The Authorship of

1 & 2 Samuel

John R. Neal, Sr.

OT9316A – Old Testament Text – I & II Samuel

Spring 2014

Contents

I. Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………. v-vii

II. Definitions ………………………………………………………………. x

III. Outline of 1 & 2 Samuel ……………………………………………….. xi-xiii

IV. Charts ………………………………………………………………….. xiv-xv

A. Chart Comparison of MT with LXX ………………………………… xiv

B. Chart from PowerPoint Presentation on Authorship ………………… xv

V. Authorship of 1 & 2 Samuel …………………………………………… 1-15

A. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 1-2

B. Traditional View of Authorship ……………………………………….. 2-3

C. Other Possible Authors ………………………………………………… 3-5

D. Deuteronomistic Historian …………………………………………….. 5-9

E. Underlying Sources ……………………………………………………. 9-11

F. Text Critical Issues ……………………………………………………. 11-15

C. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………... 15

V. Bibliography ……………………………………………………………… 16-17

iv

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

Old Testament Books1

Book Abbreviation

Genesis Gen.Exodus Exod. Leviticus Lev. Numbers Num. Deuteronomy Deut. Joshua Josh. Judges Judg. Ruth Ruth 1 Samuel 1 Sam. 2 Samuel 2 Sam. 1 Kings 1 Kings 2 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 1 Chron. 2 Chronicles 2 Chron. Ezra Ezra Nehemiah Neh.Esther Esth. Job Job Psalms Ps. Proverbs Prov.

Ecclesiastes Eccles.

Song of Solomon Song

Isaiah Isa.

Jeremiah Jer.

Lamentations Lam.

Ezekiel Ezek.

Daniel Dan.

Hosea Hos.

Joel Joel

1Don Meredith, Supplement to Turabian 8th Edition (Memphis: Harding School of Theology, 2013). www.hst.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Turabian-400-BW.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2014.

v

Amos Amos

Obadiah Obad.

Jonah Jon.

Micah Mic.

Nahum Nah.

Habakkuk Hab.

Zephaniah Zeph.

Haggai Hag.

Zechariah Zech.

Malachi Mal.

vi

TB – Babylonian Talmud

DH or DrtH – Deuteronomistic Historian

MT – Masoretic Text

LXX - Septuagint

vii

viii

ix

Definitions

Babylonian Talmud: The term Talmud comes from the Hebrew meaning “study,” “instruction.” “The word Talmud is the comprehensive term for the Mishnah and its accompanying commentary, called the Gemara (here meaning “teaching”). The Gemara contains a wide variety of material (proverbs, tales, customs, folklore, etc.) bearing directly or remotely on the subjects of the Mishna, as well as strict exposition on the text in legal argumentation and exegesis. The structure of the Talmud is therefore that of the Mishna, having six order divided into sixty-three tractates, a form it had obtained by the third cent. The Gemara, being the work of the rabbis known as Amoraim (expounders), developed primarily in two centers, Babylon and Palestine (Tiberias), from the 3rd through the 5th centuries.”

There are two editions of the Talmud, known as the Batylonian Talmud (some 5,894 pages total, four times longer than her counterpart, the Palestinian) and the Pslestinian Talmud. Much of the Palestinian has been lost over time. “Of the sixty-three tractates in the Babylonian Talmud, only thirty-six contain Gemara (commentary).”2

Masoretic Text: Masoretic Text or MT “refers to the received text of the Hebrew OT as annotated for punctuation (with accents) and vocalization (with “points”) by the Masoretes (or Masorites), the authoritative teachers of scriptural tradition (Heb: Masorah).” By 500 A.D., two Masoretic Schools emerged (the West in Tiberias and the East in Babylonia/Sura) which helped transform the consonantal text to contain the text with vowel points, to help with pronunciation, as we have the text today. During the 9th and 10th centuries A.D., the two leading Masoretic families from Tiberias were the ben Asher family and the ben Naphtali family. During the 14th century, the two family “traditions” were combined to form a “mixed text” known as the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” or the “received text.” The original Biblia Hebraica was based upon this text. The modern day BHS is based upon the Leningrad Codex B 19A that is part of the ben Asher family. Even more recent projects approach the Hebrew Bible by comparing variants much like the UBS and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testaments.3

Septuagint: Or LXX, this term refers to the “earliest Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew TORAH; it later came to include the whole HB and the APOCRYPHA …” Traditionally, the Pentateuch was translated at the request of Ptolemy II (Alexandria, Egypt), who ruled from 285-247 B.C. “In OT text-critical discussions, the symbol LXX often denotes the Lucianic RECENSION of the LXX (Lucian d. 312 C.E.), hence terms such as “Old Greek” or “Proto-LXX” refer to the earliest forms of the text.”4

2 Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Fourth Edition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 207. 3 Ibid., 123. 4 Ibid., 192.

Outline of 1 & 2 Samuel

I. Samuel as Judge (1 Sam. 1-7).

A. The Childhood of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1-3:31).

B. The end of the Shiloh Priesthood (1 Sam. 4:1-22).

C. The Ark in the war against the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:1-6:21).

D. Rededication near Mizpah (1 Sam. 7:1-17).

II. Samuel and Saul (1 Sam. 8-15).

A. Samuel’s accession to the people’s request for a king (1 Sam. 8:1-22).

B. The anointing of Saul (1 Sam. 9:1-10:27).

C. Victory over Ammonites (1 Sam. 11:1-15).

D. Responsibilities of kingship in Covenant (1 Sam. 12:1-25).

E. Saul’s early reign: mental affliction and rejection (2 Sam. 13:1-25).

III. Saul and David (1 Sam. 16-2 Sam. 1).

A. The choice of David (1 Sam. 16:1-23).

B. The last days of Saul (1 Sam. 17:1-31:13).

1. David battles Goliath (1 Sam. 17:1-58).

2. Saul is jealous over David (1 Sam. 18:1-30).

3. Saul tries to kill David (1 Sam. 19:1-17).

4. David flees Saul (1 Sam. 19:18-30:31).

5. Saul’s death (1 Sam. 31:1-13).

6. David avenges the death of Saul (2 Sam. 1:1-16).

7. David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan’s death (2 Sam. 1:17-27).

xi

IV. David Reigns as King over Judah and Israel (2 Sam. 2-8).

A. The rival anointing of Isbosheth by Abner (2 Sam. 2:1-4:12).

B. David captures Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:1-25).

C. The solidity of David’s Dynasty (2 Sam. 6:1-7:29).

D. Highlight of David’s wars and prominent officials (2 Sam. 8:1-18).

V. Events at the Royal Court of David (2 Sam. 9-20).

A. David reinstates land of Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:1-13).

B. David’s wars against Ammonites and Syrians (2 Sam. 10:1-11:1).

C. David’s sin with Bathsheba and Consequences of Actions (2 Sam. 11:2-12:24).

1. David’s adultery, murder of Uriah, and subsequent marriage to Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2-27).

2. Nathan denounces David’s actions and the king repents (2 Sam. 12:1-23).

3. Birth of Solomon (2 Sam. 12:24).

D. Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s revenge and flight (2 Sam. 13:1-39).

E. Absalsom is allowed to return from exile (2 Sam. 14:1-33).

F. Absalom’s coup and death (2 Sam. 15:1-18:32).

G. David laments over Absalom’s death (2 Sam. 18:33-19:7).

H. Joab rebukes David for his mourning and David’s attempt at reorganizing (2 Sam. 19:8-43).

I. Revolt of Northern Tribes (2 Sam. 20:1-26).

VI. Appendix (2 Sam. 21-24).

A. Burial of Saul’s Family (2 Sam. 21:1-22).

xii

B. Psalm of David (2 Sam. 22:1-51).

C. Highlight of the accomplishments of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. 23:1-39).

D. David’s census and consequences (2 Sam. 24:1-25).5

5 R.K. Harrison, Introduction To The Old Testament with a comprehensive review of Old Testament studies and a special supplement on the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969, Repr. 1991), 695-96.

xiii

Chart Comparing the MT with the various Greek Translations or Versions of the OT6

6 “Google Images.” http:\Users\Asmin\Pictures\Septuagint\tetrafig11.gif Accessed March 19, 2014.

xiv

We know that the compiler of 1 & 2 Samuel is unknown, but Norman Geisler gives the following possibilities about the time period he lived and the sources he used (Chart from PowerPoint Presentation):

#1 – “The books may have been completed only after Solomon’s death (931

B.C.), since there is a reference to the divided monarchy in which Judah is separate from Israel (I Sam. 7:26).”

#2 – “Since the narration of Samuel ends with the death of David, it can be assumed that the original written record comes from some time after 971 B.C.”

#3 – “The books seem to have been written before the captivity of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians (722 B.C.), since there is no reference to this important event.”

#4 – Samuel the prophet died before David began reigning (1011 B.C.) in I Samuel 25:1). Hence, he could not be the author of the rest of I Samuel or any part of part II Samuel.”

#5 – “Samuel founded a school of prophets over which he was head (I Sam. 19:20). Samuel himself wrote a book about the “acts of King David” as did the prophets Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29). No doubt the prophet who compiled I and II Samuel used these prophetic histories in compiling his books” (Norman Geisler, A Popular Survey Of The Old Testament, 107).

xv

The Authorship of

1 & 2 Samuel

Introduction

The historical books we know of today as 1 and 2 Samuel were once one long scroll just

as were the books of Kings, but later separated into two volumes. Both books are known in the

Hebrew Bible as (or 1 Samuel) and (or 2 Samuel).7 Evidence for this can

be seen in the Hebrew text where at the end of 2 Samuel the Masoretic note is penned. This

occurs at the end of every “canonical” book in the Hebrew Bible. The translators of the Greek

Old Testament divided the book of Samuel into First and Second Kingdoms. The books of

Kings were given the title Third and Fourth Kingdoms. The first Hebrew Bible to divide Samuel

into two scrolls is Daniel Bomberg’s Edition (also known as the Pratensis Bible) that was

published in Venice, Italy in 1516-17.8 The book is named after one of the “key figures” whose

legacy lives on throughout the rest of Samuel as judge, priest, and anointer of Israel’s first two

kings. The “life and ministry” of Samuel, even though comprises “less than a quarter” of both

books, yet he “precipitated the key figures and events in the texts as a whole.”9

Yet nowhere in this historical book is there a “direct claim” for Samuel being the

author.10 Firth points out that the author is simply anonymous.11 The fact that there is not claim

of authorship should not cause problems for conservative scholars. The same dilemma arises

within the study of the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel. One often relies greatly on

7Peter C. Cragie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), 134.

8Harrison, 695.9Cragie, 134. 10Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey Of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, Repr. 1986),

134. 11David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, vol 8. Series Ed. David W. Baker

and Gordon J. Wenham. (Nottingham, England: Apollos/Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 22.

1

internal evidence and extra-biblical sources for information on authorship of books such as

Samuel. First, this paper will examine the internal and external evidence for the traditional view

of Samuel as the author. Secondly, this paper will look at some of the other possible candidates

of authorship and the date of composition. Third, we will deal with the issues of sources that are

behind the text of Samuel. Some attention will be given to text critical issues that relate to the

state of the MT.

Traditional View of Authorship

Dealing with the issue from the standpoint of external evidence, the Talmud (T.B. Baba

Bathra 14b) attributes the authorship of Samuel, “along with the book of Judges, to Samuel

himself.” The Babylonian Talmud references the authors of the Old Testament Books, in

particular, Moses, Samuel, and David.

Who wrote the Scriptures? – Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the book of Judges and Ruth.12

In spite of this ancient Jewish tradition, few scholars today accept this position.13 Since the death

of Samuel is mentioned in 1 Sam. 25:1, those who accept the traditional view would argue that

the rest of Samuel was completed by one of the prophets like “Gad and Nathan” (see 1 Chron.

29:29-30).14 This would be the same line of argumentation that says Moses wrote the

12TB Baba Bathra 14b. Baba Bathra, Translated Into English With Notes, Glossary, And Indices. Chapters I-V, Maurice Simon; Chapters V-X, Israel W. Slotki; Ed. Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein. http://halakhah.com/bababathra/index.html.

13David M. Howard, Jr. An Introduction To The Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 142.

14Ben F. Philbeck, Jr. “1-2 Samuel,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol 3, 1 Samuel-Nehemiah (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970), 3.

2

Pentateuch, but the hand of Joshua wrote the postscript or death of Moses. This is in line with

what the Talmud states. Thus claiming Samuel as the author with some disciple finishing the

work is a reasonable argument that can be supported by the external and internal evidence.

The Old Testament speaks of the writings of Samuel. The Chronicler speaks of the

“records of Samuel the seer” (according to 1 Chron. 29:29). The prophet Samuel also wrote on a

scroll about the monarchy of Israel, according to 1 Sam. 10:25. Do these two passages refer to

the “canonical books of Samuel” or do they refer to the sources that were used to write 1 and 2

Samuel? The answer to that question “is impossible to know” for certain.15 Whether we believe

Samuel helped write the book of Samuel or simply compiled sources that were utilized by the

author(s) to write Samuel may not be clear, but the Chronicler also mentions the “records” or

accounts of King David that were written by “Nathan the prophet” and “Gad the seer.”16

Other Possible Authors

If Samuel is not the author (of part of Samuel), then who else could be a possible choice?

The internal evidence points to the author or authors being an eyewitness to the events recorded

in the book.17 First, the books are not complete until after the death of Solomon (who died

around 931 B.C.), since 1 Sam. 27:6 makes a “reference to the divided monarchy in which Judah

is separate from Israel.” Secondly, since the book of 2 Samuel closes with David’s death (which

is recorded in 1 Kgs. 1), one can surmise that the canonical book is finished after 971 B.C.

Third, the books of Samuel seems to be written prior to the Assyrian invasion and “captivity” of

15Howard, 142. 16Ibid. 17Geisler, 107. Randall C. Bailey, David In Love And War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12.

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 28.

3

Israel in 722 B.C., for there is no mention of this significant even in Samuel. Fourth, Samuel

dies before David begins to reign in 1011 B.C. (1 Sam. 25:1). Thus Samuel could not be the

author of 1 Samuel 26-31 nor any part of 2 Samuel. Fifth, Samuel is the head of a group of

prophets (2 Sam. 19:20) and some of them (such as Nathan and Gad) may be authors of part or

all of both books.18

Besides Nathan and Gad, what other characters could fit the requirement of being an

eyewitness to these events of the pre and post-monarchy? The name of Seraiah, who is a priestly

scribe and belongs to Ahitub and Ahimelech, is a possible candidate. Klostermann suggests that

the true “author” is possibly “Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, who may have had some knowledge of

the events connected” with the Ark of the Covenant. However, Duhm makes a proposal for the

priest Abiathar being the author, due to “his close connections with David” during his

“lifetime.”19

Whoever one accepts as the author or authors of Samuel must also take into

consideration the date for composition. There are two main eras that scholars view as possible

date for the writing of 1 and 2 Samuel. The first option that many conservative Old Testament

scholars argue for is an early date, sometime around the 10th century B.C., close to the time of the

events. There other conservative scholars, such as Steinmueller, Moeller, and Young, who argue

that a “precise terminus ad quem” can be no more definite than between 930-722 B.C. There is a

second group who leans towards a unified authorship of a Joshua through Kings by a

Deuteronomistic Historian, argue for a date as late as the time of the Judean King Josiah or even

18Geisler, 107. 19Harrison, 699-700.

4

to a post-exilic period. While this theory places the date of the book two to three centuries after

the events recorded, they do at least see a literary unity of the whole of these historical books.20

Whoever is the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, one can safely say that the author is writing

anonymously. Any position one takes concerning authorship, whether Samuel and a later

disciple or a unified Deuteronomistic Historian, no one should be dogmatic because we simply

do not know the name of the author. The date of composition is somewhere in the 10 th century

B.C. (900’s). The “chronological scope” of both 1 and 2 Samuel can be more narrowly defined

to 1050-960 B.C.21

Another important question in dealing with authorship is whether Samuel (if he be the

author) is a compiler or creator? Martin Noth considered the work of the Deuteronomist as a

“compiler of existing material to which small supplements have been added.” Both Cross and

Smend basically agreed with Noth’s approach, but Polzin looked at the work of the

Deuteronomistic Historian as a “creative author rather than a compiler of traditions.”22 Thus the

use of historical sources does not preclude one from referring the writer of Samuel as an author.

The Work of the “Deuteronomist” in Samuel

Many scholars approach the authorship of Samuel from the standpoint of sources and a

unifying author known as the Deuteronomist. Wellhausen and his camp divided 1 Samuel into

the “pro- and anti-monarchic sources that were ultimately identified with his Pentateuchal

sources J and E.” Eissfeldt would come along later and add the “L” source. Martin Noth’s work

20Firth, 22-23. 21Cragie, 134. 22Firth, 23.

5

(the original German edition appeared in 1941) suggested that the book of Samuel as a whole

“was part of a unified piece created in exile by an author he called the Deuteronomistic

Historian.”23 Although the true nature of the Deuteronomist is still debated today, “this remains

the dominant critical model for reading Samuel, understanding it as created in and addressed to

the exiles.”24

Robert Polzin would argue in 1980, 1989, and again in 1993 by proposing that “the term

‘Deuteronomist’ to refer to the author.25” However, Firth notes that “the ubiquity of such

language masks the deep divisions in what is understood by the term.” Noth viewed the work of

the “Deuteronomistic” Historian as a “combined” one that was “created” during the exile period,

but the American biblical scholars (such as Cross and Nelson) proposed “two stages of

composition, the first during the time of Josiah and then a second in the exile.” Yet complicating

the issue even further is the school of thought connected with Smend who argues for a “basic

text (DtrH) that has been variously supplemented by a legal (or nomistic, DtrN) and prophetic

(DtrP) sources.”26

While one might have a problem with the idea of a Deuteronomistic Historian penning

most of the historical books in the Hebrew Bible, this theory at least deals with the issue of a

biblical theology of the Old Testament. According the DH proponents, the single theme that

unifies all of these approaches is the belief that “the exile” is the “pivotal point for Samuel’s

composition, albeit in different ways.”27 Campbell claims that 1 Sam.1:1-2 Kgs. 10:28 are based

upon a “document” or source known as the “Prophetic Record,” yet he maintains the existence of

23Firth, 22. 24Ibid., 23. 25Ibid. 26Ibid. 27Ibid.

6

this source.28 The Prophetic Record is eventually “integrated into the Deuteronomistic History as

an exile work,” but the “primary setting is considerably closer to the time of David.” Tsumura

even point to “linguistic” evidence that suggests an even “earlier date” for the composition of

Samuel, even “though the value of his observations depends upon Campbell’s framework, since

they might otherwise be regarded as archaisms rather than evidence of the text’s age.”29 Both

Campbell’s and Tsumura’s work makes a rather “strong case” for much of Samuel “originating

far earlier than the exile.”30

Thus from the perspective of men like Campbell and Tsumura, the book of Samuel can

be seen as the “work of a creative author engaging with earlier sources …” If one dates the book

of Deuteronomy from the time of King Josiah, “then a ninth-century setting for much of the

material prevents one” from referring to Samuel as “Deuteronomistic” since Samuel would

“predate” the book of Deuteronomy. But if as McConville argues that much of Deuteronomy’s

setting dates from the time of the “premonarchic period,” then there is “no reason to assume that

the so-called Prophetic Record could not therefore be Deuteronomistic in outlook.”31

But how does one categorize a book as being “Deuteronomistic” in outlook? Noll

suggests that if a book uses “words and phrases” that derive from the book of Deuteronomy and

also “affirms its ideology,” then a book can be called Deuteronomistic. Noll uses his “model” to

date many of these books (such as Samuel) much later than most conservatives would accept.

Firth’s problem with this technique of Noll and that of Weinfeld’s list of words that go back to

Deuteronomy is “that many of them are not actually” found in the book at all. In fact, in

Weinfeldd’s “First section on the struggle against idolatry he lists eighteen items, but gives no

28Ibid., 23-24. 29Ibid., 24. 30Ibid. 31Ibid.

7

examples for nine of them in Deuteronomy.”32 While there are some “conceptual links” between

the two, yet “this is not the same as a semantic or textual one.” Firth continues his critique by

stating that “within the subset of terms and phrases” that occur in the book of Deuteronomy and

the so-called Deuteronomistic History, yet remarkably the “references to Samuel are so sparse.”

This does not mean that there are no important linguistic points of “contact between Samuel and

Deuteronomy, but these are mostly clustered around I Sam. 7, 8, 12, 15, and 2 Sam. 7.”33

The work by Graeme Auld (Samuel at the Threshold) proposes that what scholars end up

doing is reading “backwards from Kings to Deuteronomy, so the Former Prophets, and

especially Kings, are the primary influence and Deuteronomy the result.”34 The study by Auld

“builds upon” his earlier work on the synopsis of Kings and Chronicles where he argues “that

their synoptic material” derives “from a common source” that he later came to “call ‘The Book

of Two Houses’ rather than, as has been commonly assumed, because Chronicles borrows from

Kings.”35

When surveying all of the scholarship on the relationship between Samuel/Kings and

Deuteronomy, the books of Chronicles seems to be a later work that depends largely upon

Samuel, while King’s relation to Deuteronomy shows there are “linguistic links between them.”

Still the book of Kings seems to be aware of the book of Samuel. Firth argues that 1 Kings 1-2 is

a later document that presupposed knowledge of 2 Samuel 9-20. Yet several passages in Samuel

“show a strong awareness of Deuteronomy.” Thus Firth states that “the traditional solution is the

best.”36 The book of Samuel was “written with some knowledge of Deuteronomy and Kings

32Ibid. 33Ibid. 34Ibid. 35Ibid., 25. 36Ibid.

8

with some of Samuel. Therefore the book of Deuteronomy “predates” 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1

and 2 Samuel predates 1 and 2 Kings.37 Yet the “evidence” points to the fact that the book of

Deuteronomy becomes “more influential at the time of the final composition of Kings,” a fact

that is “consistent” with the religious reforms of Josiah (2 Kgs. 22:8-23:27), “as well as

Deuteronomy’s apparent influence on Jeremiah.”38

Firth concludes the issue of the DH by saying that “it is appropriate to note the presence

of Deuteronomistic material and themes” in 1 and 2 Samuel, but that “there is no need to regard”

the work of the Deuteronomists’ as the multiple authors of Samuel. The book of Samuel’s

“literary coherence … along with the way that different sections of the book interact all suggests

that Samuel is a planned composition.” While the book does draw on “sources,” yet “our ability

to trace these earlier levels is limited by the fact that we have them only in the form in which

Samuel presents them.” The book of Samuel “was composed by a creative author who drew on

earlier material but still composed” a theological narrative from a prophetic perspective. We are

unable to identify the name of this author, “but we can appreciate the skill with which the story is

told.”39

Sources Drawn Upon In Samuel

Ever since the time of the 18th century OT scholar Julius Wellhausen, the inquiry into the

“unity” of Samuel as a literary work focuses upon the sources that underlie the book.40

37Ibid. 38Ibid. 39Ibid., 26.

40 Howard, 143. Garry N. Knoppers, “The Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments and Detours,” in The Face Of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, Ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 210.

9

Wellhausen claimed he identified two sources behind Samuel, the so-called anti-monarchy

source (1 Sam. 7:2-8:22; 10:17-27; 12; 15) and the pro-monarchy source (1 Sam. 9:1-10:16; 11;

13-14).41 Later one three other sources would be pointed out as being the foundation for 1 and 2

Samuel. First, the so-called “ark narrative” (1 Sam. 4:1b-7:1; 2 Sam. 6). Secondly, there is

ascension of David narrative covering the death of Saul and David’s uniting of the two kingdoms

(1 Sam. 16:14-2 Sam. 5). Third, the “succession narrative” (2 Sam. 9-20; 1 Kgs. 1-2) that covers

the royal court of David and continuing into the reign of his son, Solomon.42

No one would doubt that some sources underlie 1 and 2 Samuel. The author of Samuel

and the Chronicler “indicates that various sources existed for the periods covered by these

books” (see 2 Sam. 1:18; 1 Chron. 29:29). Even the writer of the third gospel mentions the

historical sources he sought out in the writing of his gospel (Lk. 1:1-3). Yet the extent that

Wellhausen and others went to in order to find Pentateuchal sources in Samuel and his pro- and

anti-monarchy “dichotomy is somewhat overdrawn.”43 Even the so-called ark source is

supposedly “divided” (by the author) “into two sections, the second widely displaced from the

first.” The Davidic succession source “is interrupted by the “Appendix” to 2 Samuel (chaps. 21-

24).” Atomizing these individual sources takes away from the overall unity of the narrative of 1

and 2 Samuel. Even the schools that focus upon “historical,” “political,” and “sociological”

issues introduce questions and readings into the text that may not be intended by the original

author or authors.44

One issue that led to identifying so many historical sources is the supposed “presence” of

“doublets” in the text. The term doublet refers to “duplicate accounts of the same events that

41 Howard, 143. 42 Knoppers, 209. Howard, 143. 43 Howard, 143. 44 Ibid., 144.

10

have survived in the text’s final form.” The so-called pro- and anti-monarchy sources point to

doublets or “different reasons” why Saul is anointed king (God’s command and the people’s

desire). Twice Saul is “rejected” as king (1 Sam. 13:13-14; 15:10-31). David seems to meet

King Saul twice (1 Sam. 16 & 17). Twice David attaches himself to a Philistine king (1 Sam.

21:10-15 [MT 11-16]; 27:1-4). David spares King Saul’s life on two occasions (1 Sam. 24, 26)

and Goliath is seemingly killed two times “by two different people” (see 1 Sam. 17; 2 Sam.

21:19).45

The fallacy with this line of reasoning is the supposition that “events could never be

repeated in similar fashion or that ignore the real differences between accounts” that appear to be

the same “on the surface” or may not take into account “textual corruption.” All of these

doublets that scholars say point to multiple sources can be “accounted for adequately” by use of

apologetics, utilizing a harmony approach to Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, or “by literary

readings of various types” such as a narrative approach.46

Text Critical Issues

The “present” form of the text of Samuel as found in the MT “has suffered greatly in

transmission, more so than almost any other OT book.”47 Often textual critics are able to

reconstruct the text of Samuel based upon parallel passages from Chronicles and comparing the

readings of the MT with the “ancient versions” (such as the Greek Translation, the LXX, and to

45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.

47Ibid.

11

some extent even the Latin version) as well as the texts discovered at Qumran.48 Although the

Greek version is not always reliable, yet in the case of the book of Samuel, there are occasions

where the Greek text (when compared with the Hebrew biblical texts at Qumran) appears to be

based upon an “earlier, and purer Hebrew texts” than the later MT.49 While the Greek text does

agree often with the Qumran scrolls, there are times where the Dead Sea Scrolls part company

with both the Greek version and the MT. The biblical manuscripts from Qumran are much older

than the MT and closer to the original autographs, yet ultimately textual critical decisions “must

be made on a case-by-case basis.”50

Some of the places where the LXX is missing portions of passages found in the MT are:

1 Sam. 17:12-31, 55-58; 18:1-5, 10-11, 17-19. Some of this could be attributed to the Greek

versions tending to paraphrase passages, this cannot always be said to be the case here in

Samuel.51 There are definitely some places where the Greek version helps in our understanding

of the reading of the MT. For example, there is the passage in 1 Samuel 13:21 where the LXX

helps in our exegesis of the MT. The context deals with the Israelites going to the Philistines to

sharpen their farm implements (plowshare, mattock, ax, and sickle). In verse 21 the Hebrew text

seems to say that Philistines had a file for the Israelites mattocks. Yet the LXX suggests that

what is going on is the Philistines are charging an inflated price for sharpening their farming

tools. Whatever the Hebrew term means (a measure of weight or a price), the Greek

version gives us the reading trei=j si/kloi or three shekels as the price for charged to file the

Israelites equipment.52

48S. Szikszai, “I and II Samuel,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, R-Z, Ed. George Arthur Buttrick (NY/Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 209.

49Howard, 145. 50Ibid. 51Szikszai, 209. 52Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools For Bible Study, Third Edition Slightly Revised. (St. Louis,

MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), 89.

12

The Greek version also comes to our assistance in the case of 1 Sam. 14:41 where a

“portion” of a passage missing from the MT. The LXX clarifies the passage by reading, “And

Saul said, “O Lord, God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If the

iniquity is in me and my son Jonathan, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim )?), but if this

iniquity is in thy people Israel, give Thummin(?)” The portion of Scripture in bold type (in

between Israel in italics) is not found in the MT and as the text stands in traditional Hebrew text

makes no sense.53 Perhaps this is an example of the textual criticism term known as

homoioteleuton, where a scribe makes an omission due to “two words or phrases that end

similarly.” Perhaps the Hebrew scribe accidently jumped from the first occurrence of the word

Israel to the third time the word is found in this verse. While this may not affect our theology,

the aid of the Greek version does help the passage make sense.54

. The Greek version also clarifies the “mystery of the MT’s reading” in 2 Sam. 4:6-7. The

reading from the MT reads in v. 6: “And they entered as far as the midst of the house to take

wheat and they smote him in the belly. And Rahab, and Baanah, and his brother fled.” The

Greek version, however, relates “how the assassins, Rechab and Baanah, were able to enter the

house unseen and slay Ishbosheth.” Then while the “doorkeeper was cleaning wheat” she drifts

off to sleep. This explains how they slipped in unnoticed.55 While the LXX does differ here and

is supported by some of the English versions such as the RSV and NRSV, yet Firth warns that

“retorverting this to a text from which the alternative readings can be explained is problematic.”56

He continues by stating that reworking by the Greek version requires “an otherwise unattested

meaning” for the verb to flee or escape, (, a Niphal perfect). The Qumran text, 4QSama,

53Paul D. Wegner, The Journey From Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 180.

54Ibid. 55Danker, 83. 56Firth, 354.

13

resolves the problem by omitting the passage completely. “The difficulties might have been

generated by v. 7’s apparent replication of the killing after the brothers’ escape in v. 6.”57 Yet

Firth points out a parallel example is found in 1 Sam. 17:50-52 in the David and Goliath

narrative where the “severing” of Goliath’s “head” is told after David kills him. There is also the

possibility that v. 7 acts as a clarification of the “repetition,” and should be “understood as

pluperfect.” Although there may be some “damage” to the text here, the explanation Firth gives

of the MT reading is plausible. He also points out that the Qal participle in v. 6, ,

should not be understood as meaning “‘intending to take’ since the participle here should recount

a single act.”58

Danker also points to how the Greek translation explains the “repetitious sequence” in

the MT of 1 Sam. 9:25, 26. The translators of the Greek Bible evidently “read a slight

transposition of the MT consonants in the form and translated

with the preposition in place of .” The end result of this change in the

LXX is the reading: kai\ die/strwsan t%= Saoul, or “they spread a couch for Saul.”59

While one can make a “good case” for following the LXX here rather than the “defective”

reading in the MT, Firth notes that “the major issue” at stake here is “the interchange between”

the usage of the singular and the plural, and this use of “interchange is a feature of this

narrative.”60

Another textual issue is squaring 2 Sam. 21:19 with 1 Chron. 20:5. The author of Samuel

claims Elhanan slew Goliath the Gittite, while the Chronicler states that Elhanan slew Lahmi

Goliath’s brother. A simple solution could be that the author of Samuel meant brother, and even

57Ibid. 58Ibid. 59Danker, 83. 60Firth, 119.

14

some English translations include brother in italics. Could the term for brother have fallen out of

the MT? In response to some conservative scholars who argue that the term Elhanan is another

name for David, Firth insists that this is the same Elhanan son of Dodo listed among David’s

mighty men in 2 Sam. 23:24.61

Conclusion

The book of Samuel was written anonymously. As to whom the author is, several

candidates are possible: Samuel, Nathan, Gad, or some other disciple of the Samuel circle. The

author seems to be an eyewitness or at least close to the time of the events recorded. Perhaps the

most honest answer one can give is what the Early Church Fathers said about the authorship of

the book of Hebrews: only God knows. A secondary issue that ties in with authorship is the time

of composition. While most Old Testament scholars toady would push for a late pre- or post-

exilic date of the Judean Monarchy. A strong case has been made by more conservative scholars

to show that the Samuel tradition is much older and closer to the events recorded than most

would care to admit.

Another important issue in dealing with Samuel is the state of the MT that appears in the

BHS. While the text of 1 and 2 Samuel is probably more problematic than any other Old

Testament book, this should not cause us to despair. Firth made some compelling arguments that

may explain some passages that are often considered to be textual corruptions. The Masoretes

took great care in passing on the textual tradition handed down to them. Some of the biblical

texts discovered at Qumran share the same textual family as the later MT. Yet even for passages

where there are questions, we have enough ancient texts now (from Qumran) from before the 61Ibid., 510.

15

first century A.D., plus the aid of the ancient versions (the various Greek versions of the Old

Testament) and at times the Aramaic Targums can help explain why a passage is problematic.

One thing we learn from the families who passed on the tradition of the MT (such as the ben

Asher and ben Naphtali families) is that they were careful to pass on what the text said and

would only place the correct reading in the modern day equivalent of the footnote.

The evidence presented in this paper will hopefully help reassure anyone who may be

disturbed by modern day skeptics that there are no real textual or theological issues in the books

of Samuel that should shake our faith. The question about authorship is minor; as in the case

with the Gospels, the true importance is their message. We have available enough wide-spread

textual families to come up with a scientific text that is on par with the UBS and Nestle-Aland

Greek New Testament.

Bibliography

"Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 14b." Chap. Chapters I-IV, Maurice Simon; Chapters V-X, Israel W. Slotki in Baba Bathra, Translated Into English With Notes, Glossary, And Indices, edited by Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein. n.d.

Bailey, Randall C. David In Love And War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

Cragie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986.

16

Danker, Frederick W. Multipurpose Tools For Bible Study. Third Edition Slightly Revised. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1970.

Firth, David G. 1 & 2 Samuel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Edited by Series Ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Vol. 8. Nottingham, England/Downers Grove, IL: Apollos/InterVarsity, 2009.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey Of The Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, Repr. 1986.

"Google Images." Pictures Septuagint. n.d. http:\Users\Asmin\Pictures\Septuagint\tetrafig11.gif (accessed March 19, 2014).

Harrison, R.K. Introduction To The Old Testament with a comprehensive review of Old Testament studies and a special supplement on the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969, Repr. 1991.

Howard, David M., Jr. An Introduction To The Old Testament Historical Books. Chicago: Moody Press, 1993.

Knoppers, Garry N. "The Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments and Detours." In The Face Of Old Testamnet Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, 210. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Meredith, Don. Supplement to Turabian 8th Edition. Memphis: Harding School of Theology, 2013. www.hst/edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Turabian-400-BW.pdf. (accessed March 24, 2014).

Philbeck, Ben F., Jr. "1-2 Samuel". Vol. Vol 3, in The Broadman Bible Commentary, 1 Samuel-Nehemiah, Vol 3, edited by Clifton J. Allen. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970.

Soulen, Richard N. and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Fourth Ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

Szikszai, S. "I and II Samuel." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, R-Z, edited by George Arthur Buttrick, 202-209. NY/Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey From Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.

17