Judg. 5; Josh. 23:10; Ps.
18;
21).
It is the protection clauses in the
covenantal formulations
of
Exodus and Deuteronomy which provide the explanation
for
Samuel's statements that
king
when they requested a human king to lead them in
battle.
The seeking of security in anyone other than Yahweh
was
tantamount to rebellion against the suzerainty of Yah-
weh.
This abrogation of the covenant needed rectification
upon
the inauguration of Saul to be king. It was also impor-
tant
to emphasize that as Saul's kingship was established, his
position
as king in no way impinged on the continued sover-
eignty
of Yahweh, and that even with a human king
would
continue to derive her security from Yahweh's prom-
ise
of protection. It is then indeed significant that Saul was
inaugurated
only after stating very clearly that "Yahweh has
accomplished
deliverance in
quent
to his leading
109. J. Broekhuis, "De Heilige
Oorlog in het Oude Testament," ThRef
18
(1975)
120.
182 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
3)
"Peace offerings" (I Sam. 11:15); "righteous acts of
Yahweh" (I
Sam. 12:7); "good and right way" (I Sam. 12:
23).—There are
other individual terms in I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
which acquire fuller significance when they are seen in
a
covenantal context. Among these are: "peace offerings"
(I
Sam. 11:15); "righteous acts of Yahweh" (I Sam. 12:7);
and
"good and right way" (I Sam. 12:23). As we noted
above,110
the sacrifices of peace offerings at the Gilgal assem-
bly
are particularly appropriate when it is seen that the
assembly
is primarily concerned with covenant renewal, for
these
sacrifices are associated closely with the establishment
of
the covenant at Sinai and represent a demonstration of
covenant
solidarity in subsequent observances.111 The expres-
sion
"the righteous acts of Yahweh" (I Sam. 12:7) also gains
in
clarity when it is noted that the usage of qdc and its
cognate
forms occurs in covenantal contexts as a designation
of
covenant faithfulness (cf. Ps. 106:31; Mic. 6:5; Deut.
9:4-6;
Hos. 2:21; Isa. 26:2; Zech. 8:8; Ps. 103:17[18]).112
Here
Samuel utilizes examples of Yahweh's covenant loyalty
in
order to set the disloyalty of
After Saul had been presented to the
people and the
people
had confessed their sin in requesting a king, Samuel
announces
that he will continue to pray for them and teach
them
"in the good and the right way" (I Sam. 12:23). This
110. Chapter II, 88-90.
111. See esp. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer. D. J. McCarthy (CBQ 26 [1964]
503)
in his review of Schmid's work comments that the selamim sacrifice is
characterized
by its "relation to covenant, which it establishes, reinforces or
restores.
The communal meal, symbol of unity and the distinguishing mark of this
rite
among the sacrifices of
substantiated
by a study of the sacrifice in its historical context. The exegesis of
the
relevant texts shows the meaning which the rite must have had for
again
and again this is covenant."
112. Cf. Tigay, JBL 89 (1970) 178-186. Tigay (p. 184) suggests that qdc in
v.
9 of Ps. 7 "refers not to general ethical behavior, nor even to
'innocence' in this
particular
case, but to the loyalty or devotion to his ally which he was accused of
violating."
He says further (p. 184, n. 38): "This usage of qdc and cognate
forms
has
been noted in Aramaic inscriptions ... and a biblical covenantal context,
I
Kings 3:6. . . ." See also Weinfeld, JAOS
90 (1970) 186, n. 17; Zeisler, The
Meaning of
Righteousness in Paul,
17-46.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 183
expression
is also elucidated by its setting in a covenantal
context.
W. L. Moran has pointed out that the term tbt’
in
the
Sefire treaties means "friendship" or "good relations"
with
specific reference to the "amity established by treaty."113
D.
R. Hillers has utilized this insight to illuminate several
passages
in the Old Testament where hbvF occurs in contexts
in
which this special meaning seems to be involved (cf. Deut.
23:7[6];
II Sam. 2:6).114 It is quite possible that hbvF is also
best
understood in this sense in I Samuel 12:23.115 Samuel
says
he will instruct the people in the way of "covenant
amity."
It is noteworthy that elsewhere bvF and rwy are used
to
describe both what
Yahweh
in fact had done, and thus characterize the mutual
obligations
and relationship of the covenant partners.116
Deuteronomy
6:18 expresses this with regard to
shall
perform what is right (rwy) and good (bvF) in the sight
of
Yahweh, so that it may be well with you (bFyy)." The
same
terms are used to describe Yahweh in Psalm 25:8,
10:117
"Yahweh is good (bvF) and upright (rwy). . . . All the
113. W. L. Moran, "A Note on
the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire Stelas,
JNES 22 (1963) 174.
114. D. H. Hillers, "A Note on
Some Treaty Terminology in the 0.T.,"
BASOR 176 (1964)
46-47.
115. The Hebrew construction here is
unusual for two reasons. First, one
would
expect the vocalization of the article under the preposition b, because of
the
definiteness of the following adjectives. Secondly, the feminine gender of the
adjectives
does not agree with the often masculine gender of jrd (BDB, s.v.,
designates
jrd
as "n.m. and (less often) f."). The explanation which is nearly
universally
adopted in the commentaries follows GK §126x, which says: "the
omission
of the article after the preposition is certainly due merely to the
Masora."
This explanation, however, leaves open the at least possible lack of
agreement
in gender. Both these matters are resolved if one views hbvF and hrwy
not
as adjectives but as nouns. More significant than the adjectival or nominal
character
of the words, however, is their meaning, on which particularly with
hbvF new light has been thrown by the study
of ancient treaties. According to
BDB
(s.v.) the nominal usage of hrwy occurs in only
one other place in the Old
Testament
(I Kings 3:6) and this is also clearly in a covenantal context (cf. n. 110
above).
For a nominal usage of hbVF representing an amicable relationship
between
two parties, see Deut. 23:7(6).
116. Millard (TB 17 [1966] 115-117) has suggested that certain occurrences of
the
adjective bvF
are also to be understood in the light of the special usage of
hbvF which was mentioned above.
117. See, for instance: Ps. 23:6;
100:5; 135:3, 4.
184 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
paths
of Yahweh are lovingkindness (dsH) and truth (tmx) to
those
who keep His covenant and His testimonies." It was
Samuel's
concern that
obligations
as Yahweh was to his.
2. Implications of the covenant form of I
Samuel 11:14-
12:25 for its
unity.
The presence of the covenant form in I
Samuel 11:14-
12:25
also has significant implications for the literary criti-
cism
of the passage because it introduces new factors which
must
be considered in its literary analysis.
a. Clarification
of the relationship between I Samuel 11:
14-15 and I Samuel 12:1-25.
First of all, the relationship of I
Samuel 11:14-15 to
I
Samuel 12 is clarified as we noted above in our discussion
of
the phrase "renew the kingdom." This in turn lends added
support
to the position developed in our exegetical discussion
(Chapter
II) and to the provisional conclusion which we
reached
concerning the literary criticism of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
(Chapter III). All the factors cited in the brief state-
ments
of I Samuel 11:14-15 are compatible with the cove-
nant
renewal emphasis of Chapter 12. The making of Saul
king,
the sacrificing of peace offerings and the rejoicing of
the
men of
of
the assembly, that is, that of renewal of allegiance to
Yahweh
at a time of transition of leadership and covenant
abrogation.
It is then not only possible, but indeed quite
appropriate
to conclude that I Samuel 11:14-15 is to be
understood
as lead or introductory sentences summarizing
the
purpose of the Gilgal assembly before further details of it
are
presented in I Samuel 12. It is possible that the writer
took
the two sections from previously existing separate
sources,
but there is no compelling reason to consider either
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 185
the
entirety of I Samuel 11:12-14, or the phrase "renew the
kingdom"
in verse 14 as redactional.118
b. The covenant form and the
structural integrity of
I Samuel 12.
Secondly, the unity of I Samuel 12 is
given added cre-
dence
when one rightly accepts the presence of the covenant
form
in this chapter. Recognition of the covenant form in
I
Samuel 12 provides a basis for maintaining its structural
integrity
over against those who either suggest that I Samuel
12
underwent redactional reworking or that it is a composite
of
disparate material. In addition, the covenant form has
implications
for the theory that the chapter is the composi-
tion
of a "deuteronomistic historian" writing in the 6th
century
B.C. and is to be regarded as a theologically colored
and
largely fictitious narrative injected into the stories con-
cerning
the rise of kingship in
these
matters in more detail.
1)
Implications of the covenant form for viewing I Sam-
uel 12 as an
original unity modified by redactional rework-
ing.—As we noted
above (Chapter III, Section 1,A,2), a
rather
large number of scholars have considered I Samuel 12
as
an original unity modified by redactional reworking. With
a
number of these scholars the chapter is viewed as either a
part
of, or akin to, the E strand of the Pentateuch, but
evidencing
a "deuteronomistic" revision. Budde, in his influ-
ential
work, mentions a number of phrases which he attrib-
utes
to the deuteronomist's hand, but he gives no compelling
reason
for excising these statements from the original com-
position
other than their deuteronomic style.119 The separa-
tion
of such phrases from the original composition is not so
118. See the summary of the various
positions in Chapter III, Section 1,B.
119.
Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 77-81.
Cf.
above, Chapter III,
Section
1,A,2,a.
186 The Covenant Form in the Old Testament
easily
done, however, and Eissfeldt,120 Caird,121 Fohrer,122
Mauchline,123
Gottwald,124 and Stoebe125
make no attempt
to
separate the later material from the original because of the
difficulty
in establishing an adequate basis for distinguishing
between
them. When one recognizes the "covenant form" in
the
basic structure of the chapter and notices the correspond-
ing
covenant emphasis in its various parts, it is indeed the
case,
that indications of what may be termed "deutero-
nomic"
influence can be found. These influences, however,
pertain
not only to certain isolated phrases, but to the total
conception
and structure of the chapter as it describes the
various
aspects of the Gilgal assembly. The matter of deutero-
nomic
influence is thus important, but it must be considered
in
the light of the more fundamental question of the date of
the
book of Deuteronomy or, if one chooses, the date of the
deuteronomistic
school. The possibility exists that deutero-
nomic/deuteronomistic
influence is not automatically to be
confined
to late editorial insertions or revisions in the report
of
the Gilgal assembly, but may in fact have been present in
the
proceedings of the assembly itself. It is our position that
there
is good reason for attributing Deuteronomy's origin to
the
Mosaic era,126 and that consequently it is altogether
possible,
if not probable, that deuteronomic influences would
be
operative in the actions and statements of the Gilgal
assembly.
There are a few statements in I Samuel
12 which are
regarded
by some as redactional insertions for reasons other
than
their deuteronomic phraseology or style. Budde and
others
consider verse 21 as a late gloss belonging to neither E
120. Eissfeldt, Komposition, 6-11.
121. Caird, IB, II (Samuel), 855-862.
122. Seilin-Fohrer, Introduction, 218-225.
123. Mauchline, I and II Samuel, NCB, 18-20,31,107-110.
124. Gottwald, Encyclopedia Judaica, XXIV, 787-797.
125. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 234-240.
126. See above, Chapter IV, Section
1,D.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 187
or
RD.127 Budde and Driver,
among others, view the associa-
tion
of the Ammonite threat with the request for a king
(v.
12) as a later insertion.128 For
both of these matters, it is
sufficient
here to make reference to the comments in the
exegetical
section above,129 as neither are directly related to
the
covenant form, although they are not incompatible with
it.
Driver also views the reference of Samuel to himself in
verse
11 as a later expansion.130 This, however, as we noted
in
our discussion of the use of the historical summary,131 has
an
important function in Samuel's argument since he is
bringing
the resume of the righteous acts of Yahweh in
providing
for
Samuel's
own name here would greatly weaken his indict-
ment
of the people for their wickedness in asking for a king.
Buber
eliminates a number of other sections from the
chapter,
the most important being the historical summary
(vv.
6-12) and the "Mirakelgeschichte" (vv. 16-19).132 Elimi-
nation
of these, however, sets aside the important role which
they
play in the proceedings of the Gilgal assembly, and
removes
two integral features of the "covenant form."
The position of Wallis133
is subject to the same criticism
in
that, although he develops his reasoning along different
lines
than Buber, he comes to a similar conclusion concerning
the
sections of the chapter which are to be viewed as redac-
tional
additions. He feels the miracle account adds nothing to
the
text and is actually disturbing (vv. 16-23), and that the
summary
of the conquest and period of the judges fits poorly
in
the mouth of Samuel (vv. 6b-11). The association of the
Ammonite
war with the request for a king (v. 12) he, as,
Driver
et. al., views as inconsistent with I
Samuel 8.
127.
Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 81.
128. Ibid., 80 (cf. above, Chapter
III, Section 1,A,2,a); Driver, Introduction,
178
(cf. above, Chapter III, Section 1,A,2,b.).
129. Chapter I, 54-55; Chapter I,
38-40.
130. Driver, Introduction, 178.
131. See above, Chapter I, 37, and
Chapter IV, Section 2,A,1.
132.
133. Wallis, Geschichte and Überlieferung, 94-96; cf. above, Chapter III,
Section
1,A,2,f.
188 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
Birch divides the chapter in two
sections, verses 1-5 and
verses
6-26, the latter of which he assigns to the "deuterono-
mistic
historian" as a supplemental addition to verses 1-5.
Birch
regards verses 1-5 as a report added to the notice of the
Gilgal
assembly in I Samuel 11:12-14, and presenting Saul as
functioning
in the sacral-legal realm and Samuel as retiring
from
office.134 Division of the chapter in this way, however,
assumes
an unnecessary disjunction between the two sections
involved,
and ascribes the central thrust of the Gilgal assem-
bly
(I Sam. 12:13-15) to the deuteronomistic addition rather
than
to the original account. This results in obscuring the
purpose
of the Gilgal assembly and does not do justice to the
historical
factors involved in its convocation.
2)
Implications of the covenant form for viewing I Sam-
uel 12 as a
composite of disparate material.—The analyses
suggested
by Hylander and Seebass conclude that I Samuel
12
is a composite of disparate material fused together by the
compiler
of the book. Hylander divides the material into two
sections,
much as did Birch,135 while Seebass suggests a much
more
complex reconstruction with his major division placed
between
verses 1-15 and 16-25.136 The same objection may
be
made to these proposals as was made to those of Buber,
Wallis,
and Birch. The chapter is, in its present form, an
integral
whole, exhibiting various features of the covenant
form,
all of which contribute to achieving the purpose for
which
the Gilgal assembly was held. To view the chapter as a
composite
of disparate material does not give adequate con-
sideration
to the formal and material unity which we have
been
suggesting for it on the basis of our exegetical, literary-
critical
and genre-historical analyses.
3) Implications of the covenant form
for viewing I Sam-
134. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy, 113-121; cf. above, Chapter
III,
Section 1,A,2,g.
135. Hylander, Der Samuel-Saul Komplex, 237, 238, 301; cf. above, Chap-
ter
III, Section I,A,3,a.
136. Seebass, ZAW 77 (1965) 288-295; idem, ZAW
79 (1967) 170, 171; cf.
above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,3,b.
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 189
uel 12 as an
independent tradition unit.—As we noted above,
there
are also those who have recognized the unity of I Sam-
uel
12, but have seen this chapter as one of the many
independent
tradition units, which are collected in I and
II
Samuel.137 Gressmann considers the chapter to be one of
the
later legends in this section of I Samuel, and feels that its
view
of kingship as a violation against God was a false idea of
a
later time rather than the time of which the chapter
speaks.138
After all that has been said above, we need not
here
discuss this position further. Weiser139 suggests that the
chapter
is the product of the cult tradition of the Gilgal
sanctuary,
promulgated by prophetic circles with which the E
source
of the Pentateuch is also to be associated. Weiser
refuses
to discuss the implications of the deuteronomistic
features
of the chapter until clarity is acquired on the origin
and
history of the "deuteronomic style." Weiser also refuses
to
assign the chapter to either an E strand or to the "deuter-
onomistic
historian." In his opinion neither approach has
been
able to account for the literary features of the chapter.
Weiser
does, however, recognize the "covenant form" in the
chapter
and considers this form to be evidence for its basic
unity.
The literary question is then shifted to the matter of
the
most likely explanation for the association of the "cove-
nant
form" with the description of the Gilgal assembly. Does
this
derive from the influence of the covenant in the life of
ancient
this
form a later derivative of cultic traditions? It is our
position
that there is good reason for ascribing the entrance
of
the covenant form into the life and literature of
the
Mosaic era.140
4) Implications
of the covenant form for viewing I Sam-
137. See above, Chapter III, Section
1,A,I,c.
138. Gressmann, Die alteste Geschichtsschreibung, SAT II/1, 24-27; cf.
above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,c,1.
139. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, 158-170;
idem,
Samuel, FRLANT, 79-94; cf. above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,c,2.
140. See above, Chapter IV, Section
1,D.
190 The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament
uel 12 as the
composition of a "deuteronomistic his-
torian."—Others
have viewed I Samuel 12 as the composition
of
a "deuteronomistic historian," of the exilic or postexilic
age.
This was the view of Wellhausen and has been adopted in
its
essentials by, among others, Smith, Noth, Pfeiffer, and
Boecker.
Wellhausen considered the chapter, in his opinion a
unity,
to be historically unreliable.141 Smith considered the
resemblances
to D or to the deuteronomic school to be too
great
to be treated as secondary expansions.142 Noth viewed
the
chapter as one of several key passages by which the
"deuteronomistic
historian" tied together and structured his
history
work by placing speeches in the mouths of leading
figures
in the historical narrative.143 Boecker follows Noth in
this
position, but attempts to modify Noth's contention that
chapter
12 along with I Samuel 8; 10:17-27 is basically anti-
monarchical.144
As has been noted above, there is good
reason for finding
deuteronomic
influences in I Samuel 12.145 In this connec-
tion,
however, the question is whether or not this deutero-
nomic
influence is to be regarded as late (6th century or
after)
and whether or not it destroys the value of the chapter
as
a reliable description of the Gilgal assembly. The alterna-
tive
to such viewpoints is that the Gilgal assembly, as de-
scribed
in I Samuel 12, including its purposes, words spoken,
and
transactions, and especially its concern with the covenant
which
is also evident in Deuteronomy, was a historical reality.
It is in these questions that the date
of the book of
141. Wellhausen, Composition, 240-243; idem, Prolegomena, 245-256; cf.
above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,b,1.
142. Smith, Samuel, ICC, xvi-xxii, 81-89; cf. above, Chapter III, Section
1,A,1,b,2.
143. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 5, 54-55; cf. above,
Chap-
ter
III, Section 1,A,1,b,3.
144. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums. For
discussion
of
this matter see further below, Chapter V, Section 1,B,3.
145. These influences can be seen in
both the structural elements of the
chapter
(the covenant form) as well as in the wording of specific phrases (cf.
references
to this in the text and notes of pp. 33-34, 44, 45, 46, 53, 59, 60
above).
The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 191
Deuteronomy
becomes extremely significant, for it is obvious
that
a 7th century date for its origin eliminates the possibility
of
its having provided a formative influence on the state-
ments
and proceedings of the Gilgal assembly. Are these
statements
and proceedings to be considered as historical
realities,
or as the creation of a late deuteronomistic his-
torian?
It is our position that the presence of the covenant
form
in the chapter is not a hindrance for considering the
chapter
as the record of a historical reality, that is, a cove-
nant
renewal ceremony at the time of the establishment of
kingship
in
origin
of Deuteronomy on the basis of the form critical
argument
derived from the treaty-covenant analogy has not
been
widespread, there has been an increasing willingness on
the
part of various scholars to accept the view that at least a
Grundschrift of the book had
its roots in the covenant
traditions
of Shechem associated with the tribal confederacy,
and
thus originated in the time prior to the rise of the
monarchy
and prior to the Gilgal assembly.146 It is our
position
that the "deuteronomic" character of the chapter is
best
explained as a product of a deeply rooted living cove-
nant
tradition in the life of
thus
as representative of the events of the assembly itself
rather
than a late literary construct created to serve certain
theological
interests.
146. See above, Chapter IV, Section
1,D.
APPENDIX
As
has been indicated above it is impossible here to delve
deeply
into the question of the date of Deuteronomy. Never-
theless,
this question is of great importance for our discus-
sion.
For this reason I am including here some amplification
to
what was said above consisting primarily in brief resumes
of
a few contemporary positions.
As we have noted (cf. 156 ff.), Kline
and Kitchen have
concluded
that the covenant form points to the Mosaic era
for
Deuteronomy's origin. This approach to Deuteronomy,
however,
has seemingly been ignored by many, including
some
who have argued for the antiquity of the material in
Ex.
19-24 and Josh. 24 on the basis of the covenant form,
and
it has been directly opposed by others. J. C. Plastaras
(CBQ 29 [1967] 270) in his review of
Kitchen's Ancient
Orient and Old
Testament says:
"He [Kitchen] argues against
D.
J. McCarthy, and in favor of the earlier unnuanced posi-
tion
of G. E. Mendenhall, that treaty forms similar to the OT
covenant
traditions were current only during the second
millennium,
but not afterwards. Well and good! But then K.
goes
on to conclude that the covenant narratives could not
have
taken 'fixed literary forms only in the ninth to sixth
centuries'
since the writers could have had no knowledge of
the
long-since obsolete covenant-forms (p. 100). K. seems to
have
overlooked the very essential fact that no matter at
what
date the 'Hittite' covenant-form may have gone out of
current
use in the ancient
retained
this same basic covenant-form in her cult, so that
every
layer of tradition, J, E, D, or the redactional combina-
tion
of these earlier sources, would all reflect the same basic
covenant
structures." Such an assertion, however, leaves open
192
Appendix 193
the
question of when the covenant form was adopted in
against
a purely cultic derivation for the form. Even granting
the
point to Plastaras does not exclude an early date position,
but
merely provides a rationale for a late date in view of the
admitted
antiquity of the form itself.
It is also to be noted in this context
that R. Frankena
("The
Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of
Deuteronomy,"
OTS XIV [1965] 122-154) has argued
for a
seventh
century date for Deuteronomy on the basis of certain
points
of correspondence between curse formulations in the
vassal
treaties of Esarhaddon and Deuteronomy. (Frankena
does
not discuss the implications of the differences noted
above
between the Hittite treaties and the Assyrian treaties
except
to note (ibid., 136): "The omission of blessings in the
Assyrian
treaties, therefore, might be due to the fact that the
treaty
would bestow automatically blessings on the faithful
vassal.")
He concludes (p. 153) that the "religious reform of
Josiah
was directed against
ing
to regard the renewed Covenant with Yahweh as a substi-
tution
of the former treaty with the king of
the
text of this Covenant should betray knowledge of the
Assyrian
treaties which it seems to replace seems only natural
to
me. The dating of Deuteronomy, moreover, would in that
case
find corroboration in a rather unexpected way." Al-
though
the parallels which Frankena points out in Deuter-
onomy
and the Assyrian treaties are indeed striking, they do
not
invalidate the position of Kline and Kitchen. As Kline
notes
(The Structure of Biblical Authority,
10): "As for the
similarities
of a group of Deuteronomic curses to a section of
curses
in the later treaties, this is not adequate evidence to
date
even this particular material late, for the tradition of
curse
formularies extends far back into the second millen-
nium
B.C. Moreover, since the critics in question suppose
that
Deuteronomy developed over a period of time through a
process
of additions and modifications, they would be in no
194 Appendix
position
to appeal to the presence of demonstrably seventh-
century
curse formulations (if there were such) as compelling
evidence
of a late origin of the treaty structure of the book as
a
whole." Kitchen (Ancient Orient and
Old Testament, 99,
100,
n. 49) comments: "Useful comparisons between the
curses
of Dt. and Neo-Assyrian treaties are made by R.
Frankena
. . . and M. Weinfeld. . . . However, they betray
some
naivety in assuming that similarity automatically spells
Hebrew
dependence on late Assyrian usage. The Old Baby-
lonian
data cited by Weinfeld . . . already point toward a
different
answer—to a long-standing tradition going well back
into
the second millennium at least, which could have be-
come
known in the Westlands even before Moses."
In a different vein G. von Rad has
argued for the an-
tiquity
of the form of Deuteronomy on the basis of his cultic
derivation
theory, but a late date for the book itself which he
views
as the final product of a long and complex process of
development.
He notes (Studies in Deuteronomy, 14,
15)
that:
"Deuteronomy in its present form is undoubtedly a
literary
production, but it still bears the stamp of a cultic
form
that has exercised an extraordinary influence on its
style."
He says further (p. 41) that "Deuteronomy stands in
the
tradition of the old Jahweh amphictyony of Shechem. Or
rather,
it proposes to re-introduce this old cultic tradition in
its
own advanced period and to set it forth as the form
obligatory
upon
tains
that the Levites were the deuteronomic preachers who
had
the sacral and legal traditional materials at their disposal
and
made these relevant for their time.
E. W. Nicholson (Deuteronomy and Tradition) also traces
the
origin of the traditions underlying Deuteronomy back to
the
cultic life of the tribal league during the period of the
judges.
He (p. 45) concludes that, "the form in which Deuter-
onomy
is cast derives from the cult and follows the liturgical
pattern
of the festival of the renewal of the covenant." He
says
(p. 120) that while Deuteronomy shows evidence of its
Appendix 195
origin
within the traditions of the amphictyony, he feels that
at
the same time "it has emerged that Deuteronomy contains
no
direct deposit of these old sacral traditions of early
There
has been considerable development in many ways."
Nicholson
regards the prophetic circles in northern
the
responsible agents for the preservation and transmission
of
the traditions underlying the book. He suggests that these
circles
fled to the south after the destruction of the northern
kingdom
and eventually drew up their program for reform
during
the time of Manasseh depositing their book in the
Josiah.
M. Weinfeld ("Deuteronomy—The
quiry,"
JBL 86 [1967] 249-262; Deuteronomy and the
of
the "covenant form" noting (JBL
86 [1967] 253) that,
"the
structure of Deuteronomy follows a literary tradition of
covenant
writing rather than imitating a periodical cultic
ceremony
which is still unattested." Instead of ascribing the
book
to Levitical or prophetical circles he attributes it to the
court
scribes of the time of Hezekiah and Josiah. He com-
ments
(ibid., 253): "if a literary pattern lies behind the form
of
Deuteronomy, then it would be much more reasonable to
assume
that a literary circle which was familiar with treaty
writing—in
other words, court scribes—composed the book of
Deuteronomy."
As was noted above, Weinfeld rejects the
view
of Mendenhall et al. that the Hittite treaty form is
unique
and that the covenant form must, therefore, be de-
rived
from the second millennium. He dismisses the lack of a
historical
prologue in the Assyrian treaties as not significant
(253,
n. 6). He then concludes in agreement with Frankena
that
Deuteronomy reflects contemporary Assyrian treaties
rather
than the earlier Hittite treaties.
Kline (The Structure of Biblical Authority, 14) has re-
sponded
to Weinfeld's view commenting: "The oration char-
acter
of Deuteronomy Weinfeld explains as a literary device:
196 Appendix
programmatic
speeches were placed in the mouths of famous
persons
to express the ideological views of the author
(pp.
255 f.). On this point von Rad comes closer to the truth.
For
while he, too, deems fictional the casting of Deuter-
onomy
in the form of a farewell speech of Moses, he does at
least
formally integrate this feature with the covenantal ele-
ments
in the book. He identifies the speech as an office-
bearer's
farewell (cf. Josh. 23; I Sam. 12; I Chron. 22 and 29)
and
explains the presence of the covenant formulary within
this
and other such speeches by reference to the attested
practice
of renewing covenants when Vassal leaders trans-
ferred
their office to a successor. Unfortunately, von Rad
fails
to recognize in the oration form the true explanation of
the
hortatory trend in the Deuteronomic treaty. This feature
does
not derive from Levitical preaching nor from a late
literary
circle of court scribes, but from the historical circum-
stance
that Deuteronomy is the documentary deposit of a
covenant
renewal which was also Moses' farewell to
The
element of parenesis already present to some extent in
ancient
treaties was naturally exploited to the fullest by
Moses
on that stirring occasion."
As we have noted, it is not possible
to discuss the whole
range
of questions related to the date of Deuteronomy such
as
the relationship of the legal material in Deuteronomy to
that
in the Book of the Covenant and Leviticus, and the
matter
of the centralization of worship (Deut. 12). On these
questions
see especially: G. Ch. Aalders, A Short
Introduc-
tion to the
Pentateuch
(
Holwerda, "De plaats, die de HEERE verkiezen zal,"
in
Begonnen
hebbende van Mozes
(Terneuzen: [19531) 7-29; G.
T.
Manley, The Book of the Law (
Introduction, 635-662;
Segal, The Pentateuch, 75-102.
V
THE LITERARY CRITICISM OF I SAMUEL 8-12
IN
THE LIGHT OF THE COVENANTAL CHARACTER OF
I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25
It
is now our purpose to apply the insights gained from our
exegetical,
literary-critical and genre-historical analysis of
I
Samuel 11:14-12:25 in a modest attempt to assess the
literary
criticism of I Samuel 8-12. We will begin with a
general
survey of the history of the criticism of this section
of
I Samuel. The intent here is not to be exhaustive, but
rather
to indicate the major directions of approach and to
cite
important representatives of basic positions.1
As was indicated above, we will divide
our survey into
four
major categories to provide a framework for analysis.2
1. Not every investigator referred
to above in our discussion of the literary
criticism
of I Sam. 11:14-12:25 (Chapter III, Section 1) is included in the follow-
ing
survey. Some of those mentioned previously have directed their attention
primarily
to particular parts of I Sam. 8-12 rather than the section as a whole,
and
in addition, we have restricted our survey here to major representatives of
basic
categories of approach. Our purpose is also not to recount the details of the
various
views, but rather to indicate the broad lines which give shape to the
different
positions.
2. See above, Chapter III, Section
1,A for a brief discussion of the categories
which
we have adopted. Notice especially the comment in n. 4 concerning the
difficulty
of drawing these lines too rigidly. Thus, it would certainly be possible,
and
in some respects even better, to place Noth in the third group. Yet as Fohrer
(Sellin-Fohrer,
Introduction, 217-218) has pointed
out: "Gressmann, on the other
hand,
sought to explain the books as a loose compilation of individual narratives
of
varying scope. Noth, Sellin-Rost, Weiser, and others assume in similar fashion
that
large and small narrative complexes have been brought together, i.e., in part
interwoven,
in part strung out one after another, sometimes linked very loosely.
Weiser
thinks in terms of a long process of utilization and elaboration of tradition
on
the basis of a prophetical interpretation of history. Noth (like Sellin-Rost),
following
his thesis of a Deuteronomistic History, holds that the Deuteronomistic
redaction
linked the independent pieces together for the first time (to the extent
that
they do not actually derive from the Deuteronomist)."
197
198 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
Section 1
A Survey of the History of Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12.
A. The Documentary-Source
Approach
I.
J. Wellhausen
J. Wellhausen, following earlier
suggestions of Eichhorn3
and
Thenius,4 developed the hypothesis that I Samuel 7-15
was
composed of two main strands of narrative which he
viewed
as an early and a late source.5 He maintained that
I
Samuel 9:1-10:16 was joined with the independent tradi-
tions
in I Samuel 11:1-11, 15; 13-14 at an early date to form
the
early source. The later source I Samuel 7:2-8:22; 10:17-
27;
12:1-25; 15:1-34 was added to the earlier material edi-
torially
by means of passages such as I Samuel 11:13, 14. It
was
Wellhausen's opinion that the late source reflected a
deuteronomistic
influence which was most apparent in its
negative
view of kingship. For Wellhausen the
favorable and
unfavorable
attitude toward the monarchy was the most
important
factor in isolating the two strands of narrative. He
comments:
"In the great difference which separates these
two
narratives we recognize the mental interval between two
different
ages. In the eyes of
monarchy
is the culminating point of the history, and the
greatest
blessing of Jehovah. . . . The position taken up in the
version
of I Sam. vii. viii. x.17 seq. xii., presents the greatest
possible
contrast to this way of thinking. There, the erection
of
the monarchy only forms a worse stage of backsliding
from
Jehovah. . . . That this view is unhistorical is self-
evident;
. . . the idea here before us can only have arisen in an
age
which had no knowledge of
3. J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
(Gottingen: 1823/244)
III,
464-533.
4. Wellhausen, Die Bücher Samuels, KeH.
5. Wellhausen, Composition, 240-243; idem, Prolegomena,
245-272; cf.
above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,b,1.
The Literary Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12 199
and
which had no experience of the real conditions of exis-
tence
in these forms; in other words, it is the offspring of
exilic
or post-exilic Judaism.... At that time ... the theoc-
racy
existed, and it is from that time
that it is transported in
an
idealised form to early times."6
2.
K. Budde
K. Budde7 also adopted a
two source division of the
narratives
of I Samuel 8-12 much as did Wellhausen, but in
distinction
from Wellhausen he identified them with the J
and
E sources of the Pentateuch. He assigned the sources to
different
locations (Mizpah: 8:1-22; 10:17-24; 12:1-25; Gil-
gal
9:1-10:7, 9-16; 11:1-11, 15) and attempted to establish
his
case by identifying elohist terminology and themes in the
Mizpah
source. He considered this source to be strongly
antagonistic
to kingship and objected to Cornill's8 view that
the
passages in chapters 8 and 10 which were opposed to the
monarchy
were interpolations.9 He felt, however, that this
anti-monarchial
tendency was adequately accounted for only
by
positing its derivation from a northern E source.10 He
considered
the Gilgal source as more positively disposed to
the
monarchy, presenting it as Yahweh's gracious response to
according
to Budde, by a deuteronomistic redactor whose
6. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 253-256.
7. K. Budde, ZAW 8 (1888) 223-248; idem, Die
Bücher Samuel, KHC; idem,
Die Bucher
Richter und Samuel, Ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen: 1890)
167-276;
cf. above, Chapter III, Section I ,A,2,a.
8. C. Cornill, "Ein
elohistischer Bericht über die Entstehung des israel-
itischen
Konigtums in I. Samuelis 1-15 aufgezeigt," ZWL 6 (1885) 113-141;
idem,
"Zur Quellenkritik der Bücher Samuelis," Königsberger Studien, Bd I
(1887)
25-59.
9. In speaking of Cornill's proposals,
Budde (ZAW 8 [1888] 231) com-
ments:
"Aber so sehr er sich bemüht, die gutartige, rein sachliche Natur des
‘Königsrechtes'
nachzuweisen (S. 127 f): die Missbilligung des Königthums durch
Samuel
und die Verstockung des Volkes (vgl. dafür besonders 8, 19 f.) bleibt doch
in
8, 11-20 in ihrer vollen Schdrfe erhalten, so dass mit der Ausscheidung gar
nichts
erreicht wird."
10. He comments (ibid., 235):
"Nur bei der Ableitung von E findet die
starke
Missbilligung des Königthums ihre Erklärung."
200 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
language
is often difficult to isolate because it is so similar to
E
but which in certain places is clearly discernable (as, e.g., in
certain
expressions in I Sam. 12:9, 11, 14, 15, 17).11
3. H. P. Smith
H. P. Smith distinguished two
documentary strands in
I
Samuel 8-12 following the same pattern of division pre-
viously
advocated by Wellhausen and Budde. He was not
convinced,
however, that Budde's identification of them with
the
J and E sources of the Pentateuch was tenable.12 In place
of
this Smith posited a life of Samuel (Sm.)
for I Samuel 8;
10:17-25;
12, and a life of Saul (Sl.) for I
Samuel 9:1-10:16;
11.
He considered Sl. to be the older of
the two strands and
expressive
of "a near and clear view of the personages and the
progress
of events.13 He says the Sm.
source is later, idealiz-
ing
persons and events, and dominated by a theological idea.
For
this reason he concludes that "Sm.
designed to replace
the
older history by one of his own which would edify his
generation.
This design and this method are indications of a
comparatively
late date—perhaps in or after the Exile."14
Smith
indicates that he adopts a two source view because of
the
"duplication" of certain incidents (including two or three
accounts
of Saul's appointment as king), as well as noticeable
differences
in style and "point of view." The difference in
point
of view is seen primarily in what Smith terms a "differ-
ence
of political theory."15 He comments: "In one account
Saul
is chosen as king by God, is welcomed by Samuel, is
assured
that God is with him and encouraged to act as he
finds
opportunity. His election by God is an act of grace. . .
But
in other sections of the narrative the desire of the people
for
a king is an act of rebellion against Yahweh. Their act is
11. See above, Chapter III, Section
1,A,2,a.
12. Smith, Samuel, ICC, xv-xxii; see above, Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,b,2
and
Chapter III, Section 1,B,1,a,2.
13. Ibid., xx.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., xvi.
The Literary Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12 201
an
act of apostasy parallel to all their rebellions of earlier
times.
. . . So great a discrepancy, not in details of the narra-
tive
only, but also in the whole view of the same period, is
not
conceivable in one author. It can be accounted for only
on
the hypothesis that various works have been combined in
one.”16
4.
S. R. Driver
S. R. Driver also distinguished two
narrative strands with-
in
I Samuel 8-12. In agreement with Budde, Driver held that
these
two strands were independent narratives rather than
attributing
the later source to the deuteronomic author-
editor
as Wellhausen had done. He says that the older source
regards
the appointment of Saul to be king favorably, and in
this
source there is no indication of reluctance on Samuel's
part
to see the monarchy established. In the later narrative
the
request for a king is "viewed with disfavour by Samuel,
and
treated as a renunciation of Jehovah."17 He says that it is
not
necessary "to suppose that this narrative is destitute of
historical
foundation; but the emphasis laid in it upon aspects
on
which the other narrative is silent, and the difference of
tone
pervading it, show not the less clearly that it is the work
of
a different hand."18 Driver's conclusion is similar to that
of
Budde in which he notes affinities of the later narrative
with
E, which he feels indicate that it is a pre-Deuteronomic
work
expanded by a subsequent deuteronomistic editor.
5.
O. Eissfeldt
O. Eissfeldt continued in the general
pattern set by Well-
hausen,
Budde, Smith, and Driver although he felt it neces-
sary
to divide the earlier pro-monarchial material into two
separate
narrative strands, resulting in a three source theory
16. Ibid.
17. Driver, Introduction, 176; see above, Chapter III, Section 1,A,2,b and
Chapter
III, Section 1,B,1,b,1.
18. Ibid.
202 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
for
the origin of the material in I Samuel 8-15. Initially
Eissfeldt
labeled these sources simply as I, II, and III, but he
later
identified them with the L, J, and E sources which he
distinguished
in the Pentateuch.19 He assigned I Samuel 8:1-
22;
10:17-21ba; 12:1-25 to III; I Samuel 9:1-10:16; 11:6aa
to
II; and the remaining sections, I Samuel 10:21bb -27; 11
(except
v. 6aa) to I. Eissfeldt's deviation from Budde, Smith,
and
Driver is found then chiefly in his separation of two
narrative
strands in I Samuel 10:17-27 and his assignment of
almost
all of I Samuel 11 to L. Eissfeldt accepts as a "general-
ly
recognized result" of critical study that "there are present
at
least two mutually exclusive presentations of the begin-
nings
of Israelite kingship, and that one of them, to which
chs.
vii-viii and xii belong, has a marked affinity to the
Elohistic
sections of the Hexateuch and of the book of
Judges,
whereas the other is in many respects reminiscent of
J.”20
The documentary source analysis of I
Samuel 8-12 has
had
many additional advocates including among others A.
Schulz,21
R. Pfeiffer,22 and G. B. Caird,23 each of whom have
followed
the same general pattern of source division noted
above
with the "pro" or "anti" monarchial tendency of the
19. Cf. Eissfeldt, Komposition, 6-11, 56-57 (where he
labels the three
strands
as I, II, III) with Introduction,
271-275 (where he designates them as L. J,
and
E). Eissfeldt's approach to this material in his Introduction is in keeping with
his
analysis of the Pentateuch in which he maintained that after separation of the
D
and P material it was not adequate to assign the remaining material to only J
and
E. He felt that there was evidence for an additional older L (lay) source that
was
"particularly crude and archaic, and although a powerful religious spirit
also
moves
strongly through it, it is nevertheless the least touched by clerical and
cultic
interests" (Introduction, 194).
20. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 271. Eissfeldt's own analysis posits three ac-
counts
of Saul's accession rather than two. For a similar position see: W. A. Irwin,
"Samuel
and the Rise of the Monarchy," AJSL
58 (1941) 113-134. In this way
Eissfeldt
arrives at a position which is close to that of Gressmann (see below,
n.
24) in its end result concerning the analysis of I Samuel 8-12. Both view I
Sam.
9:1-10:16
as independent in origin and also less reliable historically than I Sam.
11.
21. Schulz, Samuel, EH, 174-179.
22. Pfeiffer, Introduction, 338-368.
23. Caird, IB, II, 855-868.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 203
various
narrative units providing the most significant cri-
terion
for source division. In spite of this long succession of
advocates,
the documentary source theory has never been
without
challenge. Right from Wellhausen's own time the
rival
fragmentary theory had its proponents, and in more
recent
times the more complex traditions history approach
has
attracted a significant number of adherents.
B. The Fragmentary Approach
1.
H. Gressmann
H. Gressmann offered a distinctly
different analysis of
the
composition of I Samuel 8-12 from that of the documen-
tary
source theory which was the dominant view of his
time.24
Following the methodology of H. Gunkel, Gressmann
attempted
to separate the narrative units of the book and to
examine
them form critically. He concluded that the book
was
a loose compilation by a late editor utilizing many
originally
independent narrative units of various literary
types.
Although he did not discern any connected literary
sources
in the book and directed his attention to the individ-
ual
narrative units, he does speak of I Samuel 7:2-8:22;
10:17-27;
12:1-25 as "eine einheitliche Grösse" since Samuel
is
represented in these places as a judge in
is
viewed as a "Gottesfrevel.”25 He considers all of these
sections
to be of late origin and comments: "Historische
Kunde
enthalten sie nicht; urn ihres geistlichen Charakters
willen
wird man sie nicht als Geschichts-Erzählungen, son-
dern
als Legenden werten müssen.”26 After discussing I Sam-
uel
9:1-10:16 in some detail Gressmann concludes: "Nach
dieser
Analyse kann kein Zweifel sein, dass wir es hier nicht,
wie
behauptet wird, mit einer Geschichtserzählung, sondern
mit
einer volkstümlichen Sage zu tun haben . . . Hier nähert
24. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung, SAT II/1, 24-47; cf.
above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,c,1 and Chapter III, Section 1,B,1,a,3.
25. Ibid., 26, 46.
26. Ibid., 26.
204 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
sich
überdies die Sage dem Märchen.”27 After citing charac-
teristics
of the narrative which he labels as "märchenhaft" he
concludes:
"So trägt unser Kapitel durchaus das Gepräge der
Sage
mit märchenhaftem Einschlag.”28
As mentioned above, Gressmann
categorizes I Samuel
10:17-27
as "Legende," but this is followed by a "Ge-
schichtserzählung"
in I Samuel 11 which is in his opinion the
only
passage which gives a trustworthy account of the rise of
the
monarchy in
between
I Samuel 9:1-10:16 and I Samuel 11 in their present
arrangement
in the text of I Samuel, but he does not consider
this
connection to be original, commenting that they original-
ly
had nothing to do with each other. He says: "K. 9 verlangt
zwar
K. 11 als Schluss, aber umgekehrt setzt K. 11 wenig-
stens
ursprünglich keineswegs K. 9 voraus, sondern stand
einmal
fur sich allein. . . . Überdies sind K. 9 und K. 11 ihrer
literarischen
Art nach völlig verschieden."29 Gressmann views
I
Samuel 12 as a late legend reflecting the same viewpoint as
I
Samuel 7:2-8:22; 10:17-27.
Although Gressmann does not argue for
two or three
contradictory
documentary strands in the narratives of
I
Samuel 8-12, his characterization of the various narrative
units
as either pro or anti-monarchial is little different from
that
of the representatives of the documentary source theory.
He
comments: "In K. 8 wird Samuel als grundsätzlicher
Gegner
des israelitischen Königtums hingestellt, das er als
eine
Auflehnung wider Gott betrachtet und darum völlig
verwirft.
Im graden Gegensatz dazu wird 9, 1-10, 16 erzahlt,
wie
Samuel auf ausdrücklichen Befehl Jahves Saul salbt;
danach
ist das Königtum keine sündige, sondern eine von
Gott
selbst gewollte Einrichtung. Eine dieser beiden
Anschauungen
muss jünger sein; welche von beiden, darüber
kann
die Entscheidung nicht zweifelhaft sein. . . . ursprüng-
27. Ibid., 34.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., 43.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 205
lich
gait das Königtum als eine göttliche, spater, wenigstens in
manchen
Kreisen, als eine widergöttliche Einrichtung."30 In
commenting
further on I Samuel 8 he notes: "Wie noch
deutlicher
K. 12 lehrt, liegt hier eine jener Erzählungen vor,
die
jünger sind als das Deuteronomium (=V. Mose) and
sdmtlich
aus dem exilischen oder nachexilischen Judentum
stammen.”31
2.
M. Noth
As was noted above (Chapter III,
Section 1,A,1,b,3), M.
Noth
is of the opinion that Deuteronomy-II Kings is one
great
Deuteronomistic History which was written in conform-
ity
with a specific theology of history by a deuteronomistic
author
of the sixth century B.C. who utilized ancient tradi-
tions
as well as his own compositions in the production of his
work.
Noth's approach to the material of I
Samuel 8-12 posits
the
linkage of a number of independent units by the deuter-
onomistic
historian, in connection with a significant amount
of
material of his own composition. Noth considers I Samuel
9:1-10:16;
10:27b-11:15 to be old traditions about the rise
of
Saul to kingship.32 He says that "the main stages by which
he
became king have no doubt been correctly recorded in
I
Sam xi. .. "33 Since it was customary for the actions of the
charismatic
leaders of the period of the judges to have been
preceded
by a call, such a story (I Sam. 9:1-10:16) was
placed
before I Samuel 11 in the older Saul tradition without
being
closely connected with it. Noth comments that this
story
is obviously "very anecdotal," and "it must at least be
doubted
whether there was any thought of a future mon-
archy
when this calling of Saul took place. . ."34 The re-
30. Ibid., 26, 27.
31. Ibid., 29.
32. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 54.
33. Noth, The History of
34. Ibid., 169.
206 The
Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
maining
sections of I Samuel 8-12 Noth considered to be
insertions
of the deuteronomistic historian (I Sam. 8:1-22;
10:17-27a;
12:1-25). These supplemental units Noth viewed
as
either original compositions of the deuteronomistic his-
torian
himself (I Sam. 8, 12) or thorough revisions of older
traditions
(I Sam. 10:17-27a).35 With the incorporation of
these
materials Noth maintains that the deuteronomist ex-
presses
his fundamental doubts about the monarchy, al-
though
it was not easy for him to unite this negative view
with
the older more positive traditions. Noth comments:
"Dtr
hat also nicht ohne sichtliche Mühe und Gezwungenheit
die
der Einrichtung des Königtums freundlich gegenüber-
stehende
alte Überlieferung durch längere Zutaten im Sinne
seines
negativen Urteils iiber diese Einrichtung zu ergänzen
versucht
unter Verwertung einer ihm überkommenen alten
Tradition
über die Erhebung Sauls zum König, deren Vor-
handensein
ihm überhaupt das Recht zu geben schien, hier
ergänzend
einzugreifen; und er hat von diesem Rechte dann
einen
ausgedehnten Gebrauch gemacht."36
With respect to I Samuel 8-12 the end
result of Noth's
analysis
is not unlike that of Wellhausen in that the portions
of
this material which are considered anti-monarchial are
assigned
to the deuteronomist, while the other sections are
viewed
as the earlier more authentic traditions expressing a
much
more positive disposition towards the monarchy.37
35. Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 57, 58) comments that
I
Sam. 10:17-27a is "vor allem in seinem Anfang ganz unzweifelhaft von Dtr
formuliert
worden" but he suggests that it represents a tradition of an unknown
source
on the rise of Saul to king which the deuteronomist wanted to incorporate
into
the larger narrative. He then accepts Eissfeldt's designation of I Sam. 10:
21bb-27a
as another separate tradition telling of the selection of Saul on the basis
of
his height (see above, p. 353). Noth, however, does not accept Eissfeldt's view
of
the connection of this unit with a larger independent source (L) and says that
"wir
es hier vielmehr mit einem von Dtr verarbeiteten Überlieferungsfragment zu
tun
haben."
36. Ibid., 60.
37. For Noth, cf. Chapter III,
Section 1,A,1,b,3; for Wellhausen, see Chap-
ter
III, Section 1,A,1,b,1 and Chapter III, Section 1,B,1,a,1.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 207
3.
H. J. Boecker
H. J. Boecker's interest in the three
pericopes in I Samuel
8-12
(I Samuel 8; 10:17-27; 12) which are frequently labeled
as
anti-monarchial and deuteronomistic arises from his con-
cern
with the problem which these passages present for M.
Noth's
view of the unity of the Deuteronomistic History.38 For
Noth
there was no doubt that the Deuteronomistic History
contained
a clear and unequivocally negative attitude toward
the
monarchy.39 But as Boecker points out, one may legiti-
mately
if not necessarily ask how Noth can correlate his view
of
the unity of the Deuteronomistic History with the fact that
it
includes not only anti-monarchial versions of Saul's king-
ship,
but also texts which are clearly favorably inclined
toward
the establishment of the monarchy. This is particular-
ly
a problem as Boecker points out "wenn man nicht mehr
bereit
ist, mit einem mehr oder weniger zufälligen Neben-
einander
oder sogar Gegeneinander verschiedener Quellen
oder
Traditionen zu rechnen, sondern mit M. Noth hier das
Produkt
einer planvollen und überlegten Geschichts-
schreibung
erkennt. In diesem Fall wird das Nebeneinander
sachlich
gegensätzlicher Berichte zu einem Problem, das,
wenn
es nicht ausreichend erklärt wird, die These yon der
Einheitlichkeit
und Geschlossenheit des Werkes gefährden
muss.
"40
38. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums.
39. Noth comments (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,
95): "Gleich-
wohl
hat Dtr durch die Art der Einführung des Königtums in die Geschichte
es
ganz deutlich gemacht, dass dieses eine zeitlich sekundare und seinem Wesen
nach
sogar unsachgemässe und daher grundsätzlich abzulehnende Einrichtung
war...."
And further (ibid., 110): "die negative Beurteilung der Einrichtung des
Königtums
und dessen Charakterisierung als einer sekundaren Erscheinung in der
Geschichte
des Volkes gehorte zu den wesentlichen Zügen seiner Gesamtge-
schichtsauffassung."
40. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums, 3. This
problem
has
not escaped the notice of others. Note, e.g., the comment of Fohrer (Sellin-
Fohrer,
Introduction, 218): "Noth (like
Sellin-Rost), following his thesis of a
Deuteronomistic
History, holds that the Deuteronomistic redaction linked the
independent
pieces together for the first time (to the extent that they do not
actually
derive from the Deuteronomist). In this case, of course, it is hard to
208 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
The solution which Boecker suggests
for this problem is
based
on his conclusion that it is not accurate to label the
above
mentioned three passages as fundamentally opposed to
the
monarchy. He sees them rather as expressing opposition
to
certain aspects of kingship which involved denial of the
continued
sovereignty of Yahweh in matters of concern for
both
the internal and external security for the nation; but
they
are not to be regarded as fundamentally opposed to
kingship
as such. Boecker suggests that strong opposition to
kingship
existed at the time of its institution, and that this
was
related to the idea that Yahweh was king, and no human
king
should usurp his position. Yet Boecker says that the
deuteronomists
did not simply take over this old idea intact,
but
they significantly modified it. And consequently here in
these
sections of I Samuel 8-12 one finds that the "Grund-
sätzlichkeit
der Alternative Jahwe oder König, auf der die
Königstumsgegner
ursprünglich zweifellos bestanden haben,
gibt
es bei ihnen nicht mehr. Im Gegenteil! Das Königtum
wird
jetzt, obwohl sein jahwefeindlicher Ursprung nicht
geleugnet,
sondern stark betont wird, doch als ein Angebot
Jahwes
gesehen, ein Gnadengeschenk, das man verspielen
kann
and das ganz sicher dann verspielt wird, wenn der König
im
Sinne der alten Alternative an die Stelle Jahwes gesetzt
wird."41
For Boecker the idea of kingship advanced by the
deuteronomists
is not simply the product of bad experience
and
a certain theological reflection, but is "zugleich Aus-
understand
why the contradictory views and biases were not at least in part
subordinated
to a new controlling principle by means of framework passages, as in
the
book of Judges and the books of Kings." Note also the question raised by
R.
A.
Carlson (David, the chosen King
[Uppsala: 1964] 24): "We might ask how the
complex
in which the Davidic epoch is described, could have been preserved
intact
in the D-work, as Noth, North and others have maintained. For it is an
inescapable
fact that the Deuteronomic interpretation of history characterizes the
introduction
of the kingship into
12:12)
and on the other hand lays the blame for the fall of the two kingdoms at
the
feet of the kings (II Kings 17:7 ff., 21:2 ff., 24:1 ff.). Is this due, as Noth
and
North
have suggested, to the fact that David, as an ideal king, was in a sense
immune
from critical comment, even by the Deuteronomists?"
41. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums, 98, 99.
The Literary Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12 209
druck
der altisraelitischen Traditionen, die für die Deuter-
onomisten
massgebend waren."42 The consequence which
this
all has for the literary problem mentioned above is then
clear.
If the deuteronomistic representation of the rise of the
monarchy
in
sense,
then no irresolvable difference exists between the
various
narrative units of I Samuel nor is there tension be-
tween
the viewpoint concerning kingship expressed in the
books
of Samuel and that in the books of Kings. This in turn
means
that one cannot question the unity of the Deutero-
nomistic
History on the basis of the different and contra-
dictory
positions which it contains concerning the monarchy.
C. The Tradition-History
Approach
1.
W. Caspari
The fragmentary approach of Gressmann
was quickly
succeeded
by various attempts to achieve some sort of syn-
thesis
between the documentary and fragmentary stand-
points.
One of the earliest efforts in this direction was that of
W.
Caspari who suggested three distinct periods (Zeitraum)
for
the development of the material contained in I and
II
Samuel.43 In the first period
he posited the production of
the
individual story units. In the second period he posited the
arrangement
of stories which provide information over the
history
of O.T. religion. In this process many of the stories
deriving
from the previous period received their present form
of
expression. The E source is the most important connected
work
of this period. The aim of the third period is directed
primarily
toward the production of more connected and
instructive
narrative sequences. In this period he sees the
influence
of the deuteronomistic spirit which flowered in the
exile.
Caspari emphasized that his intent was to give some
indication
of "einer stilgeschichtlichen Zeitfolge," but not
absolute
chronology. He comments: "der Stil eines Zeitraums
42. Ibid., 99.
43.
210 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
stirbt
nicht schon damit ab, dass ein neuer Stil kommt and
einen
neuen Zeitraum anzusetzen nötigt."44
2.
Th. C. Vriezen
The general character of Th. C.
Vriezen's analysis of the
books
of Samuel was described above in connection with his
treatment
of I Samuel 11:12-14(15).45 He speaks of four
successive
editions of the original Saul-David-Solomon his-
tory
in which additional independent traditions or story
cycles
were gradually incorporated with traces of this gradual
enlargement
particularly evident in I Samuel 8-12. Vriezen
mentions
various parallels and contradictions in the beginning
of
the Saul narratives, noting in particular that the origin of
Saul's
kingship is told three times (I Sam. 9, 10:17 ff., 11).46
His
explanation for this is that one of the stories (I Sam.
11:1-11,
15) is at home in the original and larger Saul-David-
Solomon
narrative, while the other two were later successive
additions.
The original story tells of Saul's rise to kingship as
the
result of his victory over Nahash, which led the people to
acclaim
him king in Gilgal. Samuel is not spoken of in this
tradition
which was part of the original politico-historical
apology
not only for Solomon's succession right to the
throne
of David, but also for the right of David's descendants
to
the throne of
This
apology for the house of David, Vriezen dates in the
time
of Solomon and he suggests Zabud the son of Nathan as
a
possible author. The second tradition of Saul's rise to
kingship
is found in I Samuel 8:6-22; 10:17-27; 11:12-14 in
which
Vriezen discerns the standpoint of Judean agricultural
44. Ibid., 10. The application of
this framework to I Sam. 8-12 becomes
exceedingly
complex and need not be discussed here in detail.
45. See above, Chapter III, Section
1,B,2,a. See further: Vriezen, "Composi-
tie,"
in, Orientalia Neerlandica 167-189;
idem, Literatuur van Oud-Israel
207-213.
46. Vriezen (Literatuur van Oud-Israel, 210) says these chapters give "veel
hoofdbrekens."
The solution, however, according to Vriezen (ibid., 209) is to be
found
when one presupposes: "dat wij bier verhalencycli hebben die door zelf-
standige
auteurs werden geschreven; maar dan toch weer zo geschreven werden,
dat
zij op elkaar waren aangelegd, als een vervolgverhaal."
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 211
circles
in the time after Solomon's oppressive government
(10th
or beginning of the 9th century). This tradition views
kingship
as in conflict with the Jahwistic ideal, but neverthe-
less
permitted by Yahweh. The third tradition is found in
I
Samuel 9:1-10:16 in which Saul is anointed by Samuel at
the
command of Yahweh in order to deliver the Israelites out
of
the hand of the Philistines. This tradition Vriezen associ-
ates
with a later prophetic edition of the Saul-David-Solomon
history
dating at about 750 B.C. in which the hand of E or
someone
from the circle of E is discernable. The final revision
of
the material was made by the deuteronomist when the
entire
block of material was set in his larger history work,
although
Vriezen sees evidence of deuteronomistic reworking
only
in I Samuel 7 and 12.
3. A. Weiser
A. Weiser considers the book of Samuel
to be the result
of
a process of compilation of “heterogeneous literary com-
positions.”47
He maintains that this character of the book is
particularly
clear in the accounts of the origin of the mon-
archy
contained in I Samuel 8-12. After noting previous
attempts
to explain the literary character of Samuel by
positing
either a two or three source documentary theory, he
concludes
that the lack of any comprehensive and continuous
ideological
plan leads to serious doubts about division into
two
or three continuous literary threads. He feels that careful
analysis
leads to the conclusion that: "there can hardly be
any
other explanation than that here quite dissimilar literary
traditions
originating in different circles have been placed
side
by side without adjusting the differences between
them."48
He illustrates this particularly by material from
47. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, 159. The
position
of Weiser is recounted here in more detail than that of some others
because
it has initiated a trend in approach to the composition of Samuel that is
gaining
in acceptance.
48. Ibid., 161.
212 The Literary Criticism of 1 Samuel 8-12
I
Samuel 8-12 and says that "even in the case of those
passages
which have been ascribed to the E sources (especial-
ly
1.7, 8, 10:17 ff., 12, 15, 28) owing to their critical attitude
towards
the monarchy and their theological position, it can
be
pointed out that the trends of these passages when ex-
amined
closely differ from each other."49
Weiser's proposal is that the book of
Samuel is the result
of
a six stage process of growth.50 In the first stage he posits
the
formation of individual traditions by the people and the
court.
To this stage he assigns the origin of I Samuel 9:1-
10:16
as a popular saga "interwoven with themes from folk-
tales
and miracles and presenting the main persons lovingly
with
colourful vivacity."51 He also places the origin of I Sam-
uel
11 in this period and considers it to be "a historical
narrative
strongly stamped with realism in the style of the
stories
of the heroes in the book of Judges. . ..”52 He notes,
however,
that because chapter 11 at no point assumes the
contents
of chapter 9 f., it was originally independent.
In the second stage comprehensive accounts were formed
on
the basis of the existing individual traditions. He assigns to
this
stage the linking of the stories of the rise of Saul in
I
Samuel 9 f. and 11.
The third stage is postulated in the collection and com-
bination
of the comprehensive accounts of the second stage
and
their being welded into one comprehensive tradition
arranged
chronologically along with the accretion of parallel
and
later traditions.
The fourth stage Weiser describes as the "prophetic for-
mation
and re-shaping of the tradition into a complete his-
49. Ibid.
50. Similar multi-stage growth
processes are advocated by, among others:
Fohrer
(Sellin-Fohrer, Introduction, 218
ff.); Knierim ("Messianic Concept," in
Jesus and the
Historian,
ed. F. T. Trotter, 20-51); 0. Kaiser (Einleitung
in das
Alte Testament [
Monarchy); Mauchline (I and II Samuel, NCB, 16-32); Gottwald (Encyclopedia
Judaica, XXIV,
787-797); McCarthy (Int 27 [1973]
401-412).
51. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, 163.
52. Ibid.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 213
tory
interpreted theologically. . ."53 He suggests that there
was
the prophetic interpretation of the history and its tradi-
tions
"which proceeds side by side with the traditions of the
people
and the court, though it also stands in antithesis to
them."54
He says this is most apparent in the stories of
Samuel
and Saul including those which are considered hostile
to
the king concerning the origin of the monarchy in I Sam-
uel
8, 10:17-27 and Samuel's retirement in I Samuel 12.
These
and other sections of the book according to Weiser are
"probably
associated together in the same intellectual and
religious
context of a theological presentation of history; but
they
do not represent a literary unity, as is often main-
tained."55
(He notes here, e.g., the varying conceptions of
Samuel
as priest, prophet, and judge.) Weiser feels that the
roots
of these traditions reach back to circles around Samuel
which
unlike the popular tradition (I Sam. 9:1-10:16) rejects
the
desire of the people for a king "like the nations" on the
basis
of principial religious considerations. He comments:
"The
specially high esteem in which Samuel is held as a
prophet
in these passages shows that this form of the tradi-
tion
was developed in the circles of the prophets who re-
garded
Samuel as their ancestor."56 Weiser is of the opinion
that
the reason for the resemblances between these narratives
and
the E strand of the Hexateuch is that the E source of the
Hexateuch
was a later product of these same circles.
The fifth stage which Weiser suggests is that of the
deuteronomistic
revision of the entire book. He considers this
not
to be prominent because the prophetic revision provided
such
a substantially compatible preparatory work, that traces
of
the deuteronomistic reviser's activity are few and not
easily
discerned.
The sixth and final stage of the growth of the book is to
53. Ibid., 170.
54. Ibid., 166.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid., 167.
214 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
be
found in a few later expansions by the insertion of certain
poetic
pieces of cultic origin, none of which are to be found
in
the section of the book concerning the rise of Saul's
kingship.
Weiser elaborates further on his views
of the composition
of
I Samuel, presented originally in his Introduction,
in a
subsequent
monograph devoted entirely to the traditions
contained
in I Samuel 7-12.57 In this monograph he rejects
both
the documentary source approach with its double ac-
count
of the founding of the monarchy containing an early
"pro-monarchy"
source and a late "anti-monarchy" source as
well
as Noth's more fragmentary approach which nevertheless
also
regarded the "anti-monarchy" sections of I Samuel 8-12
to
be late and unhistorical. In contrast to both Wellhausen
and
Noth, Weiser posits an early origin for the so-called
"anti-monarchy"
sections and suggests that they were not
directed
against the monarchy per se but are
directed against
a
concept of kingship which was "as the nations." In support
of
this view he argues that each of the traditions contained in
I
Samuel 8, 10:17-27 and 12 contains genuine historical
reflections
from the time of the rise of kingship in
which,
however, were preserved at different localities. He
ascribes
the origin of I Samuel 8 to circles of like-minded
friends
of Samuel in Ramah. He suggests that I Samuel 10:
17-26
derives from the sanctuary at Mizpah where the tradi-
tion
of the selection by lot was probably perpetuated by
Benjaminites
whose tribal interests were of direct concern in
connection
with the matter of Saul's kingship. Weiser views
I
Samuel 12 as a sort of parallel tradition to I Samuel 10:17-
26,
but suggests it originated in Gilgal instead of Ramah.58
57. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT.
58. The procedure of dividing the
materials on the basis of connection with
different
geographical centers of transmission has been adopted by, among others
H.
W. Hertzberg (I and II Samuel,
130-134) and K.-D. Schunck (Benjamin.
Untersuchungen
zur Entstehung and Geschichte eines Israelitischen Stammes
[BZAW
86;
for
its failure to give sufficient recognition to the close proximity of these
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 215
His
conclusion is that each of these traditions point to the
important
role which Samuel played in the establishment of a
new
order in
considers
the desire of the people for a king "as the nations"
to
be a genuine historical motif and he is of the opinion that
the
condemnation of this desire as a rejection of Yahweh is
not
to be designated as a late theologumenon but an old
tradition
element that has been retained in various forms in
I
Samuel 8, 10, and 12. Nevertheless, Weiser does not regard
the
various component parts of I Samuel 8-12 to be repre-
sentative
of an actual sequence of historical events associated
with
the establishment of Saul's kingship, although he grants
that
the collector has arranged them in a way that is intended
to
give this impression. He comments: "Dass diese Zusam-
menordnung
der Stoffe jedoch nur Behr äusserlich und not-
dürftig
gelungen ist, hat man längst erkannt und dahin ver-
standen,
dass der Sammler vorgegebene Überlieferungsstücke
verwendet
hat, die ursprünglich selbständig ohne gegen-
seitigen
Bezug tradiert waren."60 It is his opinion that the
differences
between the narrative units are such that har-
monization
in a temporal sequence is not possible and that
the
solution to this difficulty is to be found in a traditions
history
approach to them. He comments: "Das scheinbare
Nacheinander
der Erzählungsreihe löst sich bei kritischer Be-
trachtung
auf in ein Nebeneinander einzelner Überlieferungs-
stücke,
die z.T., ohne zur Deckung zu kommen, einander
parallel
laufen, z.t. sich zeitlich und sachlich überschneiden
oder
ausschliessen und es somit dem Historiker verwehren,
entweder
die game Erzählungsreihe oder auch nur den einen
oder
anderen Traditionskomplex in ein lückenloses Bild der
Ereignisfolge
zu transponieren."61
locations
to each other. For this reason making locale the basis for distinguishing
between
the traditions raises a problem when they are regarded as irreconcilably
contradictory
versions of the same events. See S. Herrmann's review of Weiser's
work
in TLZ 89 (1964) 819-824.
59. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 92.
60. Ibid., 47.
61. Ibid., 48.
216 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
4.
B. C. Birch
B. C. Birch62 produced a
detailed study of I Samuel 7-15
which
seems to be intended to undergird and advance the
general
position advocated by Weiser,63 Fohrer,64 and
Knierim.65
Birch notes that for the most part recent research
on
the growth and development of I Samuel is largely com-
mitted
to some form of an early and late two source hypoth-
esis.
He points out that Noth's work has influenced a large
number
of scholars to see Deuteronomistic influence in the
materials
usually assigned to the late sources. In spite of
many
efforts to trace and explain the relationship between
these
two sources the conclusions have remained at variance
and
have been unconvincing. According to Birch a new way
out
of this impasse has been suggested by Weiser, Fohrer, and
Knierim
who point to a middle stage of editorial activity
between
the old traditions and the work of the Deutero-
nomist.
The nature of this pre-Deuteronomistic stage, how-
ever,
has only been vaguely identified as "prophetic," and
Birch
sees his work as providing substantiation for recogni-
tion
of this particular stage in the growth of the material to
its
present shape.
The results of Birch's study can be
summarized as fol-
lows:
1. The events surrounding the establishment of the
Israelite
monarchy produced a rich variety of traditions
which
seem, for the most part, to have circulated inde-
pendently
of one another. 2. A pre-Deuteronomistic editor is
responsible
for bringing these diverse traditions together into
a
single edition including additional material which bears his
own
peculiar stamp. This additional material includes the
62. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy.
63. Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, 158-170;
idem,
Samuel, FRLANT; see also above,
Chapter III, Section 1,A,1,c,2 and
Chapter
III, Section 1,13,1,b,5.
64. Sellin-Fohrer, Introduction, 215-227.
65. Knierim, "Messianic
Concept," in Jesus and the Historian,
ed. F. T.
Trotter,
20-51.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 217
following
sections of I Samuel 8-12: 9:15-17, 20-21, 27-
10:1,
5-8, 16b; 10:17-19, 25; 11:12-14; 12:1-5 (italics
mine).66
Birch maintains that the nature of these sub-sections
provides
the clue to the identity of the author as prophetic;
and
that this edition of the book is best attributed to north-
ern
prophetic circles in the late eighth century B.C. probably
after
the fall of
the
material comes when the Deuteronomistic historian in-
corporated
this earlier prophetic edition into his history work
making
only a few additions in the process (including of
I
Samuel 8-12 the following segments: I Sam. 8:8, 10-22;
12:6-24;
italics mine).67 This work according to Birch is to be
dated
at least as late as the time of Josiah, although he feels
that
a more precise date cannot be determined. While the
Deuteronomist,
according to Birch, has a less positive view of
kingship,
he is generally in sympathy with the material of the
prophetic
edition and let it stand for the most part without
revision.
5.
H. J. Stoebe
In his recent voluminous commentary on
I Samuel, H. J.
Stoebe
builds on the conclusions of previous studies of the
book
and places himself within the traditions history ap-
proach
to its composition.68 He sees in I Samuel 8-12 a
composite
unity which gives a description of the rise of
kingship
in Israel.69 He says that these chapters serve as a
model
case, and at the same time as an Archimedian point for
the
theory of source division of the book, because here two
66. For comment on Birch's treatment
of I Sam. 11:12-14, see above,
Chapter
II, n. 3; for his treatment of I Sam. 12:1-5, see above, Chapter III,
Section
1,A,2,g.
67. For comment on Birch's treatment
of I Sam. 12:6-24 see above, Chapter
III,
Section 1,A,2,g.
68. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, esp. 64-66, 176-181; cf. above,
Chapter
III, Section 1,A,2,i and Section 1,B,2,d.
69. Stoebe uses the term composite
unity (ibid., 176), but the nature of this
unity
differs substantially from that of the approach of "conservative biblical
scholarship"
discussed below (see Section 1,D).
218 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
accounts
are interwoven that are built on different presuppo-
sitions.
The chapters 9:1-10:16 and 11 are relatively positive-
ly
disposed towards kingship, while chapters 8, 10:17-27 and
12
reflect a decidedly negative position whose tenor must
have
been determined by bad experience, and therefore can
be
assumed to be from an essentially later time. From this
fixed
point, two sources can be postulated and then their
course
can be traced both forward and backward in the book.
Stoebe
is of the opinion, however, that a division of I Samuel
8-12
into two sources is inadequate, particularly in connec-
tion
with the placement of chapter 11. He feels that the idea
of
three sources also cannot be justified. He points out that
chapters
8; 10:17-27 and 12 present themselves as a very
complex
entity, not giving the impression of conceptual
uniformity.
He maintains that one cannot say that these
passages
are basically and uncompromisingly against the mon-
archy.
Stoebe's conclusion is that when one concentrates on
discovering
a source relationship, which in any event must
remain
a construction, then one overlooks important state-
ments
in this section of Samuel. Therefore, in place of this
approach
Stoebe suggests that one must first look at the
individual
traditions and pay attention to what they say,
trace
their history as much as is possible, and note whatever
changes
an original account may have undergone. This renun-
ciation
of source division which is becoming a general posi-
tion
of recent research on I Samuel 8-12 does not, in
Stoebe's
opinion, lead to the acceptance of a closed single
story.
Stoebe concludes that this section of Samuel is the
result
of the fusing of two tradition complexes through
which
a meaningful representation of the historical process is
reflected.
Stoebe considers it, however, entirely possible that
in
the course of its formation individual sections have been
inserted
at places differing from the historical background
which
in actuality they represent.
Stoebe says that it is not to be
denied that there is
considerable
distinction in tenor between the two tradition
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 219
complexes.
Nor is it to be denied that the tradition which
stands
in greater reserve to kingship has stronger deutero-
nomistic
traits than does the other. Yet in Stoebe's opinion
these
factors are not so strong that they lead to the conclu-
sion
that these chapters should be regarded as free composi-
tions
of the deuteronomists. At the same time he does not
deny
deuteronomistic influences.
Stoebe considers the differences in
content between the
tradition
units to be so uniformly linked with the names of
Mizpah
and Gilgal that he feels it is justified to speak of a
Gilgal
and a Mizpah tradition, although he notes the diffi-
culty
of the association of both Mizpah (10:17 ff.) and Gilgal
(11:15)
with the choice of Saul to be king. This duplicity of
assertion
is even more strange because both places are in the
tribal
area of Benjamin so that it cannot be explained by the
suggestion
that Mizpah was particularly dear to the writer. In
Stoebe's
opinion this difference can only be understood from
the
assumption that each of these traditions had a different
historical
background, and that the one reflects the designa-
tion
of a charismatic leader on the basis of some special deed
in
a particular tribal area which then assumed royal dimen-
sions,
and out of which he was then subsequently regarded as
invested
with this status in a wider area.
Stoebe's conclusion is that in spite
of different beginnings
the
two tradition complexes portray the rise of kingship over
all
ordered
after God's will. With all their differences, they are at
least
in their original viewpoint not contradictory, but paral-
lels.
They supplement each other. On the time of the union of
the
two traditions Stoebe feels that only vague suggestions
can
be made due to the absence of clear indicators as well as
the
deuteronomistic revision.
6.
D. J. McCarthy
In an important article70
on the composition of I Samuel
70. McCarthy, Int 27 (1973) 401-412.
220 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
8-12,
D. J. McCarthy points out that attention has been
diverted
from the careful narrative construction of this entire
section
by concentration on the problem of the supposed
pro-
and anti-monarchial sources which are said to be re-
flected
in its composition. Citing M. Tsevat,71 McCarthy
points
out the pattern of contrasts which is incorporated in
the
section as a whole. He suggests that two genres are
alternated:
the "report" of assemblies, and the "story" (re-
ports:
8:4-22; 10:17-27; 11:14-12:25; stories: 9:1-10:16;
11:1-23).
The "reports" have similar internal structures
which
include an address by Samuel, and it is in these
addresses
that kingship is attacked. The "stories," on the
other
hand, are positively disposed toward the monarchy.
McCarthy
comments: "The whole apparatus of alternations
serves
to reinforce the basic tension of the pericope, the
problem
of the proper attitude toward the kingship."72 He
continues:
"The section is not just about kingship, it is about
kingship
as a problem.. . . Chapter 8 exposes the problem of
kingship
among Yahweh's people, but the following story
creates
complications. There is something good about the
man
Saul in spite of the problems kingship raises, problems
recalled
in 10:17-19a. This creates a tension which is released
when
in 11:1-13 Saul is shown to act as Yahweh's own man.
This
is the true climax of the narrative, and it opens the way
to
a final resolution in chapter 12 where, with sin acknowl-
edged
and repented, kingship can be accepted into ongoing
salvation
history."73 It is on this basis that McCarthy can
assert
that the entire section is a unity which gives a coherent
account
and explanation of the rise of kingship in
perspective
is in sharp contrast to the long prevailing assess-
ments
of this section of I Samuel which have emphasized its
disjunction
rather than its unity.
71. M. Tsevat, "The Biblical
Narrative of the Foundation of Kingship in
72. McCarthy, Int 27 (1973) 403.
73. Ibid., 403, 404.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 221
Having noted this basic unity in the
section as a whole,
McCarthy
then addresses the question of how it has acquired
its
present shape. After a brief survey of the variety of
positions
normally taken on this issue he concludes: "All
theories
based on source documents run into grave difficul-
ties."74
His reason for this conclusion is that the blocks of
material
separated and assigned to different sources will not
stay
separate with the result that these theories must "fall
back
on intricate fragmentations of the text, the hypothetical
division
of the documents into tiny pieces and their restruc-
turing,
often in a sequence different from that of the original.
One
is forced to think of the construction of a jigsaw puz-
zle."75
Rather than a jigsaw puzzle approach to
this litera-
ture,
McCarthy suggests that it must be viewed as "traditional
literature."
The problem which he then sets out to unravel is
that
of tracing the history of the traditions contained in the
entire
section. Traditional literature, he maintains, develops
in
stages. The simplest stage is that of a set of individual
narratives.
A later stage is that of cycles of narratives in
which
stories concerned with a certain person or theme are
clustered
together. Such traditional literature, unlike written
literature
is "always in transition because it exists only in the
telling."76
Because traditional literature bears traces of the
different
times and places of its tellings, however, some of its
history
can be worked out.
McCarthy suggests that for I Samuel
8-12 there were
three
primary stages involved in its process of development.
The first stage is the formation of individual narratives.
The second stage is the grouping and retelling of the
stories
in cycles. In this stage he isolates three steps in the
process.
a) A point at which a pro-Saul cycle was told in
which
there was probably little emphasis on royalty, but
rather
on Saul as the tribal hero, a deliverer like the judges.
74. Ibid., 406.
75. Ibid., 406.
76. Ibid., 407.
222 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
b)
A time in which the Saul cycle was linked with the David
cycle
and both modified by concepts from the royal ideology
and
the prophetic movement. This is noted in I Samuel 8-12
particularly
by the addition of the "anointing" to the folk-
tales
about Saul. c) There must also have been a Samuel
cycle.
In these units, Samuel appears in various roles and
connections
as a folklore hero, as judge, as prophet, as well as
related
to the cult of the tribal league. McCarthy sees a
consistency
in this, concluding that: "Samuel represents
ideals
and institutions of the tribal league, often as these were
remembered
in later times and reinterpreted to tie into later
experience."77
Yet McCarthy is of the opinion that these
Samuel
narratives never acquired a structure like those of
Saul
and David, and remained a loose cycle.
The third stage is that of the organization of the tradi-
tional
elements into the present unified history. The basis for
this
was the Saul and David cycles which were restructured
by
material from the Samuel cycle. Who did this? McCarthy
says:
"This was the work of the deuteronomistic school."78
He
bases this conclusion on two things: First, he notes that
the
thematic references to kingship which are essential to the
entire
structure are precisely the passages where deutero-
nomistic
style is clearest. Secondly, he says: "the internal
structure
of the pericope is too sophisticated to be the
product
of accidental growth and simple retouches; it shows
a
controlling conception, the mark of an author, and this
conception
is integrated into the intricate structure of the
deuteronomistic
history as a whole."79 Who then were the
deuteronomists?
McCarthy gives no direct answer to this,
noting
that von Rad associated the deuteronomistic school
with
levitical preaching, Weinfeld with the wisdom traditions
of
the scribes at the
77. Ibid., 408.
78. Ibid., 408.
79. Ibid., 408.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 223
discussion
continues. One suspects that several factors were
at
work, not one overhwelming influence."80
D. The Approach of "Conservative
Biblical Scholarship"
The history of the critical assessment
of the nature of the
composition
of the books of Samuel has not been without a
considerable
number of scholars who have regarded the
books
as a composite unity containing reliable and non-
contradictory
information over the lives and times of Samuel,
Saul,
and David.81 Although I Samuel 8-12 is the section
within
the book which has provided the most fertile ground
for
attempts to separate source material and reconstruct the
process
of its compilation, this section has been regarded by
many
of these scholars as a unity of the just described nature.
This
does not mean that conservative biblical scholarship has
ignored
the discussions concerning the differences in style
and
emphasis between the various narratives of this section of
the
book, nor that they have disregarded the suggestions
which
have been advanced to explain these differences by
many
different theories of composition. Yet it remains the
case
that none of these theories has been successful in gaining
general
acceptance, and the position of "conservative biblical
scholarship"
has in the view of these men continued to be a
viable
alternative throughout the history of the debate. C. J.
Goslinga,
whose discussion of these matters is the most
recent
and complete presentation of this approach which is
known
to me, expresses the following conclusion concerning
the
composition of I Samuel 8-12: "Het geheel draagt welis-
waar
een samengesteld karakter, het berust wrsch. op tradi-
ties
van verschillende herkomst, vertoont ook afwisseling in
toneel
en achtergrond (Rama, Gibea, Mispa, Gilgal), maar laat
zich
toch lezen als een aaneengesloten verhaal, waarvan de
onderscheiden
pericopen elkander aanvullen, zodat men apres
80. Ibid., 410.
81. For representatives of this
approach, see Chapter III, n. 9.
224 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
tout
een ‘einheitliche’ voorstelling ontvangt. . . ."82 He main-
tains
that this conclusion is indirectly confirmed by noting
that
in place after place it can be demonstrated that those
who
a priori have taken a critical stance toward the descrip-
tions
of the text have too easily concluded that there are
inner
contradictions and unacceptable representations of the
course
of events.83
Part of the reason for the difficulty
which many have
with
respect to accepting I Samuel 8-12 as a composite unity
containing
a reliable account of the events surrounding the
rise
of the monarchy in
historiography
which is here encountered. In connection with
this
aspect of the matter, A. A. Koolhaas has remarked:
"Daar
het Oude Testament dus stamt uit een wereld met een
andere
voorstellings-en denkwijze en de profetische geschied-
schrijving
de gegevens op een bepaalde wijze rangschikt en
belicht,
en daar ons over de redactie van deze hoofdstukken
practisch
niets bekend is, tasten wij hier, ondanks de vele
energie
en denkkracht, die door de historisch-literaire exegese
aan
het boek Samuël is besteed, ten aanzien van bronnen en
tradities
op vele punten in het duister en kunnen wij niet
verder
komen dan to constateren, dat er achter deze hoofd-
stukken
verschillende bronnen en tradities staan, en moeten
wij
deze hoofdstukken als een creatieve synthese met een
zeer
bepaalde boodschap over het onstaan van het koning-
schap
verstaan."84 Koolhaas also points out that what we
today
might express in an argument containing several points
developed
in a logical formal manner, the Semite might
express
by telling several stories.85 As Koolhaas puts it, the
Semite
does not take a photograph but weaves a tapestry.
The
writer of I Samuel 8-12 weaves a number of these
tapestries
and then hangs them next to each other in order to
82. Goslinga, Het Eerste Both Samuël, COT, 191.
83. Ibid.
84. Koolhaas, Theocratie en Monarchie, 72.
85. Ibid., 70.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12 225
present
in its entirety the history of the rise of the mon-
archy.86
It is thus the conclusion of Goslinga
and others of this
approach
that there is no compelling evidence for assuming
that
the Samuel books are the end result of a process of
gradual
growth out of conflicting sources or traditions, nor
for
the idea of a series of editions incorporating revisions
representing
different periods of time.87 Rather the composi-
tion
of the book is best explained as the work of an author
from
the time of Solomon or shortly thereafter, who assem-
bled
his material from sources available to him, without
engaging
in extensive revision, and the book as it now stands
is
to be dated not later than the end of the 10th cen-
tury
B.C.88
Section 2
An Assessment of the Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12
in the Light of the Covenantal
Character
of I Samuel 11:14-12:25
It is not our purpose in this section
of our study to
attempt
any comprehensive reconstruction of the manner or
process
by which the books of Samuel were composed, but
merely
to demonstrate that the recognition of I Samuel 11:
14-12:25
as a report of a covenant renewal ceremony on the
occasion
of the institution of the monarchy in
a
perspective by means of which a number of the problems
around
which the literary criticism of I Samuel 8-12 has
centered
can be viewed in a new light. Although there are
many
differences between the vast array of proposals which
have
been made to account for the literary character of the
materials
in I Samuel 8-12, it is nevertheless true that one or
86.
Ibid., 71.
87. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 46.
88. Ibid., 49.
226 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
more
of the following generalizations is characteristic of the
majority
of the reconstructions summarized above.
1. In their expression of either a
favorable or unfavorable
disposition
toward the monarchy the pericopes of I Samuel
8-12
contain irreconcilable differences, particularly if one
accepts
each unit as a reliable report of the actual course of
events.
2. In I Samuel 8--12 two or possibly
three conflicting but
parallel
accounts of Saul's accession to the throne of
have
been placed (not altogether successfully) in a chrono-
logical
sequence.89
3. The so-called anti-monarchial
sections of I Samuel 8-
12
show indications of deuteronomistic influence, variously
regarded
as indicative of either the character of the original
composition
or of later editorial expansions, but in either
case
determinative for a sixth century or later date for their
final
form.
Each of these positions, whether taken
separately or in
combination,90
and whether worked out precisely as stated
above
or in some similar form, is subject to serious questions
and
deserves renewed examination, particularly in the light of
the
covenantal perspective which I Samuel 11:14-12:25 pro-
vides
for the entire sequence of events described in I Samuel
8-12.
89. This is usually closely
associated with the separation of the narratives on
the
basis of contrasting attitudes toward the monarchy, but not necessarily
limited
to this consideration.
90. Notice, e.g., that Vriezen (see
above, Section 1,C,2), avoids the usual
"pro-"
and "anti-" monarchial approach for dividing the narratives of I Sam.
8-12
(No.
1), yet he concludes that there are three different accounts of the origin of
Saul's
kingship which have been arranged in an artificial sequence (No. 2). Or
notice
the position of Boecker (see above, Section 1,B,3), who also rejects the
"pro-"
and "anti-" monarchy labels (No. 1), but attributes the modification
of an
original
anti-monarchial tradition to the deuteronomists of the sixth century B.C.
(No.
3).
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 227
A. The Ambivalent Attitude Toward Kingship
in the
Narratives of I Samuel 8-12 in the
Light of the
Covenantal Character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25
As has been noted in the above survey
of the criticism of
I
Samuel 8-12, the division of this section into either docu-
mentary
sources, independent story units, or tradition com-
plexes
which are characterized as either pro- or anti-
monarchial
has been common procedure by the majority of
critical
scholars.91 It is only recently that studies such as
those
of Weiser,92 Boecker,93 and McCarthy have challenged
this
long entrenched position.94 The basis for the pro- and
anti-monarchy
division of sources has been the view that
certain
sections of I Samuel 8-12 represent Samuel as strong-
ly
opposed to the monarchy (I Sam. 8; 10:17-27; 12), while
other
sections present Samuel as favoring the monarchy
(I
Sam. 9:1-10:16; 11).95 In our view it is certainly to be
admitted
that a tension exists in the narratives of I Samuel
8-12
concerning the propriety of establishing kingship in
expressed
in I Samuel 8; 10:17-27; and 12 while a more
positive
attitude toward its establishment is reflected in
91. Representatives of this position
include: Wellhausen, Budde, Smith,
Driver,
Eissfeldt, Gressmann, Noth, and many more. See the discussions above.
92. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT.
93. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums.
94. McCarthy, Int 27 (1973) 401-412.
95. W. McKane (I and II Samuel, TBC, 21, 22) gives a concise summary of
this
position. "We now pass to the other pole of the Books of Samuel where the
reader
is most conscious of disconnectedness and even contradiction, namely, the
account
of the institution of the monarchy (I 8-12). In order to explain this
phenomenon
a two-source theory has long been in existence and a source
favourable
to the institution of the monarchy (I 9.1-10.16, 27b; 11.1-15) has
been
differentiated from another whose attitude is unfavourable (I 8; 10.17-27a;
12).
The favourable narrative has generally been regarded as the earlier and as
historically
credible; the other late and, if not historically worthless, certainly a
representation
of history which has been shaped by later dogma. These two
accounts
are not simply divergent, but are also in ideological conflict with each
other.
The one views the monarchy as ordained by Yahweh to save
enemies
and the other sees it as a departure from the primitive faith and a
rejection
of the kingship of Yahweh."
228 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
I
Samuel 9:1-10:16; and 11. While this is true in a general
sense,
it must also be recognized that I Samuel 8; 10:17-27;
and
12 cannot legitimately be designated simply as totally
anti-monarchial.96
In I Samuel 8 Yahweh tells Samuel to
"listen
to the voice of the people in regard to all that they
say"
(v. 7); and subsequently he repeats, "listen to their
voice,
and cause a king to reign for them" (v. 22). Kingship is
therefore
to be established in
express
command of Yahweh, and this can, hardly be charac-
terized
as expressing an anti-monarchial attitude. This idea is
further
developed in I Samuel 10:17-27 where Yahweh is
represented
as designating the person to be named king by
means
of the lot. When Samuel presents Saul to the people he
refers
to him as the one "whom Yahweh hath chosen"
(v.
24). I Samuel 12:1 builds from I Samuel 8:22 ("I have
listened
to your voice in all which you said to me, and I have
placed
a king over you.") and also includes the emphatic
statement
of Samuel: "and behold Yahweh has set a king
over
you" (v. 13). If one is therefore inclined to speak of pro-
and
anti-monarchial attitudes in I Samuel 8-12, it must be
recognized
that these attitudes are not neatly divided be-
tween
two sets of contrasting narrative units as is so often
intimated,
but the ambivalence is present even within the
units
which have normally been labeled as anti-monarchial.
The
question which this presents to the student of this
section
of Samuel is that of how one is to explain this
ambivalence
in attitude toward kingship. It is our suggestion
that
the covenantal perspective which is to be found in
I
Samuel 11:14-12:25 provides the interpretive framework
96. This fact is gaining increasing
recognition in recent studies. Besides
Weiser,
Boecker, and McCarthy, notice the comment of Stoebe (Das erste Buch
Samuelis, KAT, 176) that
one cannot say of these sections "dass sie grundsätzlich
and
kompromisslos der Monarchic feindlich gegenüberstünden." See further in a
similar
vein: E. I. J. Rosenthal, "Some Aspects of the Hebrew Monarchy," JJS 9
(1958)
1-18; Thornton, CQR 168 (1967)
413-423; R. E. Clements, "The Deuter-
onomistic
Interpretation of the Founding of the Monarchy in I Sam. VIII," VT
24
(1974) 398-410.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12 229
for
the most satisfactory resolution of this problem, and it
does
so in a manner which does justice to both the positive
and
negative assertions about the establishment of the mon-
archy,
without resorting to either superficial harmonization.
attempts
or simply an appeal to a change of mind by Samuel
because
of divine intervention.97
It is our thesis that when I Samuel
11:14-12:25 is recog-
nized
as the description of a covenant renewal ceremony on
the
occasion of the inauguration of the monarchy, then the
problem
concerning the propriety of kingship in the preced-
ing
chapters is placed in its proper frame of reference. The
issue
in these pericopes is not that of the legitimacy of
kingship
itself, but rather that of the kind
of kingship which
the
people envisioned, and their reasons
for requesting it. The
central
question is whether or not the desired kingship would
be
compatible with
be
of a type which would in effect nullify that covenant. On
this
basis the preceding narratives can be viewed as follows.
It was Samuel's acute perception into
the improper mo-
tives
of the people in asking for a king that evoked his
displeasure
(I Sam. 8:6) with them, and these same motives
explain
Yahweh's statement that by their request for a king
they
have "rejected me that I should not reign over them"
(I
Sam. 8:7). The people are said to have desired a king so
that
they could be "like all the nations" and so that their
king
could go out before them and fight their battles (I Sam.
8:20).
Evidently they thought that national security could be
guaranteed
by such a leader. In short, their desire was for a
type
of kingship which was incompatible with their covenant
relationship
with Yahweh who Himself was pledged to be
their
saviour and deliverer. In asking for such a king they in
effect
broke the covenant, rejected Yahweh (I Sam. 8:7;
10:19),
forgot his constant provision for their protection
97. While this latter factor may
have been present, it cannot be isolated
from
the matter of the people's covenant allegiance to Yahweh which had been
violated
in connection with their request for a king.
230 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
(I
Sam. 8:8; 10:18; 12:8-11), and sought their security in a
military-political
establishment similar to that of their neigh-
bors.
It is for this reason that Samuel warns them by describ-
ing
"the manner of the king" (jlmh Fpwm) for which they
were
asking (I Sam. 8:11-17).98 This warning given in the
form
of the description of contemporaneous foreign mon-
archies
fell on deaf ears (I Sam. 8:19-20). Nevertheless, in
98. Mendelsohn (BASOR 143 [1956] 17-22) has argued that I Sam. 8:11-
17
depicts the Canaanite pattern of kingship familiar to the Israelites at the
time
of
the inception of the monarchy in
derived
from and directed against
experience
with kingship. This general position is accepted by Boecker (Die
Beurteilung der
Anfänge des Königtums, 17, 18) who says, "Die
Könige in
haben
so, wie es hier geschildert ist, nicht handeln können and haben in der Tat
auch
so nicht gehandelt." Boecker qualifies Mendelsohn's conclusion, however,
to
the
extent that he says: "Die Angaben des ‘Königsrechtes’ sind so
allgemein
gehalten,
dass sie nicht ubedingt auf diesen Bereich (Canaanite pattern) bezogen
werden
müssen. Sie könnten jedem soziologisch ähnlich gelagerten
Herrschafts-
system
entnommen sein. Die Deuteronomisten haben, woher auch immer, das
Material
für ihr abschreckendes Bild von einem Königtum genommen, das nach
dem
Willen des Volksbegehrens ein Königtum sein sollte, wie es ‘alle Völker’
haben."
See further: Thornton, CQR 168 (1967)
413-423.
419)
says that: "The description of the behaviour of the king given in 8.10-18,
as
Mendelsohn
has pointed out, reflects current Canaanite practice. But it is also
important
to note that this description does not reflect the situation that seems to
have
prevailed in the post-Davidic Israelite monarchies.... We need not suppose
then,
that the picture described in I Samuel 8.10-18 is necessarily intended as a
portrayal
of conditions that existed under the later Davidic dynasty. Certainly
there
is evidence that later kings raised taxes and used forced labour, but it is
questionable
how far Israelite kingship in practice was as powerful and arbitrary
as
I Samuel 8.10-18 would suggest." See also Zafrira Ben-Barak, "The Manner of
the King"
and "The Manner of the Kingdom." Basic Factors in the Establishment
of the Israelite
Monarchy in the Light of Canaanite Kingship (Diss.;
1972)
English Summary, 19 pp., esp. Part II. After comparing I Sam. 8:11-18
with
materials from the Syro-Palestinian area including the El-Amarna letters; the
royal
archives from Alalah and
correspondence
both of principle and detail that "there is a close relationship
between
the Biblical text of the mispat hammelek
and the Canaanite monarchy,
an
exemplar of which was in the mind of Samuel." The positions advocated by
Mendelsohn,
Boecker (and, although not mentioned, also Zafrira Ben-Barak) have
been
questioned recently by R. E. Clements VT
24 [1974] 398-410) who
suggests
(p. 404) that the list of abuses contained in I Sam. 8:11-17 "was drawn
up
with the very bitter memory of Solomon's exactions and excesses in mind, and
that
he was the ruler whose portrait was here being painted so unfavourably."
It
should
be noted, however, that even Clements admits (ibid., 403) that "it is not
possible
to assert complete conformity of the royal oppressions listed in I Sam.
viii
11-17 with the actual details of Solomon's political measures...."
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 231
spite
of
the
time has come for
Samuel
is commanded to arrange for its establishment.
The next section of I Samuel 8-12
(9:1-10:16) relates
the
story of Saul's search for the lost cattle of his father
which
eventuates in his coming to Samuel for assistance, and
his
identification by Yahweh as the one who "shall reign over
my
people" (I Sam. 9:17). Subsequent to this incident, Sam-
uel
calls all the people together for an assembly at Mizpah
(I
Sam. 10:17-27). It is here at Mizpah that Saul's private
designation
is made a public one by lot. It is also here that
Samuel
explains to the people the "manner of the kingdom"
(
hklmh Fpwm) which is placed in written form and preserved
in
the sanctuary (I Sam. 10:25). In this action Samuel takes
the
first step in resolving the tension which existed between
ceived
notion of what the role and function of this king
should
be, on the one hand, and the stated fact that it was
Yahweh's
intent to give them a king on the other. It is clear
that
the purpose of the hklmh Fpwm is to provide a
definition
of
the function of the king in
the
people and the king-designate. This constitutional-legal
description
of the duties and prerogatives of the king in
would
serve to clearly distinguish the Israelite kingship from
that
known to the Israelites in surrounding nations. In
the
king's role was to be strictly compatible with the con-
tinued
sovereignty of Yahweh over the nation, and also with
all
the prescriptions and obligations enunciated in the cove-
nantal
law received at Sinai and renewed and updated by
Moses
in the Plains of
to
see that the hklmh Fpwm would be
normative in
rather
than the jlmh Fpwm.
After this Mizpah assembly, which
served both as a con-
stitutional
convention and public proclamation of Saul as the
king-designate,
the people returned home to await the next
step
in the sequence of events by which the monarchy was
232 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
established
as a continuing and formal political office in
not
take place until after he has led
subsequent
to which he was very careful to proclaim that
"today
Yahweh hath wrought deliverance in
11:13).
His purpose in this statement was to indicate in an
unmistakable
manner that he regarded the victory as Yah-
weh's,
even though it was accomplished under his own leader-
ship.
In this victory one finds the final seal of approval on
Saul,
a concrete demonstration of Yahweh's continued guard-
ianship
of the nation, and an occasion for Samuel's call to
assemble
at Gilgal to "renew the kingdom." It was then at
Gilgal
that the transition into the period of the monarchy
became
official during a covenant renewal ceremony designed
on
the one hand to restore covenant fellowship which had
been
broken by
covenant
continuity in the new era of the theocracy being
initiated.
Kingship was thus formally incorporated into the
ongoing
theocracy at an assembly in which
allegiance
to Yahweh, and recognized His continued sover-
eignty
in the new order.99 The problem which
for
a king had evoked had found its resolution.
B.
The Narrative Sequence in I Samuel 8-12 in the Light of
the Covenantal Character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25
The second issue in the debate around
I Samuel 8-12 is
that
of the reality or artificiality of the sequence of events as
they
are presently represented in the book. As has just been
indicated,
it is our conclusion that I Samuel 8-12 is best
understood
as the report of a series of events in which both
the
problem surrounding the inauguration of the monarchy,
and
the steps taken in resolution of that problem are de-
99. McCarthy (Int [1973] 412) expresses this nicely when he says: "The
fundamental
thing threatened by
this
is the formal restoration of that relationship with the kingship now explicitly
included
in it...."
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 233
scribed.
The linking of this series of events into chronological
sequence
is, in our opinion, neither to be viewed as the
artificial
device of a late editor, nor as the result of the
process
of tradition growth by means of which various con-
flicting
traditions were welded into a continuous narrative.
As
we have already indicated, it is our position that the
tensions
which are present in these narratives concerning the
propriety
of kingship are not properly construed when they
are
regarded as reflections of contrasting attitudes deriving
from
different periods of time or different geographic loca-
tions.
These tensions are best understood when they are
viewed
as an authentic reflection of opposing attitudes to-
ward
kingship and the propriety of its establishment con-
temporary
with the time of the monarchy's inception.100 The
narratives
of I Samuel 8-12 are thus best understood as
descriptive
of the process by which the matter of the proper
attitude
toward, and the role of a king in
raised
and then brought to solution.
As we have noted, this process
involved a number of
phases:
1. The demand of the people for a king
(I Sam. 8:1-5).
2. The displeasure of Samuel and his
warning in the
jlmh Fpwm (I Sam. 8:6-18).
3. The persistence of the people in
their demand (I Sam.
8:19-22).
4. The private designation and
anointing of Saul to be
king
(I Sam. 9:1-10:16).
5. The public designation of Saul to
be king and the
definition
(hklmh Fpwm) of his task (I Sam. 10:17-27).
6. Confirmation of Saul's designation
by demonstration
of
Yahweh's blessing through victory over the Ammonites
(I
Sam. 11:1-13).
100. Cf. J. 0. Boyd, "Monarchy
in
26
(1928) 41-64. Boyd comments (42): "It is true, there are mingled here
favorable
and unfavorable judgments of monarchy as an institution in
who
can deny that this double point of view is actually inherent in the historical
situation?"
234 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
7. The inauguration of Saul at a
covenant renewal cere-
mony
held at Gilgal (I Sam. 11:14-12:25).
It is the relationship between I
Samuel 11:14-15 and
I
Samuel 10:17-27, particularly in connection with the phrase
"let
us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom
there," which has
provided
what is generally advanced as the most compelling
evidence
for concluding that two conflicting accounts of the
accession
of Saul have been artificially represented as sequen-
tial
and incorporated into the composite account of the
establishment
of kingship in Israel.101 It is our conclusion,
however,
that the "renewal of the kingdom" about which
Samuel
is speaking has reference to renewal of allegiance to
Yahweh,
not to Saul, and is best understood as a call for the
covenant
renewal ceremony which is described in greater
detail
in I Samuel 12.102 This interpretation not only pro-
vides
a new perspective for understanding the relationship
between
I Samue1 11:14-15 and I Samuel 12, but at the same
time
it also removes the most widely advanced argument for
positing
the presence of conflicting but parallel accounts of
Saul's
accession to the throne found in I Samuel 10:17-27
and
11:15.
It is perhaps good here once again to
emphasize that we
do
not intend to argue that I Samuel 8-12 is written "aus
einem
Guss": we have spoken repeatedly in terms of a
composite
unit. In our opinion there are not specific state-
ments
in I Samuel 8-12 which are contradictory, but there is
variegation.
It is beyond the scope of this book to pursue this
101. This position is adopted by
advocates of otherwise widely divergent
views
of the composition of I Sam. 8-12. Cf. above, Chapter III, Section 1,B.
Note
the representative statement of Birch (The
Rise of the Israelite Monarchy,
101):
"Most scholars have regarded this verse as the clearest evidence of redac-
tional
activity in this chapter and there would seem to be little reason for
challenging
this conclusion.... It would seem clear that an editor has, in the
process
of ordering the traditions as we now have them, attempted to harmonize
an
apparent duplication. Saul has already become king in 10:24 so the instance in
11:15
has been transformed into a renewal."
102. See above, Chapter II; Chapter
III, Section 2,A; Chapter IV, Section
2,B,2,a.
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 235
matter
more completely. But in the discussion above, particu-
larly
in Chapters I and II we have noted various points of
unevenness.
We refer here once again particularly to I Samuel
12:12.
As we have tried to demonstrate in the exegesis of this
verse,
the statement that the advance of Nahash was the
reason
for the Israelite request for a king is not in contradic-
tion
with what is related in the preceding chapters. But at the
same
time I Samuel 12:12 is one of the indications that the
author-redactor
of I Samuel 8-12 must have made use of
traditions
which were not conflicting, but which did original-
ly
exist independently from each other. A similar point could
be
made, for example, in connection with the reference to
Saul
as the "anointed" in I Samuel 12:3; see the exegesis of
that
verse.
C. "Deuteronomic Influence"
in the Narratives of
I Samuel 8-12 in the
Light of the
Covenantal Character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25
The third characteristic of the
majority of the reconstruc-
tions
of the literary history of I Samuel 8-12 is the view that
the
anti-monarchial sections (I Samuel 8; 10:17-27; 12) show
indications
of deuteronomic influence, variously regarded as
indicative
of either deuteronomistic authorship or of deutero-
nomistic
editorial revision. The issues here are complex. The
positions
advocated are quite diverse and reflect the complex-
ity
of the problem. Many authors have concluded that exami-
nation
of the literary style of these pericopes leads to the
conclusion
that these narratives have close affinities with the
E
source of the Pentateuch as well as with deuteronomistic
literature,
and are thus to be considered products of the same
circles
as the E document of the Pentateuch with subsequent
deuteronomistic
revision.103 The extent of the deuterono-
103. Cf., e.g., the viewpoints of
Driver and Eissfeldt as discussed above.
Driver
(Introduction, 178) after pointing
out phraseology in the "anti-
monarchial"
strand which shows affinities with either E or the book of Judges
concludes:
"The similarities, partly with E (esp. Josh. 24) partly with the
236 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel 8-12
mistic
revision is said to be difficult to determine since the
two
styles have a great deal of similarity. Noth, who at least
as
far as I Samuel 8-12 is concerned, can appeal to Well-
hausen,
views our chapters as either original compositions of
the
deuteronomist himself (I Samuel 8, 12) or thorough
revisions
of older traditions (I Sam. 10:17-27a).104 At the
present
time many authors are more and more directing their
attention
to the whole process of transmission. Some come
to
the conclusion that even I Samuel 8; 10b; 12 derive from
sources
close to the time of the events portrayed. This
position
does not exclude subsequent deuteronomistic re-
vision
and/or deuteronomistic responsibility for the linkage
of
the narratives in their present sequence.105 Determination
of
the deuteronomistic influence on the section of I Samuel
8-12
is thus a matter of continuing debate, even though there
is
general agreement that influence of some kind is evident.
There are a number of difficulties
which confront the
advocates
of the above positions. Budde106 noted this long
ago:
if one with Wellhausen posits late deuteronomistic au-
thorship
of the sections of I Samuel 8-12 which are consid-
ered
to be fundamentally opposed to the monarchy, then
how
does one account for the more favorable disposition
toward
the monarchy of both Deuteronomy itself and the
so-called
"deuteronomic edition" of I and II Kings as re-
flected
in the "law of the king" in Deuteronomy 17:14-20
and
the picture of David, Hezekiah, and Josiah in I and
II
Kings. Similar difficulties arise with the conception of
redaction
of Judges, are evident. The entire phenomena appear to be best
explained
by the supposition that the basis consists of a narrative allied to that of
E,
which was afterwards expanded, esp. in 12:9 ff., by a writer whose style and
point
of view were similar to those of Dt. and the compiler of the Book of
Judges."
104. Cf. the viewpoint of Noth as
discussed above, Chapter III, Section
1,A,1,b,3;
Chapter V, Section 1,B,2.
105. Cf., e.g., the positions of
Weiser, Boecker, and McCarthy as discussed
above.
106. Cf. the discussion of Budde's
view above (Section 1,A,2, esp. nn. 9 and
10).
The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 237
Noth.107
These difficulties are reflected in the positions of
Smith
and Driver who considered the anti-monarchial narra-
tives
to be pre-deuteronomic, but subsequently expanded by
a
deuteronomistic editor. The difficulty with this latter posi-
tion
is that deuteronomic characteristics are most prominent
in
these narratives in connection with inseparable elements of
the
individual narrative structures themselves, rather than
with
easily removed editorial insertions. The more recent
trend
toward accepting a much earlier origin for the narra-
tives
once considered anti-monarchial, and to find the deuter-
onomists'
work primarily in the structuring of the narrative
sequence
also does not adequately explain the deuteronomic
characteristics
which are inseparably linked with the internal
coherence
of the individual narrative units.
The position which we are advocating
is that deutero-
nomic
influence is certainly to be found in the narratives, but
it
is not to be considered the result of late editorializing or
exilic
or post-exilic authorship, but rather the reflection of a
vital
theological dynamic operative in and contemporaneous
with
the events which are here described. Such a position
allows
for indications of deuteronomic influence in literary
expression
without uniform or slavish attachment to such a
style,108
and at the same time provides a basis for understand-
ing
the ambivalence in attitude toward the monarchy, as well
as
the sequence of events associated with its establishment.
107. Cf. above, Section 1,B,3 for
Boecker's solution to this problem.
108. Note the evidence for the
similarity of various expressions in I Sam.
12:9
ff. not exclusively to Deuteronomy, but also to other parts of the Penta-
teuch,
and the books of Joshua and Judges as indicated above in Chapter I,
pp.
33-34, 44-46, 53, 59-60. Of the nine phrases discussed on pp. 33-34, above
note
the following: The first can fairly be termed
deuteronomic since it is found
there
four times (6:12; 8:11, 14, 19). For the second phrase, a similar, but not
identical
expression is found only in Deut.
32:30 (cf. also Deut. 28:68). The third
phrase
is not found in Deuteronomy. The
fourth phrase occurs only once in Deut.
(1:41),
but occurs previously in the Pentateuch in Num. 14:40; 21:7. The fifth
phrase
occurs once in a similar form in
Deuteronomy (28:20). The sixth phrase
does not occur in Deuteronomy.
The seventh phrase does not occur in Deuter-
onomy.
The eighth phrase does not occur in
Deuteronomy but cf. Ex. 3:15; 7:16;
Num.
16:28, 29; Josh. 24:5. The ninth phrase does
not occur in Deuteronomy,
but
cf. Ex. 18:9, 10; Josh. 24:10; Judg. 6:9; 8:34.
238 The Literary Criticism of I Samuel
8-12
As
we have argued above, there is good reason to assume that
the
covenant traditions of Exodus and Deuteronomy were a
living
and vital influence in
beginning,
and that the covenantal character of the assembly
at
Gilgal (I Sam. 11:14-12:25) is attributable to this influ-
ence.109
The deuteronomic phraseology and theological per-
spective
which is found in this and other sections of I Samuel
8-12
is therefore to be considered both appropriate and
authentic
in the description of events which were of such
great
significance in
This evidence would indicate
familiarity with Deuteronomy, but hardly
literary
dependence. Notice also the discussion in Chapter I, p. 57 where it is
noted
that I Sam. 12:22 expresses an idea which is prominent in Deuteronomy,
but
the word choice is different. On this general issue see the discussion of G. T.
Manley
on the deuteronomic character of the "framework passages" in the book
of
Judges (G. T. Manley, "The Deuteronomic Redactor in the Book of
Judges,"
EvQ 31 [1959]
32-37). See also E. J. Young's discussion of how deuteronomic
influences
to be found in the book of Joshua are best explained (E. J. Young,
"The
Alleged Secondary Deuteronomic Passages in the Book of Joshua," EvQ 25
[1953]
142-157). As Young points out (ibid., 145) in connection with Joshua,
the
author "wrote in a style that was replete with the thoughts and language
of
earlier
Scripture. But he did not copy slavishly. He had no hesitation in making
minor
alterations when they suited his purpose. And, although he often referred
to
Deuteronomy, he also referred to other parts of the Pentateuch."
109. See above, Chapter IV.
110. For advocacy of a similar
position with regard to the literary character
of
I Kings 8 which has often been termed "Deuteronomic," note the
comments of
K.
A. Kitchen ("Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testament,"
in New
Perspectives on
the Old Testament,
ed. J. B. Payne, 12, 13): "... it is habitual
procedure
in Old Testament studies, whenever certain attitudes or topics crop up
in
speeches or narratives of events—coinciding with supposedly ‘Deuteronomic’
views—to
consider these occurrences spurious to the characters and situations
'concerned
and as largely embellished, or even invented, by the Deuteronomist(s),
as
though it were inconceivable that such things could be thought, said, or done
before
the environs of 622 B.C. A classic example ca. 964 B.C.—about halfway
between
Deuteronomy (ca. 1200) and Josiah (622)—is the dedication of the
much
of his speech (esp. in its present form) is widely referred to Deuteronomic
efforts
in the seventh to the sixth centuries B.C. But, again, this is simply begging
the
question. There is no material proof of any kind that such sentiments and
language
must be seventh century or later, no proof that it is not of the tenth
century
B.C., by a speaker deliberately conscious of what is religiously 'right' (in
his
particular cultural context), and influenced by a basic covenant—document of
ca.
1200 B.C. For Solomon in his dedication so to pay heed is no more remark-
able
than is the corresponding concern for religious propriety in the dedications
of
other temples by other Near Eastern kings all over the Biblical world, at all
periods
of its history (cf. Section VII, below). It is all too easy to assert there is
no
evidence for ‘Deuteronomic’ attitudes between ca. 1200 and 622 B.C., if one
The Literary Criticism of I
Samuel 8-12 239
D. Concluding Remarks
It has not been our purpose to enter
into the entire range
of
literary-critical problems in I Samuel 8-12,111 but only to
touch
on those for which the covenantal character of I Sam-
uel
11:14-12:25 has particular relevance. Nevertheless, in our
view,
the matters which we have discussed are the central
issues
in the literary critical assessment of this particular
section
of the book.112 It is our conclusion that the cove-
nantal
perspective of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 provides a new
and
supportive dimension to the approach advocated by
conservative
biblical scholarship which has long recognized
this
material as a composite unity and as historically trust-
worthy.113
has
first relegated all such evidence to 622 and later on a priori grounds; but such
a
proceeding is too far-reaching to be so based, instead of being rooted in
controllable
facts." See further: G. van Groningen, "Joshua-II Kings: Deuterono-
mistic?
Priestly? Or Prophetic Writing?" JETS
12 (1969) 3-26.
111. This has been adequately
handled elsewhere. See esp.: Koolhaas,
Theocratie en
Monarchie;
Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuel,
COT.
112. It is our position that
differences in details of various sorts between the
narrative
units of I Sam. 8-12 are not of a kind which creates irresolvable
conflicts
between these units. We have commented on certain questions of this
sort
in our exegetical section above (Chapters I, and II) when these details had no
direct
relation to the covenantal perspective. See esp. pp. 11, n. 8; 14, n. 14; 37;
38-40;
49. For extensive discussion of similar types of problems in other
sections
of I Sam. 8-12 see Goslinga, ibid.
113. In our view there is nothing
contained in I Sam. 8-12 which is
incompatible
with the position that these narratives present a reliable historical
account
of the establishment of the monarchy in
Tsevat
(Tarbiz 36 [19691 99-109) who
comments in the English summary: "The
author
rejects the opinion of many critics that this narrative (I Sam. 8:4-12:25) is
intrinsically
unhistorical. To this extent that it is found in these chapters, the
phenomenon
of opposition to the institution of the monarchy in the name of the
Hoseanic
or Deuteronomistic origin." Tsevat divides I Sam. 8-12 in a manner
similar
to that of McCarthy (see above, Section 1,C,6) designating the five
components
as either "popular assemblies" or "individual actions." It
is his
conclusion
that the stories of the assemblies expressing opposition to the mon-
archy
(along with approval) are no less historical than the stories of
"individual
actions"
and "nothing can be said about the relative dates of the components."
See
further the work of Zafrira Ben-Barak ("The Manner of the King" and "The
Manner of the
Kingdom")
who argues that "I Sam. 7-12 is a repository of reliable
traditions
dating from the eve of the establishment of the monarchy which reflect
contemporaneous
socio-political pressures. The initial and decisive editing of these
traditions
was carried out by a contemporary writer to whose sensitivity we owe
the
faithfulness with which the portrait of the age was drawn and preserved"
(from
Part I of the English summary).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
ABBREVIATIONS
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
(
AnBib Analecta Biblica (
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts,
ed. J. B. Pritchard (
19552).
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen).
BA Biblical Archaeologist (
BASOR Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research
(
BDB
F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and
C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the
Old Testament
(
printed with corrections
1962).
BHK3 Biblia Hebraica,3 ed. R. Kittel (
BHTh Beiträge zur Historischen
Theologie (Tübingen).
Bib Biblica (
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia (
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (
BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament
(Roermond).
BR Biblical Research (
BWANT
Beiträge zur Wissenschaft
vom Alten und Neuen Testament
(
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift.
BZAW Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft (
BZHT Beiträge zur historischen
Theologie (Tübingen).
CambB The
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly (
CentB The Century Bible (Edinburgh).
CNEB The
Bible (
COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament
(Kampen).
CQR Church Quarterly Review (
CTM Concordia Theological Monthly (
EH Exegetisches Handbuch zum
Alten Testament (
ET English translation.
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly (
FRLANT
Forschungen zur Religion und
Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments (Göttingen).
GK Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed.
Cowley (Oxford:
corrected reprint 1960).
241
242 Bibliographical Abbreviations
GTT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift (Kampen).
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Tübingen).
HK Handkommentar zum Alten
Testament (
HSchAT
Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments (
HTR Harvard Theological Review (
IB The Interpreters Bible, ed. G. Buttrick (
ICC The International Critical
Commentary of the Holy Scrip-
tures of the Old and New
Testament (Edinburgh).
IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick
(
Int Interpretation (
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society (
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature (
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (
JJS The Journal of Jewish Studies (
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies (
JRH Journal of Religious History (
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament (
KBL Ludwig Köhler-Walter
Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros (
KeH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch
zum Alten Testament
(
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten
Testament (Tübingen).
KV Korte Verklaring der Heilige
Schrift (Kampen).
LTQ
LXX Septuagint, ed. A. Rahlfs (
MT Massoretic Text (as published
in BHK3).
MVAG Mitteilungen
der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft
(
NASB New American Standard Bible (New York: 1963).
NCB New Century Bible (
Or Orientalia (
OTMS The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed.
H. H. Rowley
(
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën (
OTWSA
Die Ou Testamentiese
Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Africa
(Potchefstroom).
POT De Prediking van Het Oude Testament
(Nijkerk).
PTR Princeton Theological Review (
RB Revue Biblique (Paris).
RSV The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (
RThR Reformed Theological Review (
Bibliographical
Abbreviations 243
SAT Die Schriften des Alten
Testaments (Göttingen).
SBB The Soncino Books of the Bible
(
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology (
StANT Studien
zum Alten und Neuen Testament (München).
StSe Studi Semitici (
SVT Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum (
TB Tyndale Bulletin (
TBC Torch Bible Commentaries (
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: 1964 ff.); ET of
Theologisches Wörterbuch zum
Neuen Testament, eds. G. Kittel
and G. Friedrich (Stutt-
gart: 1933 ff.).
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, eds. G. J. Bot-
terweck, H. Ringgren
(Grand Rapids: 1974 ff.); ET of TWAT.
TeU Tekst en Uitleg (Den Haag).
THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, I, II,
eds.
ThR Theologische Rundschau, (
ThRef Theologia Reformata (Woerden).
ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift (
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung (
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
(
TvT Tijdschrift voor Theologie (
TWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testament, eds. G. J.
Botterweck, H. Ringgren
(Stuttgart: 1970 ff.).
VD Verbum Domini (
VT Vetus Testamentum (
WZ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift (
WMANT
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum
Alten und Neuen
Testament
(Neukirchen-Vluyn).
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (
ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (Tübingen).
ZWL Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches
Leben (Tübingen).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Commentaries
cited:
Aalders,
G. Ch., Daniël, COT, Kampen, 1962.
Ackroyd,
P. R., The First Book of Samuel,
CNEB,
van
den Born, A., Samuël: uit de grondtekst
vertaald en uitgelegd, BOT,
Roermond, 1956.
_________.
Kronieken, BOT, Roermond, 1960.
Budde,
K., Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, Tübingen,
1902.
Caird,
G. B., "The First and Second Books of Samuel," IB, II, Nash-
ville, 1953.
Calvin,
J., Commentaries on the Book of the
Prophet Daniel, 2 vols.,
Caspari,
W., Die Samuelbücher, KAT,
Childs,
B. S., The Book of Exodus. A Critical,
Theological Commen-
tary,
Driver,
S. R., A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Deuteronomy,
ICC, Edinburgh, 19013.
Fensham,
F. C., Exodus, POT, Nijkerk, 1970.
Gispen,
W. H., Het Boek Leviticus, COT,
Kampen, 1950.
________,
Het Boek Exodus, KV, Kampen, 19643.
_________,
Het Boek Numeri, II, COT, Kampen,
1964.
Goettsberger,
J., Die Bücher der Chronik oder
Paralipomenon,
HSchAT,
Goldman,
S:, Samuel, SBB,
Goslinga,
C. J., Het Boek Jozua, KV, Kampen,
1927.
________,
I Samuël, KV, Kampen, 1948.
________,
Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, Kampen,
1968.
de
Graaf, S. G., Het eerste en tweede bock
van Samuël, Kampen, n.d.
Gressmann,
H., Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung
and Prophetie
SAT, Göttingen, 19212.
de
Groot, J., I en II Samuel, TeU,
Hertzberg,
H. W., I and II Samuel,
Samuelbücher, ATD, 19602.
Holwerda,
B., Seminarie-Dictaat, Richteren I,
Kampen, n.d1
Hulst,
A. R., "I en II Samuel," in Commentaar
op de Heilige Schrift,
ed. J. A. von der Hake,
Hyatt,
J. P., Commentary on Exodus, NCB,
Keil,
C. F. The Books of Samuel,
Bücher Samuels,
Kennedy,
A. R. S., I and II Samuel, CentB,
Edinburgh, 1904.
Kennedy,
G., "Daniel," IB, VI,
245
246 Bibliography
Kirkpatrick,
A. F., The First Book of Samuel,
CambB,
1880.
Kittel,
R., Die Bücher der Chronik, HK,
Kroeze,
J. H., Het Boek Job, COT, Kampen,
1961.
_______,
Het Boek Jozua, COT, Kampen, 1968.
Leimbach,
K. A., Die. Bücher Samuel, HSchAT,
Mauchline,
J., I and II Samuel, NCB,
McKane,
W., I and II Samuel, TBC,
Noth,
M., Exodus, A Commentary,
zweite
Buch Mose, Exodus, ATD, Göttingen, 1959.
_________,
Das vierte Buch Mose, Numeri, ATD, Göttingen,
1966.
Nowack,
W., Richter, Ruth and Bücher Samuelis,
HK, Göttingen, 1902.
Oosterhoff,
B. J., "De boeken 1 en 2 Samuel," Bijbel
Met Kantteken-
ingen, eds. J. H.
Bavink, A. H. Edelkoort, Baarn, n.d.
von
Rad, G., Deuteronomy, A Commentary,
fünfte Buch Mose, Deuteronomium, ATD,
Ridderbos,
J., Het Boek Deuteronomium, I, II, KV, Kampen, 19632,
19642.
Rudolph,
W., Chronikbücher, HAT, Tübingen,
1955.
Schulz,
A. Die Bücher Samuel, EH, Münster,
1919/1920.
Smith,
H. P., A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Books of
Samuel, ICC, Edinburgh,
19514.
Stoebe,
H. J., Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT,
Giitersloh, 1973.
Thenius,
0., Die Bücher Samuels, KeH,
Thompson,
J. A., Deuteronomy: An Introduction and
Commentary,
TOTC,
de
Vaux, R., Les Livres de Samuel, La
Sainte Bible, Paris, 19612.
Verhoef,
P. H., Maleachi, COT, Kampen, 1972.
Other
works cited:
Aalders,
G. Ch., A Short Introduction to the
Pentateuch,
1949.
_________,
Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen,
1952.
Alt,
A., "Gedanken nber das Königtum Jahwes," in Kleine Schriften
zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, München, 1953, 345-357.
_________,
Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in
Palästina,
1930; ET: "The Formation of the
Essays
on Old Testament History and Religion,
223-309.
_________,
Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts,
ET: "The Origins of Israelite
Law," in Essays on Old Testament
History
and Religion,
Albright,
W. F., "The Oracles of Balaam," JBL
63, 1944, 207-233.
_________,
"The Old Testament and the Archaeology of the Ancient
East," in OTMS, 27-47.
_________,
Yahweh and the Gods of
of Two Contrasting Faiths,
Bibliography
247
Ap-Thomas,
D. R., "Notes on some terms relating to prayer," VT 6,
1956, 225-241.
Anderson,
G. W., "
Translating
and Understanding the Old Testament, Essays in honor
of H. G. May, eds. H. T. Frank and
W. L. Reed,
135-151.
Baltzer,
K., The Covenant Formulary,
Ben-Barak,
Z., "The Manner of the King"
and "The Manner of the
Kingdom." Basic Factors in the
Establishment of the Israelite
Monarchy in the Light of Canaanite
Kingship,
unpublished disserta-
tion,
Bentzen,
A., Introduction to the Old Testament,
2 vols. in 1, Copen-
Berkovits,
E., Man and God: Studies in Biblical
Theology,
1969.
Bernhardt,
K.-H., Das Problem der Altorientalischen
Königsideologie im
Alten Testament, SVT 8,
Beyerlin,
W., Origins and History of the Oldest
Sinaitic Traditions,
Birch,
B. C., The Rise of the Israelite
Monarchy: The Growth and
Development I Sam 7-15, unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1970.
__________,
"The Development of the Tradition on the Anointing of
Saul in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16," JBL 90, 1971, 55-68.
Boecker,
H. J., Redeformen des Rechtslebens im
Alten Testament,
WMANT 14, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964.
_________,
Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des
Königtums in den
deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des
I. Samuelbuches,
WMANT
31, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.
de
Boer, P. A. H., Research into the Text of
1 Samuel I-XVI, Amster-
dam, 1938.
__________,
"De voorbede in het OT," OTS,
III,
124-132.
Boyd,
J. 0., "Monarchy in
1928, 41-64.
Boyle,
M. 0., "The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III 1-
IV 13," VT 21, 1971, 338-362.
Brekelmans,
C. H. W., "Het ‘historische Credo’ van
1963, 1-11.
Bright,
J., The
_________,
A History of
Broekhuis,
J., "De Heilige Oorlog in het Oude Testament," ThRef 18,
1975, 108-120.
Brongers,
H. A., "Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des Adverbialen
We'ATTAH im Alten Testament," VT 15, 1965, 289-299.
Bruggemann,
W., "Amos IV 4-13 and
15, 1965, 1-15.
248 Bibliography
Buber,
M., "Die Erzahlung von Sauls Königswahl," VT 6, 1956, 113-
173.
________,
Kingship of God,
Gottes,
Buccellati,
G., Cities and Nations of Ancient
1967.
Budde,
K., "Sauls Königswahl und Verwerfung," ZAW 8, 1888, 223-
248.
________,
Die Bücher Richter und Samuel. Ihre
Quellen und ihr
Aufbau,
Campbell,
Jr., E. F., "Sovereign God," McCormick
Quarterly 20, 1967,
173-186.
_________,
"Moses and the Foundations of
141-154.
Carlson,
R. A., David, the chosen King. A
Traditio-Historical Approach
to the Second Book of Samuel,
Credo," VT 19, 1969, 273-289.
Clements,
R. Prophecy
and Covenant, SBT 43,
_________, "The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of
the Founding of
the Monarchy in I Sam. VIII," VT 24, 1974, 398-410.
Clines,
D. J. A., "Psalm Research Since 1955: I. The Psalms and the
Cult," TB 18, 1967, 103-126.
___________.
"Psalm Research Since 1955: II. The Literary Genres,"
TB
20, 1969, 105-125.
Cornill,
C., "Ein elohistischer Bericht über die Entstehung des
itischen Königtums in I
Samuelis 1-15 aufgezeigt," ZWL
6, 1885,
113-141.
________,
"Zur Quellenkritik der Bücher Samuelis," Königsberger
Studien, BO I, 1887, 25-59.
Craigie,
P. C., “The Conquest and Early Hebrew Poetry," TB 20, 1969,
76-94.
Cross,
M., Freedman, D. N., "The Blessing of Moses," JBL 67, 1948,
191-210.
_________,
"The Song of Miriam," JNES
14, 1955,
237-250.
Deller,
K., Papola, S., "Ein Vertrag Assurbanipals mit dem arabischen
Stamm Qedar," Or 37, 1968, 464-466.
Dentan,
R. C., The Knowledge of God in Ancient
1968.
Driver,
S. R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the
Topography of the
Books of Samuel,
_________,
An Introduction to the Literature of the
Old Testament,
Dronkert,
K., "Liefde en gerechtigheid in het Oude Testament," in
Schrift
en Uitleg, jubileum-bundel W. H. Gispen, Kampen, 1970,
43-53.
Bibliography 249
Edelkoort,
A. H., De Christus-Verwachting in Het
Oude Testament,
Wageningen, 1941.
_________,
De Profeet Samuël, Baarn, 1953.
Ehrlich,
A B., Randglossen zur Hebräischen
Bibel, 7 vols.,
1910.
Eichhorn,
J. G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
Göttingen, 1823/
244.
Eichrodt,
W., "Covenant and Law," Int
20, 1966, 302-321.
_________,
Theology of the Old Testament, 2
vols.,
1961, 1367.
Eissfeldt,
0. "Jahwe als König," ZAW
46, 1928, 81-105.
_________,
Die Komposition der Samuelisbücher,
_________,
The Old Testament. An Introduction,
ET of Einleitung in das AT,
Fensham,
F. C., "Malediction and Benediction in the Ancient Near
Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old
Testament," ZAW 74, 1962,
1-9.
_________,
"Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the
Old Tes ament," VT 13, 1963, 133-143.
__________,
"Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties
and Kudurru -inscriptions Compared with the Maledictions of Amos
and Isai ," ZAW 75, 1963, 155-175.
_________,
"The Covenant-idea in the book of Hosea," in Studies in
the Books of Hosea and Amos, OTWSA, Potchefstroom, 1964/65,
35-49.
___________. "Covenant, Promise and Expectation in
the Bible," ThZ
23, 196 , 305-322.
Fitzmyer,
J A., "The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire I and II," JAOS
81, 196' , 178-222.
_________,
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire,
BibOr 19,
1967.
Fohrer,
G., "’Priesterliches Königtum,’ Ex. 19,6," ThZ 19, 1963,
359-36
__________,
Überlieferung and Geschichte des
Exodus: eine Analyse
von Ex -15, BZAW 91,
_________,
History of Israelite Religion,
Geschicte
der Israelitischen Religion,
Frankena,
R., "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of
Deuteronomy," OTS, XIV,
Freedman,
D. N., "Divine Commitment and Human Obligation. The
Covenant Theme," Int 18, 1964, 419-431.
Friedrich,
J., "Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer
Sprache " MVÄG 31/I, 1926,
34/I, 1930.
von
Gall, A. "Uber die Herkunft der Bezeichnung Jahwehs als König,"
Wellhausen Festschrift, BZAW 27,
Galling,
K., Die Erwählungstraditionen
Israels, BZAW 48,
1928.
250 Bibliography
_________, "Der Beichtspiegel: eine
gattungsgeschichtliche Studie,"
ZAW
47, 1929, 125-130.
Gill,
D., "Thysia and selamim: Questions to R. Schmid's Das Bunde-
sopfer MI Israel," Bib 47,
1966, 255-261.
Glock,
A. E. "Early
558-605.
Goetze,
A. translator), "Hittite Treaties," in Ancient Near Eastern
Texts, ed. J. B.
Pritchard,
Gordis,
R., "’Na'alam’ and other observations on the Ain Feshka
Scrolls," JNES 9, 1950, 44-47.
Gottwald,
Ni K., "The Book of Samuel," Encyclopedia
Judaica, 14,
Gray,
J., "The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God: Its Origin
and Development," VT 6, 1956, 268-285.
van
Groningen, G., "Joshua-II Kings: Deuteronomistic? Priestly? Or
Prophetic Writing?" JETS 12, 1969, 3-26.
Gurney,
0. R., The Hittites, Harmondsworth,
19697.
Harrelson,
W., "Worship in Early
Harrison,
R. IK., Introduction to the Old Testament,
1969.
Harvey,
J., "Le 'RIB-Pattern', réquisitoire
prophétique sur la rupture de
l'alliance," Bib 43, 1962, 172-196.
_________,
Le Plaidoyer prophétique contre
de l'alliance, Studia 22,
Helfmeyer,
F. j., "tvx," TDOT, I, 167-188.
Hermann,
J., “eu@xomai,” TDNT, II, 785-800.
_________, "i[lasmo<j," TDNT, III. 301-310.
Hillers,
D. R., "A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the 0.T.,"
BASOR
176, 1964, 46-47.
__________,
Treaty Curses and the Old Testament
Prophets, BibOr
16, Rom , 1964.
__________, Covenant:
The History of a Biblical Idea,
1969.
Holladay,
Jr., J. A., "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of
HTR
63, 1970, 29-51.
Holwerda,
B., "De plaats, die de HEERE verkiezen zal," in Begonnen
hebbende van Mozes, Terneuzen,
1953, 7-29.
Hubbard,
D. A., "The Wisdom Movement and
TB
17, 1966, 3-33.
Huffmon,
H. "The Covenant Lawsuit in the
Prophets," JBL 78,
1959, 285-295.
_________,
"The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo," CBQ 27, 1965,
101-113.
Hyatt,
J. P., "Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in
Independent Sinai Tradition?"
in Translating and Understanding
the Old Testament, Essays.in honor
of H. G. May,
eds. H. T. Frank,
W. L. Reed,
Bibliography 251
Hylander,
i., Der Literarische Samuel-Saul Komplex
(I Sam 1--15)
Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht,
Irwin,
W. A., "Samuel and the Rise of the Monarchy," AJSL 58, 1941, II
113-134.
Jepsen,
A., "Berith. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit," in Ver-
bannung und Heimkehr, Rudolph
Festschrift, ed. A. Kuschke,
Tübingen, 1961, 161-179.
_________,
"qdc
und hqdc
im Alten Testament," in Gottes Wort
und
Jeremias,
J., Theophanie, Die Geschichte Einer
Alttestamentlichen
Gattung WMANT 10, Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1965.
Jocz,
J., The Covenant: A Theology of Human
Destiny,
1968.
Kaiser,
0., Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
Gütersloh, 1969.
Keller,
C. Al, Das Wort OTH als
"Offenbarungszeichen Gottes." Eine
philogish-theologische
Begriffsuntersuchung zum Alten Testa-
ment,
Kitchen,
K. A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament,
_________,
"Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testa-
ment," in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne,
Kline,
M. G. Treaty of the Great King. The
Covenant Structure of
Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary,
__________, By Oath
Consigned,
__________,
The Structure of Biblical Authority,
Knierim,
R., "The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel," in
Jesus
and the Historian, ed. F. T. Trotter,
20-51.
Knight,
G. A. F., A Christian Theology of the Old
Testament, Rich-
mond, 1959.
Köhler,
L., Theologie des Alten Testaments,
Tübingen, 19533.
Koolhaas,
A. A., Theocratie en Monarchie in Israël,
Wageningen, 1957.
Korosec,
V., Hethitische Staatsverträge. Ein
Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen
Wertung, Leipziger
Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 60,
1931.
Kraus,
H.-J., "Gilgal—ein Beitrag zur Kultus geschichte
1951, 181-199.
_________,
Worship in
in
Kroeze,
J. H., Koning Saul, Potchefstroom,
1962.
Külling,
S. R., Zur Datierung der
"Genesis-P-Stacke," Kampen, 1964.
Kutsch,
E., Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten
Testament und im Alten
Orient, BZAW 87,
__________,
"tyriB; berit
Verpflichtung,"
THAT, I, 339-352.
__________,
Verheissung und Gesetz, BZAW 131,
252 Bibliography
Laurentin,
A., "We ‘attah-Kai nun. Formule
caractéristique des textes
juridiques et liturgiques," Bib 45, 1964, 168-195.
L'Hour,
J., "L’Alliance a Sichem," RB 69, 1962, 5-36.
88, 1969,11291-304.
Lindhagen,
C., The Servant Motif in the Old
Testament,
Luckenbill,
DI. D., "Hittite Treaties and Letters," AJSL 37, 1921,
161-211.
Manatti,
M., de Solms, E., Les Psaumes, 4
vols.,
Manley,
G. T., The Book of the Law,
_________,
"The Deuteronomic Redactor in the Book of Judges,"
EvQ
31, 1959, 32-37.
Mauchline,
J., "
Occupation of
Mayes,
A. D. H.,
ville, 1974.
McCarthy,
D. J., Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21,
_________,
review of R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in
Israel, CBQ 26,
1965, 502-503.
_________,
Der Gottesbund im Alten Testament,
“What was
46-53.
__________,
Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of
Current Opinions,
__________,
“berit in Old Testament History and Theology,” (review
of L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36)
Bib 53, 1972, 110-121.
__________,
"The Inauguration of Monarchy in
401-412.
McKenzie,
J. L., The World of the Judges,
Mendelsohn,
J., “Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the
Akkadian Documents from
Mendenhall,
G. E., Law and Covenant in
East,
76).
__________,
"Covenant," IDB 1, 714-722.
__________,
The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the
Biblical Tradi-
tion,
Millard,
R., "For He Is Good," TB
17, 1966, 115-117.
Möhlenbrink, "Sauls Ammoniterfeldzug and Samuels
Beitrag zum
Königtum des Sauls," ZAW 58, 1940, 57-70.
Moller,
W., Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
__________,
Grundriss für alttestamentliche
de
Moor, J. C., "The peace-offering in
Uitleg,
jubiletim-bundel W. H. Gispen, Kampen, 1970, 112-117.
Moran,
W. L., "A '
Thought, ed. L.
McKenzie,
Bibliography 253
_________,
"Moses und der Bundesschluss am Sinai," VD 40, 1962,
_________,
"The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of
God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 15,
1963, 78-87.
_________,
"A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire
Stelas," JNES 22, 1963, 173-176.
Mowinckel,
S., The Psalms in
Muilenburg,
J., "The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formula-
tions," VT 9, 1959, 347-365.
________,
"The Office of Prophet in Ancient
in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. P.
Hyatt,
________,
"A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh," in Studia
Biblica Semitica,
jubileum-bundel Th. C. Vriezen, Wageningen,
1966, 233-251.
Nichol
on, E. W., Deuteronomy and Tradition,
Nielsen
E., "Ass and Ox in the Old Testament," in Studia Orientalia, J.
Pedersen Festschrift,
North,
R., "Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet?" ZAW 82, 1970, 31-67.
Noth,
M., Die israelitischen Personennamen im
Rahmen der gemein-
sernitischen Namengebung, BWANT III/10,
_________,
Das System der zwölf Stamme
_________,
The History of
_________,
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,
Tübingen, 19673.
Nötscher,
F., "Bundesformular und ‘Amtsschimmel’," BZ 9, 1965,
18-214.
Odenda
1, D. H., The Eschatological Expectation
of Isaiah 40-66 With
Special Reference to
Oehler,
G. F., Theology of the Old Testament,
of Theologie des AT,
Oosterhoff,
B. J., De Vreze des Heren in het Oude
Testament,
1949.
_________,
Israëlietisiche Persoonsnamen,
Exegetica 1/4,
1953.
_________,
Het Koningschap Gods in de Psalmen,
Alphen aan den
Rijn,
1956.
_________,
Feit of Interpretatie, Kampen, 1967.
Orlinsky,
1H. M., "The Tribal System of
the Period of the Judges,"
Payne,
J. B., "The B'rith of Yahweh," in New
Perspectives on the Old
Testament, ed. J. B.
Payne,
Pedersen,
J., Israel: Its Life and Culture, 2
vols.,
Perlitt,
L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament,
WMANT 36, Neu-
kircpen-Vluyn, 1969.
Pfeiffer,
R. H., Introduction to the Old Testament,
Plastaras,
J. C., review of K. A. Kitchen, Ancient
Orient and Old
Testament, CBQ 29, 1967, 269-270.
254 Bibliography
Plath,
S., Furcht Gottes. Der Begriff xry im Alten
Testament,
Arbeiten
zur Theologie 11/2,
Press,
R., "Der Prophet Samuel. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchurig," ZAW 56, 1938, 177-225.
Quell,
G., I "Das Phanomen des Wunders im Alten Testament," in
Verbaiznung
und Heimkehr, Rudolph Festschrift, ed. A. Kuschke,
Tübingen, 1961, 253-300.
_________,
"The OT Term tyriB;,” TDNT, II, 106-124.
_________,
"The Concept of Law in the OT," TDNT,
II, 174-178.
von
Rad, G., Das Formgeschichtliche Problem
des Hexateuch, BWANT
IV/26,
Other Essays,
________,
Studies in Deuteronomy, SBT 9,
________,
“jl,m,
and tUkl;ma in the OT," TDNT, I, 565-571.
________,
Old Testament Theology, 2 vols.,
1965; ET of Theologie des Alten Testament, Munchen, 19572,
1960.
Rainey,
A., "Peace Offering," Encyclopedia
Judaica 14,
1971.
Raitt,
T. M., "The Prophetic Summons to Repentance," ZAW 83,
1971, 30-49.
Ridderbos,
Nic. H., "Die Theophanie in Ps. L 1-6," OTS, XV, 1969,
213-226.
Ritterspach,
A. D., The Samuel Traditions: An Analysis
of the Anti-
Monarchical Source in I Samuel 1-15, unpublished
Ph.D. disserta-
tion,
Robertson,
E., "Samuel and Saul," BJRL
28, 1944, 175-206.
JETS
14, 1971, 141-155.
Rosenthal,
E. I. J., "Some Aspects of the Hebrew Monarchy, JJS 9,
1958, 1-18.
Rosenthal,
F., "Notes on the Third Aramaic Inscription from Sefire-
Sujin," BASOR 158, 1960, 28-31.
Rost,
L., "Königsherrschaft Jahwes in vorköniglicher Zeit?" TLZ 85,
1960, 722-723.
________,
"Das Kleine Geschichtliche Credo," in Das Kleine Credo
und andere Studien zum Alten
Testament,
25.
Rowley,
H. H., The Biblical Doctrine of Election,
________,
Worship in Ancient Israel, Its Forms and
Meaning, Lon-
don, 1967.
Sauer,
G., “jlh,”
THAT, I, 486-493.
Scharbert,
J., review of E. Kutsch, Salbung als
Rechtsakt im Alten
Testament tind im Alten Orient, BZAW 87, BZ 9,
1965, 103-104.
Schelhaas,
J., "De instelling van het koningschap en de troonbestijging
van
Schmid,
H. H., Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung.
Hintergrund und Ge-
Bibliography 255
schichte
des alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffes, BHTh 40,
Tübingen, 1968.
Schmid,
R., Das Bundesopfer in Israel, StANT
9, München, 1964.
Schmidt,
W. H., Königtum Gottes in
der Königspradikation Jahwes, BZAW 80,
Schmitt,
G., Der Landtag von Sichem, Arbeiten
zur Theologie 1/5,
Schunck,
K.-D., Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur
Entstehung und Ge-
schichte eines Israelitischen
Stammes,
BZAW 86,
Scott,
R. Y., "Meteorological Phenomena and Terminology in the
Old Testament," ZAW 64, 1952,
11-25.
________,
"A Kingdom of Priests (Exodus xix 6)," OTS, VIII,
Seebass,
H., "Traditionsgeschichte von I Sam 8, 10:17 ff. und 12," ZAW
77, 1965, 286-296.
________
, "I Sam 15 als Schlüssel fur das Verständnis der sogenann-
ten königsfreundlichen Reihe I
Sam 9:1-10:16; 11:1-15 und 13:
2-14:52," ZAW 78, 1966, 148-179.
_________
, "Die Vorgeschichte der Königserhebung Sauls," ZAW
79, 1967, 155-171.
Segal,
M., The Pentateuch. Its Composition and
Its Authorship and
Other Biblical Studies,
Sellin,
E., Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Einwanderung
in Palastina,
Sellin,
E.--Fohrer, G., Introduction to the Old
Testament,
1968; ET of Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
Simons,
J., The Geographical and Topographical
Texts in the Old
Testament,
Smith,
M., "The Present State of
1969, 19-35.
Snaith,
N. H., The Distinctive Ideas of the Old
Testament,
1944.
Soggin,
J. A., "jlm," THAT, I, 1971, 908-920.
Dupont-Sommer,
A., Starcky, J., "Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire
(Steles I et II),"Mémoires présents par divers'savants d
l'Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 15, 1058,
197-351, plus 29 plates.
________,
"line inscription arameenne inedite de Sfire," Bulletin
du Musée de Beyrouth 13, 1956
(appeared ini 1958), 23-41 (Stele
III).
Speiser,
E. A., "Of Shoes and Shekels," BASOR
77, 1940, 15-20.
Stamm,
J. J., "Dreissig Jahre Dekalogforshung," ThR 27, 1961, 189-
239; 280-305.
Thompson,
J. H., The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old
Testament,
_________,
"The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Reli-
gion of
256 Bibliography
_________,
"The Cultic Credo and the Sinai Tradition," RThR 27,
1968, 53-64.
Thompson,
R. J., Moses and the Law in a Century of
Criticism Since
Graf, SVT 19,
Thornton,
T. C. G., "Studies in Samuel," CQR
168, 1967, 413-423.
Tigay,
J. H., "Psalm 7:5 and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties," JBL 89,
1970, 178-186.
Tsevat,
M., "The Biblical Narrative of the Foundation of Kingship in
Tucker,
G. M., "Covenant Forms and Contract Forms," VT 15, 1965,
487-503.
de
Vaux, R , Ancient
__________,
Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice,
__________,
"The King of
and the Ancient Near East,
Vos,
G., Biblical Theology, Old and New
Testaments,
1948.
Vriezen,
Th. C., "De Compositie van de Samuël-Boeken," Orientalia
Neerlandica,
_________,
"The Credo in the Old Testament," in Studies on the
Psalms, OTWSA, 1963,
5-17.
_________,
The Religion of Ancient
De
godsdienst van Israël,
__________,
An Outline of Old Testament Theology,
ET of Hoofdlijnen der theologie van het Oude Testament, Wagen-
ingen, 19663.
________,
De Verkiezing van Israel, Exegetica,
Nieuwe reeks II,
Amsterdam, 1974.
Vriezen,
T C., van der Woude, A. S., De Literatuur
van Oud-Israël,
Wassen ar, 19734.
Wallis,
G., "Die Anfänge des Königtums in
239-247.
Weidner,
E. F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien.
Die Staatsverträge
in akkadischer Sprache aus dem
Archly von Boghazköi, Boghazköi
Studien, 8, 9,
Weinfeld,
M., "Deuteronomy—The
1967, 249-262.
_________,
"The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the
Ancient Near East," JAOS 90,
1970, 184-203.
_________,
"Covenant," Encyclopedia
Judaica, 5,
1012-1322.
__________,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
1972.
__________,
"tyriB;,"
TWAT, I, 781-808.
Weiser,
A., The Old Testament: Its Formation and
Development, New
York, 1961; ET of Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Göttingen,
19574.
Bibliography 257
_________,
Samuel. Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und
religiöse
Bedeutung, FRLANT 81, Göttingen,
1962.
Wellhausen,
J., Prolegomena to the History of Ancient
________,
Der Text der Bücher Samuelis,
Göttingen, 1871.
Whitley,
C. F., "Covenant and Commandment in
1963, 37-48.
Wijngaards,
J., Vazal van Jahweh, Baarn, 1965.
Wildberger,
H., "Samuel und die Entstehung des israelitischen König-
tums," ThZ 13, 1957, 442-469.
Wiseman,
D. J., "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,"
1-91.
van
der Woude, A. S., "Micha II 7a und der Bund Jahwes mit
VT
18, 1968, 388-391.
Wright,
G. E., God Who Acts, SBT 8,
__________,
"The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of Deuter-
onomy 32," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage, Muilenburg
Festschrift,
eds. B. W. Anderson, W.
__________,
The Old Testament and Theology,
Würthwein,
E., "Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede," ZThK
49, 1952, 1-16.
_________,
The Text of the Old Testament,
Der
Text des Alten Testaments,
Young,
E. J., "The Alleged Secondary Deuteronomic Passages in the
Book of Joshua," EvQ 25, 1953, 142-157.
________,
An Introduction to the Old Testament,
19642.
Zeisler,
J. A., The Meaning of Righteousness in
Paul,
SUMMARY
In this study I have attempted to
demonstrate by exe-
getical,
literary critical and form critical analysis that many
characteristics
of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 strongly suggest that
the
assembly which is here described is best understood as a
covenant
renewal ceremony, and that there is good reason
to
regard this ceremony as an historically appropriate if not
necessary
event at this particular juncture in
tional
existence. It is my view that the renewal of the
covenant
as described in this passage served a dual purpose.
First,
it provided for the restoration of covenant fellowship
between
Yahweh and his people after the people had sinned
in
requesting a king "as the nations" and thereby had in
essence
broken the covenant by rejecting the kingship of
Yahweh.
Second, it provided for the possibility of establish-
ing
human kingship in
strated
that the continued suzereinty of Yahweh was in no
way
to be diminished in the new era of the monarchy.
Samuel's
purpose, therefore, in calling the people to Gilgal
was
to provide for covenant renewal after covenant abroga-
tion,
and at the same time to provide for covenant con-
tinuity
in and through an important reorganization of the
theocracy.
Chapters I and II contain a
translation and exegesis of
I
Samuel 12 and I Samuel 11:14-15 respectively. On the
basis
of exegetical considerations the conclusion is reached
that
I Samuel 11:14-15 constitute a short resume of the
gathering
at Gilgal which is prefaced to the more extensive
description
of the same gathering which is contained in
I
Samuel 12. Samuel's summons "Come, let us go to Gilgal
to
renew the kingdom there" (I Samuel 11:14) is therefore to
be
understood as an invitation to
allegiance
to Yahweh on the occasion of the inauguration
of
the human kingship.
260 Summary
Chapter III gives a survey of the
history of the literary-
critical
assessment of these same two pericopes (I Samuel
12:1-25
and I Samuel 11:14-15 respectively) describing the
various
categories of critical approach and mentioning
representative
advocates of each. The tentative conclusion
is
then drawn that the content of these two pericopes gives
good
basis for considering I Samuel 11:14-12:25 as a com-
posite
unit describing the important ceremony at Gilgal by
which
of
Saul's inauguration as king.
Chapter IV discusses briefly the
"covenant form" in the
Old
Testament and concludes that the recognition of vari-
ous
elements of this form in I Samuel 11:14-12:25 yields
useful
insights into the understanding of this passage both
as
a whole in connection with its general purpose as well as
in
its various parts. In addition, the "covenant form"
provides
a literary basis for regarding the description of this
assembly
in I Samuel 12:1-25 as a unity in contrast to the
variety
of theories described in Chapter III which deny such
a
unity.
Chapter V makes use of the covenantal
character of
I
Samuel 11:14-12:25 for an assessment of the literary criti-
cism
of I Samuel 8-12. Here the suggestion is made that the
recognition
of the covenantal character of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
contributes in a positive way toward the resolution of
the
issues which have most often been utilized as justifica-
tion
for the bewildering variety of critical theories for this
section
of I Samuel. These issues include the following:
a)
the ambivalent attitude toward kingship in I Samuel
8-12;
b) the sequence of the various narrative units in
I
Samuel 8-12; and c) what is often viewed as "deutero-
nomistic
influence" in the narratives of I Samuel 8-12.
The conclusion reached is that the
"pro" and "anti"
monarchial
tension that is so frequently pointed to in this
section
of I Samuel is not to be seen as deriving from
contradictory
attitudes of different time periods or geo-
Summary 261
graphical
locations, but rather as a reliable reflection of the
differing
attitudes toward the human kingship and toward
the
appropriateness of its establishment that were present
at
the time of its inception. The issue is not the validity of
human
kingship in itself, but rather the kind of kingship
the
Israelites desired, and the reason and motivation behind
their
request for a king. The issue then is not simply one of
"pro"
and "anti" monarchial sentiments reflected in
conflicting
narrative strands or units. The issue is whether
the
desired kingship is to be compatible with
nant
with Yahweh or whether it would be of such a type
that
it would in effect nullify that covenant.
It is also suggested that the
interpretation of the expres-
sion
"renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14) as an invitation to
occasion
of the inauguration of the human kingship pro-
vides
a firm refutation for the most frequently cited "proof"
for
the redactional harmonization of two or perhaps three
contradictory
stories of the establishment of Saul to be king
which
are often said to be juxtaposed in the narrative
sequence
of I Samuel 8-12.
Finally, it is suggested that
"deuteronomistic influence"
in
this section can be best explained as a reflection of the
dynamics
operative in the actual course of events at the
gathering
in Gilgal, and that this deuteronomic perspective
should
not be viewed as the product of the theological
orientation
of a writer or redactor of a much later period.
TRANSLATION
p. 14, n. 14
Scharbert:
"Also the idea of an anointing of the king by Yahweh or a
man
of God need not be a mere theologumenon, but may have its basis
in
an actually practiced sacral rite. . . . When kings in
anointed
by the people or by their representatives, that excludes neither
the
involvement of men of God nor the idea that the king is anointed as
if
by Yahweh."
pp. 18-19
Weiser:
"a manner of declaring his indemnity, which was necessary for
him
in order to resign in an orderly fashion from an office (perhaps, as
generally
assumed, as judge)."
p. 19
Weiser:
"the fact that he had conducted his life in an irreproachable
manner
and in conformity to the covenant."
Weiser:
"also under the new relationships, Samuel wishes to be entitled
and
authorized to function as the 'representative of the Yahweh-cove-
nant.'
"
Weiser:
"a clever step forward which provides the basis of trust for the
new
order which was made necessary by the institution of the king-
ship.
. . ."
p. 23, n. 39
Boecker:
"Then all the text-critical alterations of the text at this place
which
have been considered become unnecessary. The original text
reads:
'It is Yahweh who has led your fathers out of the land of
Stoebe:
"Verse 6, as the lack of a continuation shows, is an insertion
which
anticipates the thought of verse 7 ff."
p. 26
Boecker:
"In I Sam. 12:7 as also in Ezek. 17:20b the object of the legal
proceeding
is found in the accusative. By no means does such a matter
under
litigation always have to be a misdemeanor or something of that
sort.
That depends on the nature of the legal proceeding. In the case
before
us—using the language of modern jurisprudence—we do not
have
anything like a criminal case; that would involve a legal proceed-
ing
in regard to a misdemeanor or a felony; rather here there is portrayed
a
proceeding which one could designate as a 'fact-finding proceeding.' "
Translation
263
p. 27, n. 52
Dronkert:
"The central meaning of the word is 'act according to the
mispat. ' It is
difficult to say precisely what is to be understood by the
mispat, because of the
character of its usage. It is a legal value in the
widest
sense of the word. The legal value must be brought into practice
by
the sedaya(h ). When one does
that, and acts according to the mispat
then
one is saddiq and stands in the
circle of the sedaqa(h ).
"
p. 28, n. 53
Dronkert:
"Man can approach God. God always acts according to his
purpose
and concretely according to His mispat.
That is His sedaqa(h ).
His
righteousness, that comes to expression in all His works. He is
righteous
and He acts righteously. . . . It is remarkable that the righ-
teousness
of God in the 0.T., for the most part, is related to the favor of
God
toward man and that His justice and righteousness, for the most
part,
have a saving character."
p. 29, n. 55
Aalders:
"Daniel recognizes fully the righteousness of the judgment
which
God had brought on
against
Him, and he accents that once again by the repetition: 'we have
not
obeyed the voice of Yahweh' vs. 10,
11)."
p. 30
Holwerda:
"the prophetic interpretation of the events in Chapter 4, and
is
particularly of importance because it points to the central issue: it
shows
that these were not purely human and military events, but that it
concerns
the REDEMPTION OF THE LORD."
Holwerda:
"is holding oneself to the covenant agreements, thus proving
one's
faithfulness."
p. 39, n. 58
Aalders:
"Under this term one must include all the deeds of redemption
of
his people, in the first place the deliverance of
mentioned
in the previous verse, but further also all other salvation-acts
in
which God revealed himself to his people as the faithful covenant
God."
p. 31, n. 61
Goslinga:
"Also these painful chastisements from God's hand can be
included
with his tvqdc
(vs. 7), for they had the purpose of bringing
p. 31, n. 63
Goslinga:
"The old translations have here attempted to remove a diffi-
264 Translation
culty.
Samuel gives more detail on the period of the judges, which is
relatively
yet recent, vss. 9-11."
p. 32, n. 64
Schulz:
"the expression 'chieftain of the army of Hazor' is supported by
I
Kgs 2:32 (‘chieftain of the army of Israel’ and 'chieftain of the army of
p. 33, n. 66
Goslinga:
"the reading Barak is nevertheless the strongest . . . all the
more
because the army of Sisera was defeated by him (vs. 9)."
Goslinga:
"it is difficult to imagine that a copyist would write Bedan, if
there
had been no judge with this name. But it is also difficult to accept
that
Samuel would mention the oppression of Sisera (vs. 9) and not the
hero
that defeated Sisera. Therefore the best solution seems to be that
Bedan
is another name for Barak, and that this was known by Samuel's
audience
just as well as we, for example, know that Gideon's other name
was
Jerubbaal."
p. 38, n. 87
Boecker:
"In I Samuel 12 the reports of the rise of the kingship are
summarized
and the event is definitively evaluated. Verse 12 is to be
viewed
as the result of such a definitive summary of differing reports,
whereby
once more it is shown how little the deuteronomists were
history
writers in the modern sense of the word. They combine in this
verse
the report of the Nahash incident incorporated by them in their
work
with the story conceived by themselves of the people's desire for a
king
which was taken to Samuel, whereby the ensuing essential tension
obviously
burdens them less than the modern reader.
p. 39
Goslinga:
"one of the unevenesses, among others, that are encountered
in
our book, without thereby constituting a specific contradiction."
p. 40, n. 91
Koolhaas:
"Thus in the Old Testament as background for the request for
a
king is seen: distrust in the royal rule of Yahweh, fear for the enemies
and
a striving in ones own strength for security and unity."
p. 40, n. 94
Goslinga:
"without doubt original, and precisely in Samuel's mouth
very
understandable, because he saw in this request and even demand for
a
king a sinful act, see vs. 17."
p. 43
Boecker:
"In all these places it concerns itself with a mode of expression
Translation 265
substantially
moulded and qualified in a distinct direction. The taking
up
of this expression in the sense of the named parallel places may have
happened
in I Sam. 12:14. Just as there the recognition of a human king
is
the theme, so here it is the acknowledgement of the royal dignity of
Yahweh.
Paraphrased v. 14b reads—again outside the syntactical connec-
tion—‘both
you and also the king who rules over you, will recognize
Yahweh
your God as king.’"
p. 45, n. 102
Oosterhoff:
"In Deuteronomy to fear Yahweh is to be obedient to his
commandments
with a heart full of deep reverence for Yahweh on the
one
hand, but also full of thankful love for the love that he had bestowed
on
his people on the other hand."
p. 45, n. 102
Oosterhoff:
"Since in Deuteronomy to fear Yahweh means to keep his
commandments
and since these commandments for a great part concern
the
cultic honoring of Yahweh, the expression to fear Yahweh can
acquire
the meaning of 'honoring Yahweh cultically' in the manner,
that
he had prescribed for His people in His law."
p. 46, n. 104
Goslinga:
"By far the simplest solution is to accept that an original k
was
replaced by v in transmission so that the vs.
concludes with a
comparison:
against you even as against your fathers."
p. 50, n. 115
Stoebe:
"and now rain certainly does not belong to a description of a
theophany."
p. 51, n. 116
Ridderbos:
"When God appears in order to say something to His people
(through
a mediator), one speaks of a theophany; but when God appears:
for
the deliverance of his people in battle with the enemy, it is a matter of
an
epiphany (the definition of the distinction shows divergencies with
various
authors). Such a distinction can certainly bring clarification. . . .",
p. 59, n. 144
Oosterhoff:
"the cultic worship of Yahweh in contrast to the worship of
idols."
p. 62, n. 7
Schulz:
"That, however, is not permissible, because the text is certain."
p. 63, n. 8
Hulst:
"Saul had already been anointed; by his first military act he also
266 Translation
shows
that in fact he can be king, and thereupon the army accepts him
for
the future as king, and commander.
p. 63, n. 8
De
Groot: "If we may take the expression 'all the people' as meaning 'all
soldiers'—and
in our opinion this is entirely permissible—then we do
not
have here simply a duplicate of the story in 10:17ff. (we would not
regard
even the most stupid redactor as capable of this) but we must see
here
a continuation and specifically the military recognition of the
crowning
ceremony at Mizpah (chapter 10)."
p. 63, n. 8
Koolhaas:
"After the defeat of the Ammonites the kingship is renewed in
Gilgal.
This assembly can be seen as a continuation of the ceremony at
Mizpah
where the people recognized and honored Saul after his selection
to
he king. In Gilgal the army accepted him as king and thus confirmed
his
choice as king."
p. 64, n. 11
Stoebe:
wdHn
may neither be changed (Ehrlich wdqn, . . .) nor
eliminated
by
an alleviating translation (Dhorme, 'inaugurate': Klostermann, 'cele-
brate
a national festival')."
p. 64, n. 13
Buber:
"to restore the strength, consistency and validity of some-
thing."
. . . Dhorine (inaugurate) . . . Leimback (confirm).
p. 65
Goslinga:
"no basis in the text and even less in the historical situation"
p. 65, n. 16
Goslinga:
"That which was done at Gilgal was not simply a repetition
but
a confirmation (cf. Koolhaas, p. 66) of the choice of king at
Mizpah
. . ." "Now that Saul had shown what he was worth, the celebra-
tion
at Gilgal also had more value and a deeper sense than that at Mizpah,
10:24.
. . . Kroeze . . . says (ibid., 49, 50) that the word 'renew' shows
clearly
that the ‘Gilgal-story’ presupposes the ‘Mizpah-story.’" Thus
Saul
was chosen king at Mizpah: "Yet at Mizpah compared with Gilgal,
something
was lacking. This was more something of a psychological
nature.
There was no noticeable change in the situation. Afterwards
everyone
went to his house, including Saul. Was
kingdom?"
But this is changed after the events of chapter 11. The king
had
acted in his role "Therefore the people now go to Gilgal to make
Saul
king before the LORD; not again by selection or any other formal
proceeding,
but by expression of honor by
recognition of his deed. The
new
institution, the kingship, came into being in two steps."
Translation 267
p. 66, n. 17
Bernhardt:
"in v. 14 one should indeed read wdqn along with
Kittel
instead
of wdHn.”
p. 66, n. 18
Wallis:
"One can only renew what in the substance at hand has become
perhaps
antiquated or decrepid. If we consider, however, the whole of
chapter
11, then we see Saul, a farmer's son, seized by the Spirit of
Yahweh,
take action, but not one who already previously was king.... A
call
to renewal assumes, however, the familiarity of the people with the
kingdom.
But the narrator relates absolutely nothing to indicate such a
familiarity.
p. 66, n. 19
Wildberger:
"If v. 14 speaks of the renewal of the kingdom, it stands in
contradiction
to v. 15, where indeed the discussion is not of its renewal,
but
of its initial establishment."
p. 69, n. 25
Alt:
"that one may hold the conception of the
original
given of the religion of
indispensible
to her for her self-understanding."
p. 72, n. 30
Noth:
"it is not to be doubted that the old sources, to the extent that their
words
are contained in the fourth book of Moses, go back to very early
traditions
that initially were transmitted orally before they were incor-
porated
into the narrative works of J and E.
p. 75, n. 42
Fensham:
"It is definitely unnecessary to regard these words as an exilic
or
postexilic addition, because the idea of the eternal kingship of
Yahweh
shall have been expressed only in the days of deutero-Isaiah.
Already
in the old Hebrew poems such as Deuteronomy 32 (v. 5), Psalm
68
(v. 25), and Numbers 23 (v. 21) we encounter this idea. In addition, in
the
Canaanite world the kingship of a specific ruler is characterized as
eternal
in very early times
p. 77, n. 49
Gispen:
"And He emphasizes
obligation:
she must be a kingdom of priests (the service, which she must
perform
for the LORD as subjects in his kingdom, is thus of priestly
nature)
and a holy, set-apart, pure, given to God, belonging to God's
people
(v. 6a)."
p. 77, n. 51
Oosterhoff:
"Even as in the other personal names in the Bible that are
268 Translation
constructed
with ab, so also in the name
Abimelech ab is a designation
for
God. . . . The remark of Kittel, that from the name Abimelech it
appears,
that Gideon did accept the kingship and that the comment in
the
Bible, that Gideon did not accept the kingship is the result of a later
revision,
is then also entirely mistaken. . . ."
p. 78, n. 53
Noth:
"A great number of names brings to expression a relationship to
deity
or an aspect of the divine nature, which is intended to awaken and
strengthen
the trust of man in God. For this reason it is most appropriate
to
call them 'names of trust.' "
p. 78, n. 53
Noth:
"Often this element is associated with the Hebrew faOw = noble (cf.
Gray,
p. 146f.; Köning, Wörterbuch), yet it is more likely to link it with
a
form
of the root fwy, (thus rightly Hommel, Altisr., Überl.,
p. 52 and
above;
Zimmern KAT3 p. 481, n. 4), for the root fvw also occurs
frequently
in Arabic as ws, and fvw = help is yet to be found in Hebrew
in
hfvwt
(cf. hxvbt hmvrt hbvwt ) and in Peil = to cry for help."
p. 78, n. 53
Oosterhoff:
"Many are the names that inform us that God is a helper.
Helping
belongs to the essence of God (Ps. 33:10; 70:6; 115:9; 146:5).
Abiezer:
'Father is a help'; Ahiezer: 'Brother is a help'; . . . About the
same
meaning is to be found in the names Abishua: 'Father has deliv-
ered';
Elishua: 'God has delivered'; Melchishua: 'the king has delivered';
Joshua:
'the LORD has delivered.' The shortened name is Shua.
p. 79, n. 55
Eissfeldt:
"The fact, yet to be assessed in another connection, that the
personal
name Uhy.Kil;ma (Jer. 38:6) utilizing the predicate j`l,m, clearly with
reference
to Yahweh is provable only since the time of Jeremiah, justifies
the
suspicion that in the above mentioned names originally not Yahweh,
but
another god is to be understood by the term j`l,m,.
p. 79, n. 56
Koolhaas:
"But since Yahweh's kingship was so entirely different than
those
of the other gods and since the title mlk for gods and kings was
filled
with an entirely different content and infused with heathen
mythologies,
ancient
name
for Yahweh and utilized other expressions to indicate Yahweh's
rulership.
. . . The absence of this title, however, does not mean that the
idea,
which later is brought to expression by this title, was not present. . . .
It
witnesses to the extremely sensitive understanding of this ridership of
Yahweh
and that since this title was so differently utilized by other
Translation 269
peoples,
that the danger existed that
also
fill the rulership of Yahweh with a content that was in conflict with
the
revelation of Yahweh."
p. 80, n. 60
Koolhaas:
"Although the above mentioned facts, viewed historically,
certainly
are valid as arguments for the late rise of kingship in
this
is not the viewpoint of the Old Testament, which regards the late
rise
of the kingship not as an historical, but rather as a principial
question.
He
Himself was king and in whose midst He lived, of which the ark as
his
throne was the sign. The fact that
without
a human king, is attributable primarily to the kingship of
Yahweh."
p. 82, n. 64
Goslinga:
"Because the people did not want to enter
themselves
actually outside the covenant with Yahweh, who precisely for
this
reason had led them out of the bondage of
not
annul the covenant as such, but places the ban on the generation that
came
out of
when
the older generation is entirely gone. The 'bearing of harlotries' of
the
fathers undoubtedly included that the children might not be circum-
cised.
. . . As an indication that the covenant relationship is presently
again
completely normal the LORD now permits those that miss the sign
of
the covenant to he circumcised. He thereby receives them as His people
in
the place of their disobedient fathers (v. 7)."
p. 83, n. 65
Goslinga:
"The command to circumcise then goes out from God Him-
self.
He thus renews His covenant with
afterwards
by the Passover, that He is their covenant partner in the
coming
battle."
p. 86
Goslinga:
"On the question of what precisely we are to think about the
words
Nkylmyv etc. is probably to be answered, that Saul is
anointed by
Samuel.
The LXX says kai e]xrisen Samouhl e]kei ton Saoul and the drop-
ping
out of the Hebrew equivalent is very conceivable as a homoeotel-
euton
(lvxw).
Strongly in favor of this reading (in any case for its actual
content)
is the fact that Saul immediately thereafter, 12:3, 5, but also later
is
named with great emphasis the anointed of Yahweh (24:7; 26:9;
II
1:16), and that. David according to II 2:4; 5:3 was also publicly
anointed."
270 Translation
p. 86, n. 73
Budde:
"The accommodation to 10:17ff. has also gone further here in the
I,XX
since it offers kai> e]xrisen Samouh<l . . . e]ij
basile<a in
place of Nklmyv."
p. 87, n. 76
Rudolph:
"insertion on account of 23:1 whose character as a heading has
been
misunderstood,"
p. 89
Schmid:
"The Old Testament selemim-offering
expressed very clearly
the
covenant idea, that established, restored and strengthened the cove-
nant
community."
p. 102, n. 21
Noth:
"essential features of his entire view of history,"
Noth:
"this was temporally secondary and in itg essence even improper
and
therefore was an institution to be fundamentally rejected in prin-
p. 102, n. 23
Noth:
"Also the designation of the new king as the 'anointed of Yahweh'
may
be an allusion to 10:1."
p. 103
Gressmann:
"historical narrative"
p. 104
Weiser:
"On the question of the so-called deuteronomistic style of
I
Samuel 12, which is usually discussed in the form of a superficial
counting
of words, I have no comment: as long as no clarity has been
reached
concerning the essence, the origin and the history of this 'style,'
it
cannot serve as evidence for the literary critical problem."
p. 105
Budde:
"in view of the clear structure which Rje has placed in Chapters
8ff,"
Budde:
"such a great blunder, that not he (Rje) but only a revisor can be
made
responsible for it."
p. 107
Buber:
"miracle story"
Buber:
"And now, here is the king whom you desired, for Yahweh as set a
king
over you. If you will fear Yahweh and heed his voice, then you shall
live,
you as well as the king, who according. to Yahweh your God has
become
king over you. But if you will not heed Yahweh's voice, then
Yahweh's
hand will be against you and against your king. Only fear
Yahweh!
For behold, what a great thing he has shown you! If you do
evil,
then you will be swept away, you as well as your king."
Translation 271
p. 112, n. 53
Hertzberg:
"The reviewer must admit that he has never before worked
through
a book for the purpose of reviewing it which has even ap-
proached
this book in terms of demand for patience."
p. 115, n. 64
Welihausen:
"the renewal of the kingdom in v. 14 is a highly transparent
artiface
of the author of chapter 8:10, 17-27 and chapter 12, which
enabled
him to incorporate the older chapter 11 into his version."
p. 116
Gressmann:
"historical narrative"
p. 116-117
Gressmann:
“If there were an inner unity, then an allusion to the secret
anointing
could not be missing; at the very least Samuel would have had
to
crown Saul, as the Greek translation (v. 15) correctly perceived, but
improperly
read.”
p. 120
Noth:
"Dtr had to obscure with regard to chapter 10:17ff by the un-
motivated
and unhelpful remark that now only a 'renewal of the
kingdom'
was being undertaken."
p. 128, n. 104
Goslinga:
"
enemy
and oppressor and if possible deliver the first blow. It is therefore
to
be assumed that the events of Chapter 11 f. were very quickly followed
by
those of Chapter 13."
p. 129, n. 105
Ridderbos:
". . . every bringing of a (peace) offering can be termed a
renewing
of the covenant. . . ."
p. 141, n. 24
Notscher:
"There may have been a covenantal formulation in
also
Baltzer assumes on the basis of the texts which he has analyzed
(Josh
24; Exod 19-24; Deut 1:1-4, 40; 5-11; 28-31). But to see therein an
established
literary type, would surely be to attribute too great a signifi-
cance
to the ‘form-idea’ and to underestimate the free spirited flexi-
bility."
p. 142, n. 26
Verhoef:
"The covenant idea is not only the great presupposition behind
Malachi's
preaching, but is also stated in so many words, while we also
discover
various typical elements of the covenant in his preaching."
272 Translation
p. 145, n. 30
Stamm:
"The historical channels by which one can explain the simi-
larity
of the Hittite vassal treaties to the formulations of the Old
Testament
covenant, are still quite unclear.''
p. 152
Grundsatzerklärung = statement of
substance (cf. p. 133, n. 5)
p. 152, n. 47
Korosec:
"The constant recurrence of such statements reveals that in
Hattusas
one considered them as an essential component of every vassal
treaty
. . . .“
p. 162, n. 68
Brekelmans:
"The characterization of Joshua 24 as 'divine-address' can
also
not be understood as a transforming of or derivative from the
original
confessional formula. There can be no talk of a 'genre-
historical'
development from the one to the other. Both, the catechetical
and
the covenant-formulary are independent literary elements that in
their
entirety have not arisen out of each other. The fact that the
salvation
deeds which are mentioned in each are nearly the same, is
because
the salvation deeds mentioned touch the essence of
religion.
For this reason these facts were used in all areas of the religious
life;
by the covenant renewing, in the catechization and also in the
worship
services."
p. 162-163, n.
68
Brekelmans:
"The so-called 'Credo' is thus introduction, historical
prologue
and motivation for the bringing of the firstfruits out of
thankfulness
for the beneficent acts of God toward
violence
to the text when one separates vss. 5-9 from vs. 10 as if they have
nothing
to do with each other. It appears to me not impossible, that the
literary
form of these verses is very strongly influenced by the so-called
covenant
formulary; one can recognize the historical prologue and the
loyalty
declaration, connected by we'atta.
Then we would have here a
liturgical
application of the covenant formulary. This appears at least
more
probable than the explanation that von Rad has proposed."
p. 165, n. 72
L'Hour:
"This conjunction has a temporal sense only rarely in the
Bible.
It generally expresses logical sequence, decision or action, flowing
from
a deed or from a declaration. Very often it is used as it is here, after
an
historical narrative and one discovers it in particular in contexts of
covenant.
Its religious use in Exod 19:5 and Josh 24 appears to be
technical
and earlier than its utilization by the prophets."
Translation 273
Laurentin:
"Kai nun does not only pertain
to formulas of request for a
covenant,
but also to formulas which seal or proclaim that covenant.
The
latter have already been studied by Muilenburg, Baltzer, and L'Hour,
who
have emphasized the role of we'attah
and the character of an oath
which
this term confers to them.
p. 174
Weiser:
"an unbridgeable and unexplainable gap"
p. 175
Weiser:
"representative of the covenant with Yahweh"
Weiser:
"there is no thought of . . . a resignation from office"
Goslinga:
"While an explicit statement 'I lay down my office of judge' is
not
present, Samuel nevertheless does not act and cannot act as if
nothing
is changed after the inauguration of the kingship. The back-
ground
of the entire account (see esp. vss 2, 13) is precisely this, that his
task
in a certain sense is ended, and that
he must transfer his authority to
the
king. He therefore asks for an honorable discharge (vss 1-5) and
spontaneously
promises what he will continue to do for the people, vs
23,
which in itself presupposes that he is withdrawing in some way,
namely
as judge, as magistrate, as bearer of the highest authority in
p. 178
Weiser:
"representative of the covenant with Yahweh"
p. 180-181
Broekhuis:
"The wars that
an
expression of the consciousness of the Israelite, that the covenant god
is
fundamentally involved in all things."
p. 187
Buber:
"miracle story''
p. 199 n. 9
Budde:
"No matter how much he strives to point out the benign, purely
objective
nature of the law of the king' (p. 127f.), Samuel's disapproval
of
the monarchy and the impenitence of the people (cf. esp. 8:191.)
remains
intact in all its severity in 8:11-20, so that absolutely nothing is
accomplished
by the exclusion."
p. 199, n. 10
Budde:
"Only as a derivation from E can the strong disapproval of the
monarchy
find its explanation."
274 Translation
p. 203
Gressmann:
"a unified whole"
Gressmann:
Gottesfrevel = outrage against God
Gressmann:
"They do not contain historical information; as concerns
their
spirit or character one must regard them not as historical narra-
tives,
but rather as legends."
p. 203-204
Gressmann:
"According to this analysis there can be no doubt that,
contrary
to what is normally maintained, we do not here have a
historical
narrative but rather a popular saga . . . moreover here the saga
approaches
the legend. märchenhaft =
legendary
p. 204
Gressmann:
"Thus our chapter bears throughout the imprint of the saga
with
a legendary wrapper."
Gressmann:
"legend"
Gressmann:
"historical narrative"
Gressmann:
"To be sure chapter 9 requires chapter 11 as a conclusion,
but
on the contrary chapter 11 by no means presupposes chapter 9, at
least
originally, but rather at one time stood by itself. . . . Moreover
chapter
9 and chapter 11 are entirely different in their literary style."
p. 204-205
Gressmann:
"In chapter 8 Samuel is represented as fundamentally
opposed
to the monarchy in
against
God and therefore rejects completely. In sharp contrast to this in
chapters
9:1-10:16 it is told how Samuel anoints Saul upon the express
command
of Yahweh; thereafter the monarchy is not sinful, but rather
an
institution ordained by God himself. One of these two views must be
later;
there can be no doubt about which of the two . . . originally the
monarchy
was viewed as a divine institution, later, at least in many
circles,
as one opposed to God."
p. 205
Gressmann:
"As chapter 12 teaches us even more clearly, we have under
consideration
one of those narratives which are later than Deuteronomy
(=
the fifth book of Moses) and which in its entirety originated in exilic
or
post-exilic Jewry."
p. 206
Noth:
"Dtr has sought therefore, not without evident difficulty and
constraint,
to supplement the old tradition which viewed the institution
of
the monarchy positively by means of lengthy additions expressive of
Translation 275
his
own negative opinion of its establishment. [He did this] by making
use
of an old tradition about the elevation of Saul to kingship which had
come
down to him and whose existence seemed to give him the right,
after
all, to insert the additions; and then he made extensive use of this
right."
p.
206, n. 35
Noth:
"above all in its beginning quite undoubtedly composed by Dtr"
Noth:
"rather we are here dealing with a tradition-fragment assimilated
by
Dtr.
p.
207
Boecker:
"if one is no longer content to recken with a more or less
accidental
sequence or even juxtaposition of various sources or tradi-
tions,
but rather recognizes here, along with M. Noth, the product of a
thought-out
deliberate writing of history. In such a case the sequence of
materially
contradictory reports becomes a problem which, if it is not
satisfactorily
explained, must endanger the thesis of the work's unity and
completeness.
p.
207, n. 39
Noth:
"Nevertheless Dtr has ... made it quite clear, by the manner of the
introduction
of the monarchy in the story, that this was temporally
secondary
and in its essence even improper and therefore was an institu-
tion
to be fundamentally rejected in principle. . . ." "the negative
assessment
of the establishment of the monarchy and its characterization
as
a secondary appearance in the history of the people is an essential
feature
of his entire historical viewpoint.
p.
208
Boecker:
"fundamental character of the alternative Yahweh or the king,
on
the basis of which the opponents of the monarchy undoubtedly
originally
stood, is no longer found here. Quite the opposite! The
monarchy,
although its anti-Yahweh origin is not denied but rather
clearly
shown, is now seen as something offered by Yahweh, a gift of
grace
which can be lost and certainly will be lost if the king is set in the
place
of Yahweh in the sense of the old alternative."
p.
208-209
Boecker:
"at the same time the old Israelite traditions, which were
decisive
for the Deuteronomists.'
p.
209
Caspari:
"a historical sequence of styles"
276 Translation
p. 209-210
Caspari:
"the style of a given period does not die out simply because a
newer
style comes along and necessitates the initiation of a new period."
p. 210, n. 46
Vriezen:
"hard nuts to crack" (paraphrase)
Vriezen:
"that we have here story cycles that were written by independent
authors,
but then which were rewritten in such a way that they were
connected
to each other as a narrative sequence."
p. 215
Weiser:
That this arrangement of the material has succeeded in only a
very
external and make shift way has long been recognized and thereby it
has
been understood that the collector employed extant traditions which
were
originally transmitted independently without mutual relationship.
p. 215
Weiser:
"Upon critical examination, the apparent succession of the
narrative
units disintegrates into a series of individual tradition units,
which
partly, but without complete correspondence, run parallel to each
other
and partly, in time frame and subject matter, either overlap or else
exclude
each other, and consequently do not permit the historian to
transpose
either the entire narrative or else only the one or the other
tradition
complex into an uninterrupted picture of the succession of
events."
p. 223
Goslinga:
The entirety does indeed have a composite character, it rests
most
likely on traditions of different origins, displays alternation of
setting
and background (Ramah, Gibeah, Mizpeh, Gilgal), but it lets
itself
be read as a connected story, of which the various pericopes
supplement
each other, so that one afterwards receives a unified idea...."
p. 224
Koolhaas:
"Since the Old Testament comes from a world with different
conceptual
and thought patterns, since the prophetic history writing
arranges
and exposes the data in a particular fashion, and since prac-
tically
nothing is known to us about the redaction of these chapters, we
remain
here in the dark with respect to many points of sources and
traditions,
in spite of the great energy and thought which has been given
to
the book of Samuel by the historical-literary exegesis, and we cannot
come
further than to establish that behind these chapters stand various
sources
and traditions, and we must understand these chapters as a
creative
synthesis with a very definite message about the rise of the
kingship."
Translation 277
p.
228
Stoebe:
"that they were fundamentally and uncompromisingly hostile to
the
monarchy."
p.
230, n. 98
Boecker:
"It was not possible for the kings of
described
here, nor did they in fact act in such a manner."
Boecker:
"The declaration of the law of the king' is given in such
general
terms that it does not of necessity have to be related to this area
(Canaanite
pattern). The description could have been taken from any
system
of rulership of a sociologically similar configuration. The Deu-
teronomists
have obtained their material from who knows where for
their
terrifying portrayal of kingship, which according to the wish of the
people
should be a kingship like "all the nations."
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium