Home
Bibles
Biblical topics
Bible Study
 
Articles
Coptics
Orthodoxy
Pope Shenouda
Father Matta
Bishop Mattaous
Bishop Moussa
Bishop Alexander
Habib Gerguis
Agbia
Synaxarium
Saints
Fasts & Feasts
Family & Youth
Christian
Ethics
Patrology
Tutorial
3ds Max 2016
Account Payable
Accounts Receivable
ActionScript
Active Directory
Adaptive Access Manager
Adobe Premiere Pro
Ajax
Android
Apache Hive
ASP
Asset Management
AutoCAD
Banner
Big data
Building OA Framework
Business Intelligence
C Sharp
Calculus
Cash Management
CISCO
Cognos
CRM
Crystal Reports
Data Acquisition
Data Architecture
Data Archiving
Data Guard
Data Mining
Data Modeling
Data Structure
Data Visualization
Database
DataWarehouse
Design Illustration
Dodeca
Dreamweaver
DRM
DW ELT
E-Commerce
Erwin
Essbase
Expression Web
FDM
Fusion Middleware
General Ledger
Google Drive
GoPro Studio
Hacking
Hadoop
HFM
HRMS
HTML5 CSS3
Hyperion Planning
Index
Informatica
iOS
Java
JavaBeans
JavaScript
JQuery
 
Linux
LYNC SERVER 2013
MapReduce
Massive UE4
MetricStream
Microstrategy
MS Access 2016
MS Exchange Server
MS OneNote 2016
MS OneNote 2016 
MS Outlook 2016
MS PowerPoint 2016
MS Publisher 2016
MS SharePoint 2016
MS Word
MS-Dynamics
MYSQL-PHP
Networking
OBIEE
OpenGL
Oracle 12c Administration
Oracle DEMAND PLANNING
Oracle EBS
Oracle E-business tax
Oracle Financial Applications
Oracle Identity Manager
Oracle Mobile
Oracle Payroll Fundamentals
Oracle Performance Tuning
Oracle Product Lifecycle
Oracle project
Oracle Purchasing
Oracle RAC admin
Oracle SOA admin
Peoplesoft
Perl
Photoshop CS6
Pig
PLSQL
PowerShell
Programming
Project
Project Management
Python
R Programming
SAP
SAS
SQL
SQL Server
Subledger Accounting
Supply Chain Planning
Tableau
Template
TeraData
Toad
TSQL
UML
Unix
VBA
Visio
Visual Basic
Visual Studio
Weblogic Server
Windows 10
Windows Server
XML

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             COVENANT RENEWAL

                      AT GILGAL

 

 

                                  A Study of I Samuel 11:14-12:25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                     J. ROBERT VANNOY

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                MACK PUBLISHING COMPANY

                                         Cherry Hill, New Jersey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. I. Hylander                                                            112


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 N. Gottwald                                                           123

                              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

                                            Assyrian treaties                                         154

                                        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) Israel's wickedness in asking for a king

                                            (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 School of Theology, Hatfield,

Pa., for the inspiration and encouragement which he has been

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. Taylor of Biblical

School of Theology for his cheerful assumption of additional

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 Israel con-

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 Israel and especially its theological signifi-

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 Israel.

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 Israel at the time of its establishment

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 Israel's national existence. In our view the re-

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 Israel in a manner which demonstrated that

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 Israel, "Behold I have listened to

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 Israel had come to

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 Israel's God (hvhy). Wherever

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 Israel and Judah had had with their kings, as has often been

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 (Nashville: 1953) 921-922; and M. Noth, The

History of Israel (London: 19602) 172, n. 2. For a rebuttal of this interpretation

on the basis of texts from Alalakh and Ugarit which throw light on the practices

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 Israel

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 Ugarit," BASOR 143 (1956) 17-22. Mendelsohn (ibid., 22)

concludes, "In view of the evidence from the Akkadian texts from Ugarit it seems

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 [Oxford: 19132 ]

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;

Tubingen: 1902) 77; and H. Gressmann, Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und

Prophetie Israels (SAT II/1; Göttingen: 19212) 45. There is, however, no textual

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 Israel

(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 Samaria are denounced as rpk yHql. This being the

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; Gutersloh: 1973] 232. This last

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 E. Speiser, "Of Shoes and Shekels,"

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 NEB incorporate the phrase "testify against me"

(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

Israel, see: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions (New York: 1971)

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 Israel is referred to as Yahweh's anointed. E. Kutsch

(Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament and im Alten Orient [BZAW 87;

Berlin: 1963] 52-63) maintains that anointing of the king in Judah was done only

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 (Philadelphia: 1969) 20-51. Knierim agrees that

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 (Copenhagen:

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 Israel ought to be, but rather

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

Samaria (Amos 4:1), and also in Hosea's denunciation of Ephraim (Hos. 5:11).

They are also used together in Deut. 28:33 to describe the actualization of the

covenant curse in the harsh treatment of Israel by a foreign nation through which

Israel herself will experience what it means to be defrauded and oppressed.

            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: W. Nowack, Richter, Ruth and Bucher Samuelis, (HK 1/4;

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 (Philadelphia: 1964)

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 land of Egypt.

 

          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 land of Egypt by Yahweh

himself. This was the foundation-event in the history of Israel

as a nation. Israel owed her very existence as a nation to this

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 (Philadelphia: 1971) 66. Baltzer

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 Qumran text is clearly an invocation to praise

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 Israel's history

(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 Egypt. He then prefaces this with the statement

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 Israel's deliverance

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 (Tubingen: 19673) 59, n. 3. Notice,

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 (Grand Rapids: 1956 [German

original, Leipzig: 1864] ) 116. Keil says that hWf is used here, "in a moral and

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 Israel's history as a nation,

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 Israel," BR 3 (1958) 1-14. See further n. 106.

            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; Cambridge:

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 Israel's history, as manifest in Israel's deliverance

from Egypt and possession of the land of Canaan (v. 8), and

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 Israel into the

hand of Sisera, and into the hands of the Philistines and

Moabites when Israel forgot Yahweh and served Baals and

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

Israel's history are here characterized as demonstrative of

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 (London:

1944) 51-78; L. Kohler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Tubingen: 19533) 15;

W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: 1961-1967) I,

239-249; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: 1962-1965) I,

370-383; A. Jepsen, "qdc und hqdc im Alten Testament," in the Hertzberg

Festschrift, Gottes Wort und Gottes Land, ed. H. G. Reventlow (Gottingen:

1965) 78-89; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel (New York:

1968) 165-172; H. H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung (BZHT 40; Tu-

bingen: 1968); E. Berkovits, Man and God: Studies in Biblical Theology (Detroit:

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 (Cambridge: 1972).

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 Israel to

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 kan op Hem aan. God handelt altijd recht op

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 Israel is acknowledged as the "just" result of Israel's

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 Egypt. He then requests that

Yahweh's fury be turned away from Jerusalem "in accor-

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 Israel heeft gebracht,

nooit kan Hem enige onrechtvaardigheid worden ten laste gelegd; en hij accen-

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

Israel's history with particular stress on the judgments brought on the nation

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 Israel's captivity.


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 Israel's historical experience. Hol-

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 Israel to

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 Egypt, and made them63 to dwell in this place.

 

          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 Israel

in Egypt when they suffered there in bondage (Ex. 2:23; 3:7;

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 Israel

weer in de rechte verhouding tot Hem to brengen."

            62. The LXX adds kai> e]tapei<nwsen au]tou>j Ai@guptoj after Egypt. On this

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 Egypt...." This,

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 Egypt.

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 Egypt

to the land of the Canaanite, ... to a land flowing with milk

and honey" (Ex. 3:17). The exodus and conquest remained

throughout Israel's history the outstanding examples of Yah-

weh's gracious and righteous acts on her behalf, and are

frequently cited in the OT literature as that which obligates

Israel to be loyal to Yahweh (cf., e.g.: Deut. 26:5-9; Josh.

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 Moab, and they

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 Israel into the hand of her enemies when she sinned

 

            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 Israel repented. The victories of these deliverers were in

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 Israel's deliverance from her

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 Israel's deliverers,77 it is clear that

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 Israel's previous history to explain the

reason for her present distress (Judg. 6:8-10). The emphasis

in this historical recapitulation is that Yahweh had delivered

Israel out of Egypt, and Yahweh had given Israel the land of

Canaan, but Israel had turned away from Yahweh to idolatry.

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 )

Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken" (Judg. 6:37). After

receiving the sign and proceeding to organize his military

force, Gideon was told to reduce the number of men in the

force so that Israel would not "become boastful" and say,

"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 Israel came to Gideon and

asked him to establish dynastic rule over Israel saying, "Rule

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 [London: 19722] 173) rightly comments on

the offer of kingship to Gideon that, "he is said flatly to have refused—and in

language thoroughly expressive of the spirit of early Israel." He adds in a footnote

(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 Moab, in that order. It would appear that he has reference to episodes

recorded in the books of Judges and I Samuel in which the order is: Eglon, king

of Moab (Judg. 2:12-30); the Philistines (Judg. 3:31); Sisera (Judg. 4, 5); and

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 Israel in battle (I Sam. 8:20), and

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

Israel had rejected their God who had saved them out of the

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 Israel from her enemies. The manner

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 Israels eerste koning," GTT 44 (1944) 270, n. 62; B. J. Oosterhoff,

"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 Israel (Ex. 3:8, lcn; Deut. 20:4,

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 Israel's request for a king by saying, "Zo wordt in het. Oude

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 Israel's deliverer in the kingdom

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; Leipzig: 18983) 53;

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 Israel, or a certain segment of the

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 Judah to follow

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 Judah followed the house

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 Israel

are after Absalom" (Mvlwbx yrHx lxrWy wyxbl hyh). The

clear meaning of the phrase here is that the men of Israel had

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 [Gottingen: 1871] 79) gives Mtyhv as the reading of some

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 Israel is confronted with the

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

Israel a king, but Israel must not replace her loyalty to

Yahweh by loyalty to her human ruler. Israel is to recognize

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 Israel was entering. If Israel fears Yahweh, and

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

Israel's fundamental obligation of loyalty to Yahweh to be expressed in obedience

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 Israel and her king can then continue to

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 (Utrecht: 1949) 34-39.

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; Stuttgart: 1962).

            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 (Uppsala: 1950).

Lindhagen (ibid., p. 155) comments: "As Yahweh's servant, Israel owes her lord

unconditional obedience. Her service implies that she hearkens to the voice

and commandments of Yahweh.... For Israel, serving Yahweh means keeping

rmw his commands and statutes and doing  hWf the commandment and the

law.... As lawgiver for Israel Yahweh appears in his royal function: Israel here

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 Israel's ethos is to be moulded

by the will of Yahweh. To rebel against the commandment of Yahweh

hvhy yP-tx hrm [I Sam. 12:14] is incompatible with Israel's position as a

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, kan Jahwe vrezen de betekenis krijgen 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; Stuttgart: 1964) 40, 41.

            The use of the terms in I Sam. 12:14, 20 (dbf ), 24 in connection with

Samuel's challenge to Israel to renew her allegiance to Yahweh as her sovereign

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, Israel

is faced with the same alternatives which long before had

been presented by Moses to the people in the plains of Moab

(Deut. 28:1-62; 30:15-20). The introduction of kingship into

Israel's socio-political structure, bringing with it a new poten-

tial for either good or evil, has not changed the fundamental

nature of Israel's relationship to Yahweh.

          The alternatives which are here opened to the Israelites

can be traced in their realization in Israel's subsequent his-

 

            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 MT. Driver (Notes, 95) adopts this reading of LXXL(BA) and

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 Israel has sinned in asking for

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 Israel to take her

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 Jordan by a military force (I Sam.

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 Israel, 248, n. 11. For

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 Jordan cut off to permit them to cross: "On that day Yahweh

exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; so that they feared him, just as they

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 [Oxford: 19702] 190 f.; Nic. H. Ridderbos, "Die Theophanie in

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 Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-39), which let the Israel-

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 Israel are

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 Mount Sinai the descriptions are closely allied to

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, Stuttgart: 1891] 139, 140); C. A. Keller, Das Wort

OTH als "Offenbarungszeichen Gottes" (Basel: 1946); G. Quell, "Das Phanomen

des Wunders im Alten Testament," in: Verbannung and Heimkehr, Festschrift W.

Rudolph (Tubingen: 1961) 253-300; F. J. Helfmeyer, "tvx," TDOT, I, 167-188.

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

Israel's history (Jer. 15:1; Ps. 99:6). The effectiveness 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

Israel at Sinai (cf. Ex. 20:20), Samuel tells the people not to

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

Israel. The evil was not kingship in itself, but turning away

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 Israel in

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 Israel has

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 Israel are again made clear. They can

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.; Leipzig: 1908-1914] III, 209) suggests that since the removal of leaves

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

[Amsterdam: 1938] 52) advocates retaining yk as an emphatic particle.

            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;

Edinburgh: 1904) 95 ("idols of the heathen"); and Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek

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 Israel's selection to

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 Israel's history as a nation, so

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 Israel, that I am

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 (Richmond: 1959) 60-64, esp. 61.


        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 Israel's special relationship to Yahweh is the uncon-

ditional free choice of Yahweh's elective grace to make Israel

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 Israel to

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 Israel demanded re-

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 Egypt, and remained constantly faith-

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 Israels (BZAW 48; Giessen: 1928); H. H. Rowley, The Biblical

Doctrine of Election (London: 1950); G. E. Wright, God Who Acts (SBT 8;

London: 1952) 50-54; Th. C. Vriezen, De Verkiezing van Israel (Exegetica,

Nieuwe reeks, II; Amsterdam: 1974).

            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 Israel at Sinai: "To retain its special relationship with

Yahwe Israel must obey the commands. Thus in the oracle Yahwe Himself has

made known the conditions for continued covenant; or better, obedience to these

provisions is the living expression of Israel's special relation to Yahwe. It does not

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, Israel is no

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 Israel should walk in the way of the covenant, and he

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, Israel will receive blessing and life. But if

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 Israel immediately started on the path of apostasy (the golden calf),

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 (Grand Rapids:

1968) 40-43; D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant (Richmond: 1972) 53-56,

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 Israel, in that their actions would always be subject

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 Israel, "is dramatic evidence that

no man is king in Israel in an absolute sense, and that a vital office exists side by

side with the office of kingship which will never let the king forget who is really

sovereign in Israel."

            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 Israel's rejection

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 Israel." This appears to be a response to the questions of those who

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 Israel,

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 Israel is now to have a king to lead them in battle, this does not mean that

Yahweh is being replaced, but that he will continue to lead Israel in battle,

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, Yale University,

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 (Jerusalem: 1971) XIV, 793, 794: "The disruption of the story line is

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

Israels eerste koning," GTT 44 (1944) 268.

            6. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuel, COT, 242; Th. C. Vriezen, "De

Compositie van de Samuel-Boeken," in Orientalia Neerlandica (Leiden: 1948)

181; Leimbach, Samuel, HSchAT, 55; 0. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sam-

uelisbücher (Leipzig: 1931) 10.

            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 [Amsterdam: 1956] 270) says, "Saul is immers reeds gezalfd; door

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 kan

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 Israel" (lxrWy ywnx-lkv) rejoiced greatly. In I Sam. 12:1 Samuel speaks to

"all Israel"

            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 Israel" occurs in I Sam. 8:22 where

it has no military connotation and where it is used interchangeably with "the

people" (vv. 7, 10) and "the elders of Israel" (v. 4). Its use in I Sam. 11:15b is,

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 Israel

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 kingdom of Saul, they cannot do justice to the meaning of the word.

            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 NEB are still confronted

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; Stuttgart: 1968] 74-75) that, "Erneuern aber

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 kingdom of Saul, or does it perhaps have

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 kingdom of Yahweh

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 Israel's civil government?

          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

Israel, without nullifying the latter.20 When the elders asked

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 Israel," Int 27

(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 kingdom of Yahweh does violence

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 Israel's deliverance, which, rightly under-

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 (New York:

19673) in which he has argued that Israel understood her relationship to Yahweh

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 land of Egypt. Buber's book

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 Israel, I (Munchen: 1953)

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 Israel, probably bearing some

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 (New York:

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 Israel the emergence of this view may be fixed with some

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 [Israel's] hope of the Kingdom of God. For this was no idea picked

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 Israel is early or late

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 Israel's whole notion of herself as the chosen people of God, and this

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 Kingdom of God." See further: A. von Gall, "Ober die Herkunft

der Bezeichnung Jahwehs als Konig," in Wellhausen Festschrift (BZAW 27;

Berlin: 1914) 145-160; 0. Eissfeldt, "Jahweh als Konig," ZAW 46 (1928) 81-105;

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

Ugarit and Israel. Zur Herkunft der Königsprddikation Jahwes (BZAW 80; Berlin:

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 Israel (Philadelphia: 1967) 154-178. Vriezen

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 Israel. Balaam, however,

could only speak that which Yahweh put in his mouth (Num.

23:26), and instead of cursing Israel he prophesied of great

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 Egypt." It was

Yahweh their king who led Israel from Egypt. It was Yahweh

who gave Israel victory over the Amorites (Num. 22:2) and

He is the one who has promised to give them the land of

Canaan. There is thus every reason for the shout for king-

Yahweh to be in the camp of Israel.

          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 (Grand Rapids:

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 (Grand Rapids:

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 Israel just be--

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 E Eingang

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 [Jerusalem: 1967] 100, 101).

G. von Rad (Deuteronomy. A Commentary [London: 1966] 205), however,

writes: "Probably the sentence is to be applied to the rise of the earthly kingdom

in Israel." In my opinion this idea is contrived and von Rad's arguments are not

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 Israel together" [Deut. 33:5] ). Here Yahweh's

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 Israel (apparently meaning "the upright") which is used also

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 [Grand Rapids: 1963] 145) comments, "As

Yahweh's earthly representative, Moses gave his covenant with its kingdom

promises to Israel (v. 4) and by the covenant ceremony Yahweh's theocratic

kingship over Israel was ratified (v. 5)."

            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). Harrison (Introduction, 660) concludes that, "there

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 [New York: 1965] 228-229) and A. Weiser (The Old Testament: Its

Formation and Development [New York: 1961] 117-118) maintain that no

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

(Oxford: 1951) 33, 34; and P. C. Craigie, "The Conquest and Early Hebrew

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 Israel to celebrate their deliverance from the Egyp-

tians at the Sea of Reeds. This is the first occurrence of 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 Israel is not specifically men-

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 Israel's deliverance from Egypt which led to

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 Israel).42           

          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 vorst als

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 kingdom of Yahweh are to fulfill a priestly

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: W. Beyerlin,

Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: 1965) 67-77.

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 Israel's early history, as stated, thus provides very

early evidence of Yahweh's kingship...." Such a position, in our view, is to be

preferred over that of M. Noth (Exodus. A Commentary [Philadelphia: 1962]

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 israel-

itisc hen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung

(BWANT III/10; Stuttgart: 1928) 70, 90-99, 141-142; B. J. Oosterhoff, Israel-

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 Israel, 98.


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 Israel,

the recognition of the kingship of Yahweh was extant, and

confessed by Saul who became Israel's first earthly monarch.55

 

            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 Oosterhoff, Israel-

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 Israel" (lxrWyb hfvwt hvhy-hWf Mvyh).

            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 Israel and the Nations (Philadelphia: 1970) 38-41.

            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 Jerusalem in the time of David, and the construction of the temple in

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 Israel is at least partially explicable as a deliberate

attempt to avoid the potential for confusing Israel's relation-

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 Israel, door het gebruik van deze titel,

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 Israel (Numbers 23:21); Moses remembers before dying,

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 Israel it is clear that these

same parts nevertheless portray Israel as the kingdom of

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

kingdom of Yahweh59 which most adequately explains 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 Israel a close relationship existed between the king-

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 Kingdom of Yahweh," CTM 41 (1970) 558-605, and G. E. Mendenhall, The

Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: 1973). In

Mendenhall's work see particularly Chapter I, "Early Israel as the Kingdom of

Yahweh: Thesis and Methods."

            59. The idea of Israel as the kingdom of Yahweh has often been character-

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 Israel such as

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. Israel was door Jahwe uitverkoren om zijn

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 kingdom of Saul was

being formally established, the kingdom of Yahweh must not

be forgotten. The introduction of the monarchy in Israel

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 "kingdom of God." G. Vos (Biblical Theology, Old and New

Testaments [Grand Rapids: 1959] 398) comments, "In the O.T. the thing later

called the Kingdom of God relates as to substance to two distinct conceptions. It

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

Jordan river as the appropriate place for the gathering to be

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 Israels in Palästina (Leipzig: 1917) 17-18; Keil, The Books of Samuel, 114;

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 Jordan: J. Mauch-

line, "Gilead and Gilgal: Some Reflections on the Israelite Occupation of Pal-

estine," VT 6 (1956) 29-30; H.J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond: 1966)

152-154; A. Alt, "The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine," in Essays on

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 (Leiden: 1959) 269. This latter location seems to be preferable in

view of the reference in Josh. 4:19 which places Gilgal east of the territory of

Jericho, but as J. Stoebe says (Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 222-223) its precise

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 Canaan (Josh. 5:10, 11).65

          Gilgal was tied historically not only to these covenant

renewal traditions, but also to events related to the conquest

of Canaan which demonstrated Yahweh's power to deliver

the land into the hand of the Israelites, and his faithfulness to

his promise to lead Israel in the conquest of Canaan. For it

was at Gilgal that twelve stones were set up to remind the

Israelites that Yahweh had, "dried up the waters of the

Jordan . . . that you may fear Yahweh your God forever"

(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 Jericho into the hand

of the Israelites (Josh. 6). It was also from Gilgal (Josh. 10:8,

9) that Israel went to the aid of Gibeon, and the biblical

 

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: NEB, italics mine).

            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 Israel en verzekert het yolk daarna door het

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 Israel" and an

extraordinary victory was gained (Josh. 10:14, 15). The

picture of the conquest contained in Joshua is that it is

Yahweh who gives Israel victory over the inhabitants of the

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 Israel

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

Israels," VT 1 (1951) 181-199, and also Worship in Israel, 152-165. His idea is

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 Israel's

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 Israel's

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

Israel." In I Chron. 29:22 we read: "they made Solomon the son of David king

(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; Gottingen: 1902] 85,

104); J. Goettsberger (Die Bücher der Chronik Oder Paralipomenon [HSchAT

IV/1; Bonn: 1939] 165, 199; and A. van den Born (Kronieken [BUT; Roermond:

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 Israel" (italics mine). It is clear that a numeral has dropped out of the text in

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 [London:

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 pacifica); see further, W. H. Gispen (Leviticus, COT,

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 Israel," Biblica 47 (1966) 255-261. W. H. Gispen (Het Boek Leviticus

[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 Israel. Its Forms and Meaning

(London: 1967) 122, 123. Accordingly, Rowley gives the translation, "peace

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 Israel, as

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 Israel

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 Israel, 123. Cf. further Gispen, Leviticus,

COT, 61-69; J. C. de Moor, "The peace-offering in Ugarit and Israel," in Schrift

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 Israel. In this chapter we will concern ourselves with the

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 Israel's his-

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 (Zwickau: 1934) 75-83; idem, Grundriss für alttestament-

liche Einleitung (Berlin: 1958) 156, 157; Schelhaas, GTT 44 (1944) 240-272;

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;

Manchester: 1944) 1-17.

            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 Israel and had simply transported an idealized picture back

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 ; New York: 1957) 249.

            16. J. Wellhausen, ibid., 245-256; and Die Composition des Hexateuchs and

der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: 18993) 240-243.


      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 Israel's

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

 

Israel's history were, whenever possible, placed in the mouth

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 Israel-

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

York: 1913' [reprinted, 1956] ) 175-178.

            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. Buber, VT 6 (1956) 156-162. See above, Chapter I, 54 f.

            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 Israel," WZ 12 (1963)

239-247, incorporated in G. Wallis, Geschichte und Überlieferung (Arbeiten zur

Theologie, II/3; Stuttgart: 1968) 45-66.

            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 Israel circulated independently. A

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 essen-

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 [New York: 1968] 218-225) and Mauchline (I and II Samuel,

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

          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 (Uppsala: 1932).

            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 Israel to be like the

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 Israel's

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

Israel at Gilgal60 which was called together by Samuel to

"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 Israel simultaneously, and that the narratives of I Samuel

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 Gilead, I Samuel 11); and c) elevated him to be

king by sacred lot (Benjamin, I Sam. 10:17-21). Each of

these three actions Wallis claims were later represented as

involving all Israel, and because the compiler did not want to

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 Israel. He argues that

Gilgal had once been the cultic center of these three tribes,

before it was replaced by the prominence of Shechem and

Shiloh. With the disintegration of the twelve tribe league, the

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 Israel as

secondary accretions. His view is that the summons to assem-

ble was issued to only the part of Israel in which Samuel

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 Shiloh confederation, when 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

Israel, 167-173.

            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 Israel as successors of Saul. He feels

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 Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah circuit, anoint-

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 Israel sought to give the

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

          N. Gottwald92 views I Samuel 11 as an erratic bloc of

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 (Oxford: 1957) 16.

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 kingdom of Saul.

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 kingdom of Saul, but rather to

the kingdom of Yahweh, and there is accordingly no neces-

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 Israel" con-

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 Israel to renew their allegiance to Yahweh at a

 

            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 kan een vernieuwing van het

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 Israel renewed their

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 Israel." This state-

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

Israel. Thus whether or not I Samuel 11:14-15 was originally

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

Israel to renew her allegiance to Yahweh on the occasion of

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 Israel's

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 Israel with her continuing

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 Israel's

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 Israel's central covenantal obligation

(v. 24) reinforced by the threat of the covenant curse if Israel

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 Israel and the Ancient Near East,1 a great deal of

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 Israel and the Ancient Near East

(Pittsburgh: 1955), reprinted from BA 17 (1954) 26-46, 49-76. Now also in, The

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 [Richmond: 1972] ), including the

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

[New York: 1969] 106) comments: "During the years since the publication of

Mendenhall's work, so many fresh studies of various aspects of Israel's covenant

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: D. D. Luckenbill, "Hittite Treaties

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 (London: 1964); idem, "The Near

Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel," JRH 3 (1964) 1-19;

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. (Waco: 1970) 240-264; C. L. Rogers, "The

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 Israel at Sinai on the other (Ex.

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; E. Kutsch, "tyrb//berit

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;

Berlin: 1973) and the extensive bibliography given by H. H. Rowley, in Worship in

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 Israel was based on

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 Israel," JNES 22 [1963] 37-48) who says (37), "we may doubt if the Hittite

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; Stuttgart: 19672]

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 [New York:

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 W. Beyerlin (Origins 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 Near East

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 Israel given in certain passages in the Old Testament. As a

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 Israel...." Cf. his similar comments in: Deuteronomy, A

Commentary (London: 1966) 21-22. D. J. McCarthy comments (Old Testament

Covenant, 14), "Despite many difficulties in detail, the evidence that Israel uses

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; Stuttgart: 19381) long before discus-

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. Muilenburg, VT 9 (1959) 347-365.

            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 Egypt

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 Israel." In the remainder of his book he attempts to show, "the ways

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 Israel." Nötscher (BZ 9 [1965] 205) concludes: "Ein Bundesformu-

lar mag es in Israel gegeben haben, wie such Baltzer (S.47) auf Grand der von ihm

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 Israel was not sufficiently penetrating, "largely because I

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 Israel would be severely punished for its

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 Israel." J. Muilenburg

concludes his article "The 'Office' of the Prophet in Ancient Israel," (in The Bible

in Modern Scholarship J. P. Hyatt, ed. [Nashville: 1965] 97) with the statement

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 Israel for

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 Israel to declare his claims and enforce his will through effective proclama-

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

(Harvey). In an excellent survey of the issues involved, J. Limburg ("The Root

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 Israel's Prophetic Heritage (Muilen-

burg Festschrift, B. W. Anderson, W. Harrelson, eds.; New York: 1962) 26-67; F.

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; W. Brueggemann, "Amos

IV 4-13 and Israel's Covenant Worship," VT 15 (1965) 1-15; A. S. van der Woude,

"Micha II 7a and der Bund Jahwes Mit Israel," VT 18 (1968) 388-391; J. S.

Holladay, Jr., "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel," HTR 63 (1970)

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 [London: 1962] 23-52) considers the cult, and specifically his recon-

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:

Bruges: 1966 ff.] ). We cannot discuss the merits of Weiser's "covenant festival"

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 Israel's history in a wide variety of adaptations

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 Israel's Covenant Faith,"

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 Menden-

hall's article "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East," (BA 17

[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 Israel are certainly matters of fundamental

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 Israel, the existence of which many have suggested,32

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 Israel.

          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 Israel came to understand its relationship to God in the

form of these early Near Eastern treaties with vassals."

            32. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship (Nashville: 1963); A. Alt,

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 Israel. The

 

            36. M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (Stuttgart: 1930); idem,

The History of Israel, 85-138.

            37. See: H. Orlinsky, "The Tribal System of Israel and Related Groups in

the Period of the Judges," OrAn I (1962) 11-20; G. Buccellati, Cities and Nations

of Ancient Syria (StSe 26; Rome: 1967); G. W. Anderson, "Israel: Amphictyony;

‘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. (Nashville: 1970)

I 135-151; A. D. H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBT, 2nd series, 29;

Naperville: 1974). See also the discussion and literature cited by Fohrer (History

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. Anderson, "Israel: Amphictyony," in Translating and Understand-

ing the Old Testament, 149.


                The Covenant Form in the Old Testament                149

 

significance of this event for Israel's subsequent history,

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 Israel is to be found

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 Egypt into freedom engaged themselves—through the medium of Moses—to an

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 Israel vouches for the antiquity of this form of

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 Israel's celebrations that a covenant without this form would

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 Egypt or nomads

along the desert, but after they became a kingdom, and perhaps, indeed, only

after the revival of Assyria. Thus the 'ancient near eastern archeological evidence'


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 Israel to the

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 Israel's faith, without which indeed Israel would not

have been Israel at all."

            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 Syria,44 or the 7th century vassal treaties of

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;

Rome: 1967).

            45. Cf., D. J. Wiseman, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," Iraq 20

(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. Wiseman, Iraq 20 (1958) 66-68, lines 494-512.

            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 Assyria, the structure of the covenant by which they bound their vassals

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 [New York: 19572 ] 16) agreeing with Mendenhall's analysis

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. Wiseman, Iraq 20 (1958) 28. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 80 ff.)

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 [Oxford: 1972]

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: London: 1974] 51, 52) expresses reservations about the

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 Campbell in

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

S. Papola, "Ein Vertrag Assurbanipals mit dem arabischen Stamm Qedar," Or 37

(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 Israel in the Mosaic age and especially the

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 (Oxford:

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

Israel's history from Moses to the exile has been advocated as the date for its

composition, whilst its authorship has at various times been attributed to Moses,

Samuel, levitical priests, the Jerusalem priesthood, or prophetic circles. Similarly,

the origin of the book has been traced to Jerusalem, Shechem, Bethel, and

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 Jerusalem and Rome and made inroads into evangelical Protestantism."


             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);

Muilenburg, VT 9 (1959) 347-365; Kline, Treaty of the Great King; Nicholson,

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 (Waco: 1970) 1-24.

            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 Israel and Israel's early literary history. If the origins 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 Israel's religious

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 Israel." See further the discussions of A. D. Ritterspach,

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 Israel, and that

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 nis own invention, but rather follow well estab-

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 Israel's obligation

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 Israel," TvT 3 [1963] 1-11) has challenged von Rad's contention that

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 kan men dan ook niet voorstellen als

een omvorming of een afwijking van de oorspronkelijke belijdenisformule. Van

een 'formgeschichtliche' ontwikkeling van het een naar het ander kan geen sprake

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 Israels godsdienst raken. Daar-

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 Israel's apostasy in requesting a king.69 For this purpose

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; New York: 1970] 152-170) is correct when he says:

"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 Israel's faith.

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 (Heidelberg: 1965) 13-25; Thompson, RThR 27

(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 Israel's Historical

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

Israel. The period down to the occupation is treated very concisely, the period of

the Judges in more detail. Despite the apostasy of Israel, Yahweh has kept the

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

Israel's sin." I contrast to Baltzer, McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 142) seems

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 Israel and its results in the era of the judges, it

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 Israel's request for a king to lead them

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 Israel's king. This is hardly a

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 Israel's disloyalty to

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) Israel's disloyalty is here set in contrast with the

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 Egypt (Ex. 20:2b). Deuteronomy

begins at the scene of the Sinaitic Covenant and continues the history up to the

covenant renewal assembly in Moab, emphasizing the recent Transjordanian

victories. When, still later, Joshua again renewed the covenant to Israel, he

continued the narrative in his historical prologue through the events of his own

leadership of Israel, the conquest and settlement in Canaan (cf. Josh. 24:2-13)."

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: Muilenburg, VT 9

(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 Israel's overriding concern with its

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 Israel (one between the people, including the king, and Yahweh; and

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 Israel

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

Mitanni country persist."

            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. Muilenburg, VT 9 (1959) 360-364.

            86. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 66-68.

            87. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 79-94.

            88. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 141-145.

            89. Muilenburg, VT 9 (1959) 360-361.

            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 Israel.

          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. Israel

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 Israel a renewal of the covenant was under-

taken when the covenant had been abrogated through the sin

of Israel does not . . . account for a rather sizable group 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 Israel from Samuel, here the type of a 'Judge of

Israel,' to Saul, the 'king.'"97

          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 Israel in asking for a

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

Israel's sin" (italics mine).98 This is indeed the case and

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 Israel's sins. This confession also

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 Israel's institutions as transition is made from the

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 Israel, being attested on at least four important

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. Israel has thus

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

Yahweh, Israel's Great King, as she enters into the period 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 Israel's leaders. In this new order the

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 Israel; and by calling the people to repentance and

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 Israel, 163) comments: "... the prophet was not only the

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 kingdom of Yahweh.106

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) Israel's wickedness in asking for a king (I Sam. 12:17,

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 Israel's sin in requesting a king was consid-

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 Israel's defense (I Sam. 12:6-11).107

          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

Israel there is an analogous "protection clause" in which

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 land of Canaan (Ex. 34:11). It is in these

assurances of protection that Israel was to find her sense of

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. Fensham, VT 13 (1963) 133-143.


           The Covenant Form in the Old Testament                 181

 

alle dingen oorzakelijk is betrokken."109 Israel was to enter

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 land of Egypt is with you. . . . Do not be faint-

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 Israel was not to fear her enemies but believe Yah-

weh (Ex. 14:13; Num. 14:9; Josh. 10:8; II Sam. 10:12;

II Chron. 20:17). Because of this promise Israel was also

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 Israel was rejecting Yahweh as

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 Israel

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 Israel" (I Sam. 11:13) subse-

quent to his leading Israel to victory over the Ammonites.

 

            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 Israel in bold relief.

          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 Israel, emphasizes this relation to covenant. This is

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 Israel, and

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 Israel ought to do as well as 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 Israel: "You

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 Israel be as loyal to their covenant

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 Israel are all subsumed under the primary purpose

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 Israel. Let us look at each of

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 Israel's defense up to date. Elimination of

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. Buber, VT 6 (1969) 156-162; cf. above, Chapter III, Section 1,A,2,e.

            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 Israel at the time of the rise of the monarchy, or is

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 Israel to

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 Israel. Although the acceptance of the Mosaic

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 Israel prior to the monarchy and

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 Near East, Israel would have always

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

Israel and faces the same objections which were made above

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 Assyria and it is therefore tempt-

ing to regard the renewed Covenant with Yahweh as a substi-

tution of the former treaty with the king of Assyria. . . . That

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 Israel for its life before Jahweh." He main-

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 Israel.

There has been considerable development in many ways."

Nicholson regards the prophetic circles in northern Israel as

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

Temple in Jerusalem where it was found during the reign of

Josiah.

          M. Weinfeld ("Deuteronomy—The Present State of In-

quiry," JBL 86 [1967] 249-262; Deuteronomy and the 

Deuteronomic School) has opposed the cultic derivation view

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 Israel.

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 (London: 1949); idem, Kanoniek; B.

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 (London: 1957); Harrison,

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 Israel before the exile the

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 Israel as a people and a state,

 

            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

Israel's cry for help. These two sources were combined,

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 Israel and kingship

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 Israel. Gressmann sees a certain connection

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 Israel, 168.

            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 Israel as apostasy from Yahweh (I Sam. 8:7 f.,

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 Israel is not anti-monarchial in any absolute

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. W. Caspari, Die Samuelbücher (KAT VII; Leipzig: 1926).


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 Israel as the legitimate succession to Saul.

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 [Gutersloh: 1969] 124 ff.); Birch (The Rise of the Israelite

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 Israel,

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; Berlin: 1963] 80-108). This approach can be questioned, however,

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 Israel with the inception of the monarchy.59 He

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 Samaria. 3. The final stage in the growth 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 Israel, and desire to demonstrate that this kingship is

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 Israel. This

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

Israel," Tarbiz 36 (1966) 99-109 (English summary, 116).

            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 Jerusalem court. He comments: "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 Israel is certainly related to the type of

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 Israel provides

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 Israel

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

Israel, and that reservations concerning its origination are

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 Israel from her

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 Israel as a direct response to the

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 Israel's covenant with Yahweh or would

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 Israel rather than a picture of kingship

derived from and directed against Israel's own monarchy after a long and bad

experience with kingship. This general position is accepted by Boecker (Die

Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums, 17, 18) who says, "Die Könige in Israel

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. Thornton (p.418,

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.; Jerusalem:

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 Ugarit, he concludes on the basis of a tightly knit

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 Israel's apostasy, Yahweh indicates to Samuel that

the time has come for Israel to have the monarchy, and

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

Israel's improper desire for a king, as well as their miscon-

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 Israel for the benefit of both

the people and the king-designate. This constitutional-legal

description of the duties and prerogatives of the king in Israel

would serve to clearly distinguish the Israelite kingship from

that known to the Israelites in surrounding nations. In Israel,

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 Moab. In short, it was Samuel's intent

to see that the hklmh Fpwm would be normative in Israel,

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

Israel. The inauguration of Saul (cf. I Sam. 11:15; 12:1) does

not take place until after he has led Israel to victory in battle,

subsequent to which he was very careful to proclaim that

"today Yahweh hath wrought deliverance in Israel" (I Sam.

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 Israel's apostasy, and on the other to insure

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 Israel renewed her

allegiance to Yahweh, and recognized His continued sover-

eignty in the new order.99 The problem which Israel's request

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 Israel's action was the covenant relationship and

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 Israel, was both

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 Israel: The Ideal and the Actual," PTR

26 (1928) 41-64. Boyd comments (42): "It is true, there are mingled here

favorable and unfavorable judgments of monarchy as an institution in Israel. But

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 Israel's national life from its very

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 Israel's history.110

 

            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

Jerusalem temple of Solomon, where (I Kgs. 8, esp. verses 15-21, 23-53, etc.)

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 Israel. Note the statement of M.

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

kingdom of God, is not necessarily a retrojection of late concepts, supposedly of

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

                        (Chicago).

AnBib             Analecta Biblica (Rome).

ANET              Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. B. Pritchard (Princeton:

                        19552).

ATD                Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen).

BA                   Biblical Archaeologist (New Haven).

BASOR           Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

                        (New Haven).

BDB                F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and

                        English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: 1907, re-

                        printed with corrections 1962).

BHK3              Biblia Hebraica,3 ed. R. Kittel (Stuttgart: 1937).

BHTh              Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie (Tübingen).

Bib                  Biblica (Rome).

BibOr              Biblica et Orientalia (Rome).

BJRL               Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (Manchester).

BOT                De Boeken van het Oude Testament (Roermond).

BR                   Biblical Research (Chicago).

BWANT          Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

                        (Stuttgart).

BZ                   Biblische Zeitschrift.

BZAW             Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen-

                        schaft (Berlin).

BZHT              Beiträge zur historischen Theologie (Tübingen).

CambB            The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge).

CBQ                Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Washington).

CentB              The Century Bible (Edinburgh).

CNEB              The Cambridge Biblical Commentary on the New English

                        Bible (Cambridge).

COT                Commentaar op het Oude Testament (Kampen).

CQR                Church Quarterly Review (London).

CTM               Concordia Theological Monthly (St. Louis).

EH                   Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Munster).

ET                   English translation.

EvQ                 Evangelical Quarterly (Devon).

FRLANT         Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und

                        Neuen Testaments (Göttingen).

GK                  Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E.

                        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 (Gottingen).

HSchAT          Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (Bonn).

HTR                Harvard Theological Review (Cambridge).

IB                    The Interpreters Bible, ed. G. Buttrick (Nashville).

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

                        (Nashville: 1962).

Int                    Interpretation (Richmond).

JAOS               Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven).

JBL                 Journal of Biblical Literature (Philadelphia).

JETS               Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Wheaton).

JJS                   The Journal of Jewish Studies (London);

JNES               Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago).

JRH                 Journal of Religious History (Sydney).

KAT                Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Leipzig, GUtersloh).

KBL                Ludwig Köhler-Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris

                        Testamenti Libros (Leiden: 1953). KBL3: 3rd ed., 1967 ff.

KeH                 Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament

                        (Leipzig).

KHC                Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament (Tübingen).

KV                  Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift (Kampen).

LTQ                Lexington Theological Quarterly.

LXX                Septuagint, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart: 1971).

MT                  Massoretic Text (as published in BHK3).

MVAG            Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft

                        (Leipzig).

NASB              New American Standard Bible (New York: 1963).

NCB                New Century Bible (London).

NEB                New English Bible (Oxford: 1970).

Or                    Orientalia (Rome).

OrAn               Oriens Antiquus (Leiden).

OTMS             The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley

                        (Oxford: 1951).

OTS                 Oudtestamentische Studiën (Leiden).

OTWSA          Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Africa

                        (Potchefstroom).

POT                 De Prediking van Het Oude Testament (Nijkerk).

PTR                 Princeton Theological Review (Princeton).

RB                   Revue Biblique (Paris).

RSV                The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (New York).

RThR              Reformed Theological Review (Melbourne).


                         Bibliographical Abbreviations                           243

 

SAT                 Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (Göttingen).

SBB                 The Soncino Books of the Bible (London).

SBT                 Studies in Biblical Theology (London).

StANT             Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament (München).

StSe                 Studi Semitici (Rome).

SVT                 Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden).

TB                   Tyndale Bulletin (London).

TBC                Torch Bible Commentaries (London).

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. E. Jenni, C. Westermann (Munchen: 1971, 1975).

ThR                 Theologische Rundschau, (Tubingen).

ThRef              Theologia Reformata (Woerden).

ThZ                 Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel).

TLZ                 Theologische Literaturzeitung (Berlin).

TOTC              Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (London).

TvT                 Tijdschrift voor Theologie (Nijmegen).

TWAT             Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, eds. G. J.

                        Botterweck, H. Ringgren (Stuttgart: 1970 ff.).

VD                  Verbum Domini (Rome).

VT                   Vetus Testamentum (Leiden).

WZ                  Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift (Halle).

WMANT         Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

                        Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn).

ZAW               Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin).

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, Cambridge, 1971.

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.,

          Grand Rapids, 1948.

Caspari, W., Die Samuelbücher, KAT, Leipzig, 1926.

Childs, B. S., The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commen-

          tary, Philadelphia, 1974.

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, Bonn, 1939.

Goldman, S:, Samuel, SBB, London, 1962.

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 Israels,

          SAT, Göttingen, 19212.

de Groot, J., I en II Samuel, TeU, Groningen, 1934/35.

Hertzberg, H. W., I and II Samuel, Philadelphia, 1964; ET of Die

          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, Amsterdam, 1956.

Hyatt, J. P., Commentary on Exodus, NCB, London, 1971.

Keil, C. F. The Books of Samuel, Grand Rapids, 1956; ET of Die

          Bücher Samuels, Leipzig, 1861.

Kennedy, A. R. S., I and II Samuel, CentB, Edinburgh, 1904.

Kennedy, G., "Daniel," IB, VI, Nashville, 1956.

                                                     245


246                                    Bibliography

 

Kirkpatrick, A. F., The First Book of Samuel, CambB, Cambridge,

            1880.

Kittel, R., Die Bücher der Chronik, HK, Gottingen, 1902.

Kroeze, J. H., Het Boek Job, COT, Kampen, 1961.

_______, Het Boek Jozua, COT, Kampen, 1968.

Leimbach, K. A., Die. Bücher Samuel, HSchAT, Bonn, 1936.

Mauchline, J., I and II Samuel, NCB, London, 1971.

McKane, W., I and II Samuel, TBC, London, 1963.

Noth, M., Exodus, A Commentary, Philadelphia, 1962; ET of Das

            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, London, 1966; ET of Das

            fünfte Buch Mose, Deuteronomium, ATD, Gottingen, 1964.

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, Leipzig, 18983.

Thompson, J. A., Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary,

            TOTC, London, 1974.

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, London,

            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, Leipzig,

            1930; ET: "The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine," in

            Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, New York, 1968,

            223-309.

_________, Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts, Leipzig, 1934;

            ET: "The Origins of Israelite Law," in Essays on Old Testament

            History and Religion, New York, 1968, 101-171.

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 Canaan. A Historical Analysis

            of Two Contrasting Faiths, New York, 1969.

 


                                       Bibliography                                          247

 

Ap-Thomas, D. R., "Notes on some terms relating to prayer," VT 6,

            1956, 225-241.

Anderson, G. W., "Israel: Amphictyony: 'AM; KAHAL; 'EDAH," in

            Translating and Understanding the Old Testament, Essays in honor

            of H. G. May, eds. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed, Nashville, 1970,

            135-151.

Baltzer, K., The Covenant Formulary, Philadelphia, 1971.

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, Jerusalem, 1972.

Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament, 2 vols. in 1, Copen-

            hagen, 19522.

Berkovits, E., Man and God: Studies in Biblical Theology, Detroit,

            1969.

Bernhardt, K.-H., Das Problem der Altorientalischen Königsideologie im

            Alten Testament, SVT 8, Leiden, 1961.

Beyerlin, W., Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions,

            Oxford, 1965.

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, Leiden, 1943,

            124-132.

Boyd, J. 0., "Monarchy in Israel: The Ideal and the Actual," PTR 26,

            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 Israel," TvT 3,

            1963, 1-11.

Bright, J., The Kingdom of God, New York, 1953.

_________, A History of Israel, London, 19722.

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 Israel's Covenant Worship," VT

            15, 1965, 1-15.


248                                  Bibliography

 

Buber, M., "Die Erzahlung von Sauls Königswahl," VT 6, 1956, 113-

            173.

________, Kingship of God, New York, 1967; ET of Königtum

            Gottes, Heidelberg, 19563.

Buccellati, G., Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria, StSe 26, Rome,

            1967.

Budde, K., "Sauls Königswahl und Verwerfung," ZAW 8, 1888, 223-

            248.

________, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel. Ihre Quellen und ihr

            Aufbau, Giessen, 1890.

Campbell, Jr., E. F., "Sovereign God," McCormick Quarterly 20, 1967,

            173-186.

_________, "Moses and the Foundations of Israel," Int 29, 1975,

            141-154.

Carlson, R. A., David, the chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach

            to the Second Book of Samuel, Uppsala, 1964.

Carmichael, C., "A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic

            Credo," VT 19, 1969, 273-289.

Clements, R.    Prophecy and Covenant, SBT 43, London, 1965.

_________,  "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 israel-

            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 Israel, New York,

            1968.

Driver, S. R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the

            Books of Samuel, Oxford, 19132, reprinted 1966.

_________, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,

            Edinburgh, 19139, reprinted, New York, 19572.

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., Leipzig,

            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., Philadelphia,

            1961, 1367.

Eissfeldt, 0. "Jahwe als König," ZAW 46, 1928, 81-105.

_________, Die Komposition der Samuelisbücher, Leipzig, 1931.

_________, The Old Testament. An Introduction, New York, 1965;

            ET of Einleitung in das AT, Tubingen, 19643.

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, Rome,

            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, Berlin, 1964.

_________, History of Israelite Religion, New York, 1972; ET of

            Geschicte der Israelitischen Religion, Berlin, 1968.

Frankena, R., "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of

            Deuteronomy," OTS, XIV, Leiden, 1965, 122-154.

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, Berlin, 1914, 145-160.

Galling, K., Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels, BZAW 48, Giessen,

            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 Israel as the Kingdom of Yahweh," CTM 41, 1970,

            558-605.

Goetze, A. translator), "Hittite Treaties," in Ancient Near Eastern

            Texts, ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 19552, 201-206.

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,

            Jerusalem, 1971, 787-797.

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 Israel," BR 3, 1958, 1-14.

Harrison, R. IK., Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids,

            1969.

Harvey, J., "Le 'RIB-Pattern', réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de

            l'alliance," Bib 43, 1962, 172-196.

_________, Le Plaidoyer prophétique contre Israel après la rupture

            de l'alliance, Studia 22, Paris, 1967.

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, Baltimore,

            1969.

Holladay, Jr., J. A., "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,"

            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 Israel's Covenant Faith,"

            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 Israel and an

            Independent Sinai Tradition?" in Translating and Understanding

            the Old Testament, Essays.in honor of H. G. May, eds. H. T. Frank,

            W. L. Reed, New York, 1970, 152-170.


                                           Bibliography                                          251

 

Hylander, i., Der Literarische Samuel-Saul Komplex (I Sam 1--15)

            Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, Uppsala, 1932.

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 Gottes Land, Hertzberg Festschrift, ed. H. G. Reventlow,

            Gottingen, 1965, 78-89.

Jeremias, J., Theophanie, Die Geschichte Einer Alttestamentlichen

            Gattung WMANT 10, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965.

Jocz, J., The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny, Grand Rapids,

            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, Basel, 1964.

Kitchen, K. A., Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London, 1966.

_________, "Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testa-

            ment," in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne,

            Waco, 1 70, 1-24.

Kline, M. G. Treaty of the Great King. The Covenant Structure of

            Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary, Grand Rapids, 1963.

__________,  By Oath Consigned, Grand Rapids, 1968.

__________, The Structure of Biblical Authority, Grand Rapids, 1972.

Knierim, R., "The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel," in

            Jesus and the Historian, ed. F. T. Trotter, Philadelphia, 1969,

            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, Leipzig,

            1931.

Kraus, H.-J., "Gilgal—ein Beitrag zur Kultus geschichte Israels," VT 1,

            1951, 181-199.

_________, Worship in Israel, Richmond, 1966; ET of Gottesdienst

            in Israel, Munchen, 1962.

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, Berlin, 1963.

__________, "tyriB; berit Verpflichtung," THAT, I, 339-352.

__________, Verheissung und Gesetz, BZAW 131, Berlin, 1973.


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.

Limburg, J., "The Root byr and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches," JBL

            88, 1969,11291-304.

Lindhagen, C., The Servant Motif in the Old Testament, Uppsala, 1950.

Luckenbill, DI. D., "Hittite Treaties and Letters," AJSL 37, 1921,

            161-211.

Manatti, M., de Solms, E., Les Psaumes, 4 vols., Bruges, 1966.

Manley, G. T., The Book of the Law, London, 1957.

_________, "The Deuteronomic Redactor in the Book of Judges,"

            EvQ 31, 1959, 32-37.

Mauchline, J., "Gilead and Gilgal: Some Reflections on the Israelite

            Occupation of Palestine," VT 6, 1956, 29-30.

Mayes, A. D. H., Israel in the Period of the Judges, SBT 2/29, Naper-

            ville, 1974.

McCarthy, D. J., Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21, Rome, 1963.

_________, review of R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in Israel, CBQ 26,

            1965, 502-503.

_________, Der Gottesbund im Alten Testament, Stuttgart, 19672.

            “What was Israel's Historical Creed?" LTQ 6, 1969,

            46-53.

__________, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions,

            Richmond, 4967.

__________, “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 Israel," Int 27, 1973,

            401-412.

McKenzie, J. L., The World of the Judges, Englewood Cliffs, 1966.

Mendelsohn, J., “Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the

            Akkadian Documents from Ugarit,” BASOR 143, 1956, 17-22.

Mendenhall, G. E., Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near

            East, Pittsburgh, 1955 (reprinted from BA 17, 1954, 26-46, 49-

            76).

__________, "Covenant," IDB 1, 714-722.

__________, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradi-

            tion, Baltimore, 1973.

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, Zwickau, 1934.

__________, Grundriss für alttestamentliche Einleitung, Berlin, 1958.

de Moor, J. C., "The peace-offering in Ugarit and Israel," in Schrift en

            Uitleg, jubiletim-bundel W. H. Gispen, Kampen, 1970, 112-117.

Moran, W. L., "A 'Kingdom of Priests," in The Bible in Current Catholic

            Thought, ed. L. McKenzie, New York, 1962, 7-20.


                                           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 Israel's Worship, I, II, Nashville, 1962.

Muilenburg, J., "The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formula-

            tions," VT 9, 1959, 347-365.

________, "The Office of Prophet in Ancient Israel," in The Bible

            in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. P. Hyatt, Nashville, 1965, 74-97.

________, "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, Oxford, 1967.

Nielsen E., "Ass and Ox in the Old Testament," in Studia Orientalia, J.

            Pedersen Festschrift, Copenhagen, 1953, 163-174.

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, Stuttgart, 1928.

_________, Das System der zwölf Stamme Israels, BWANT IV/1,

            Stuttgart, 1930.

_________, The History of Israel, London, 19602.

_________, 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 Israel and the Nations, Philadelphia, 1970.

Oehler, G. F., Theology of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, n.d.; ET

            of Theologie des AT, Stuttgart, 1891.

Oosterhoff, B. J., De Vreze des Heren in het Oude Testament, Utrecht,

            1949.

_________, Israëlietisiche Persoonsnamen, Exegetica 1/4, Delft,

            1953.

_________, Het Koningschap Gods in de Psalmen, Alphen aan den

Rijn, 1956.

_________, Feit of Interpretatie, Kampen, 1967.

Orlinsky, 1H. M., "The Tribal System of Israel and Related Groups in

            the Period of the Judges," OrAn 1, 1962, 11-20.

Payne, J. B., "The B'rith of Yahweh," in New Perspectives on the Old

            Testament, ed. J. B. Payne, Waco, 1970, 240-264.

Pedersen, J., Israel: Its Life and Culture, 2 vols., London, 1926, 1940.

Perlitt, L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, Neu-

            kircpen-Vluyn, 1969.

Pfeiffer, R. H., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York, 1941.

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, Stuttgart, 1962.

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, Stuttgart, 1938; ET in The Problem of the Hexateuch and

            Other Essays, Edinburgh, 1966.

________, Studies in Deuteronomy, SBT 9, London, 1953.

________, “jl,m, and tUkl;ma in the OT," TDNT, I, 565-571.

________, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., New York, 1962,

            1965; ET of Theologie des Alten Testament, Munchen, 19572,

            1960.

Rainey, A., "Peace Offering," Encyclopedia Judaica 14, Jerusalem,

            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, Berkeley, 1967.

Robertson, E., "Samuel and Saul," BJRL 28, 1944, 175-206.

Rogers, C. L., "The Covenant with Moses and its Historical Setting,"

            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, Heidelberg, 1965, 13-

            25.

Rowley, H. H., The Biblical Doctrine of Election, London, 1950.

________, 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 Israels eerste koning," GTT 44, 1944, 241-272.

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 Ugarit und Israel. Zur Herkunft

            der Königspradikation Jahwes, BZAW 80, Berlin, 19662.

Schmitt, G., Der Landtag von Sichem, Arbeiten zur Theologie 1/5,

            Stuttgart, 1964.

Schunck, K.-D., Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Ge-

            schichte eines Israelitischen Stammes, BZAW 86, Berlin, 1963.

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,

            Leiden, 1950, 213-219.

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, Jerusalem, 1967.

Sellin, E., Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Einwanderung Israels

            in Palastina, Leipzig, 1917.

Sellin, E.--Fohrer, G., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York,

            1968; ET of Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg, 196510 .

Simons, J., The Geographical and Topographical Texts in the Old

            Testament, Leiden, 1959.

Smith, M., "The Present State of Old Testament Studies," JBL 88,

            1969, 19-35.

Snaith, N. H., The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, London,

            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, London, 1964.

_________, "The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Reli-

            gion of Israel," JRH 3, 1964, 1-19.


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, Leiden 1970.

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

            Israel," Tarbiz 36, 1966, 99-109.

Tucker, G. M., "Covenant Forms and Contract Forms," VT 15, 1965,

            487-503.

de Vaux, R , Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, New York, 1961.

__________, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, Cardiff, 1964.

__________, "The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh," in The Bible

            and the Ancient Near East, New York, 1971.

Vos, G., Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments, Grand Rapids,

            1948.

Vriezen, Th. C., "De Compositie van de Samuël-Boeken," Orientalia

            Neerlandica, Leiden, 1948, 167-189.

_________, "The Credo in the Old Testament," in Studies on the

            Psalms, OTWSA, 1963, 5-17.

_________, The Religion of Ancient Israel, Philadelphia, 1967; ET of

            De godsdienst van Israël, Zeist, 1963.

__________, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, Oxford, 19702;

            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 Israel," WZ 12, 1963,

            239-247.

Weidner, E. F., Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsverträge

            in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archly von Boghazköi, Boghazköi

            Studien, 8, 9, Leipzig, 1923.

Weinfeld, M., "Deuteronomy—The Present State of Inquiry," JBL 86,

            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, Jerusalem, 1971,

            1012-1322.

__________, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford,

            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 Israel, New

            York, 1957; ET of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 19056.

________, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, Göttingen, 1871.

Whitley, C. F., "Covenant and Commandment in Israel," JNES 22,

            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," Iraq 20, 1958,

            1-91.

van der Woude, A. S., "Micha II 7a und der Bund Jahwes mit Israel,"

            VT 18, 1968, 388-391.

Wright, G. E., God Who Acts, SBT 8, London, 1952.

__________, "The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of Deuter-

            onomy 32," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage, Muilenburg Festschrift,

            eds. B. W. Anderson, W. Harrelson, New York, 1962, 26-67.

__________, The Old Testament and Theology, New York, 1969.

Würthwein, E., "Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede," ZThK

            49, 1952, 1-16.

_________, The Text of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1957; ET of

            Der Text des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart, 1952.

Young, E. J., "The Alleged Secondary Deuteronomic Passages in the

            Book of Joshua," EvQ 25, 1953, 142-157.

________, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids,

            19642.

Zeisler, J. A., The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, Cambridge, 1972.


                               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 Israel's na-

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 Israel in a manner which demon-

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 Israel to renew her

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 Israel renewed her allegiance to Yahweh at the time

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 Israel's cove-

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

Israel to renew her allegiance to Yahweh (not Saul) on the

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 Judah were

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

Egypt.' "

 

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 Israel, never can any unrighteousness be laid

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 Israel out of Egypt

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

Israel again into a right relationship with Himself."

 

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

Judah'). . . ."

 

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 Israel now really a

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 kingdom of Yahweh as an

original given of the religion of Israel, which would have always been

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 Israel's glorious purpose and continuing

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 Israel in certain times refrained from using this

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 Israel by the use of this title would

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 Israel, yet

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. Israel was chosen by Yahweh to be his possession, over which

He Himself was king and in whose midst He lived, of which the ark as

his throne was the sign. The fact that Israel lived for so long a time

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 Canaan, they placed

themselves actually outside the covenant with Yahweh, who precisely for

this reason had led them out of the bondage of Egypt. The LORD did

not annul the covenant as such, but places the ban on the generation that

came out of Egypt, and also their children, which ban will be lifted only

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 Israel and assures the people

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: "Israel had to be ready for the conflict with her long time

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 Israel, as

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 Israel's

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 Israel. One does

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

Israel under Yahweh" (italics mine).

 

p. 178

Weiser: "representative of the covenant with Yahweh"

 

p. 180-181

Broekhuis: "The wars that Israel fought, were Yahweh's wars. They are

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 Israel, which he regards as a rebellion

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 Israel to act in the manner

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