1, 2 Samuel

An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture

Robert D. Bergen

• Publisher: Holman Reference
• Year: 1996
• Print ISBN: 9780805401073
• eBook ISBN: 9781433675539
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

THE NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY is for the minister or Bible student who wants to understand and expound the Scriptures. Notable features include:* commentary based on THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION;* the NIV text printed in the body of the commentary;* sound scholarly methodology that reflects capable research in the original languages;* interpretation that emphasizes the theological unity of each book and of Scripture as a whole;* readable and applicable exposition.

1, 2 Samuel

---

INTRODUCTION OUTLINE

1. Name, Extent, and Location in Scripture

2. Origins of the Canonical Text and the Question of Authorship

(1) Precanonical Sources Mentioned in the Bible

(2) Proposed Precanonical Sources

(3) Production of the Canonical Text

(4) Integration of the Text into a Larger Literary Unity

3. Transmission of the Canonical Text

4. Functions and Purposes of 1, 2 Samuel

(1) 1, 2 Samuel as History

(2) 1, 2 Samuel as Literary Art

(3) 1, 2 Samuel as Apology

(4) 1, 2 Samuel as Theology

(5) 1, 2 Samuel as Scripture

INTRODUCTION

1. Name, Extent, and Location in Scripture

The pair of books known in the Protestant and more recent Jewish traditions as First and Second Samuel have carried three other titles in Judeo-Christian tradition. In the LXX and Greek Orthodox traditions these books have been known as First and Second Kingdoms. In the Vulgate and Catholic traditions they are termed First and Second Kings.¹ Hebrew Bibles recognized no division between the books prior to the publication of the Bomberg edition in 1516/ 17, which called the longer book simply Samuel.

The earliest indication that Judaism treated 1, 2 Samuel as a single literary entity is found in the Qumran manuscript 4QSam^a, dateable to the first half of the first century B.C.² The custom of dividing the book into two separate entities apparently was instituted by the Greek-speaking Jewish community, which preferred to divide longer books into units that would fit on standard-sized scrolls.³

Two different traditions exist in the Greek versions of Samuel concerning the point at which the book concludes. In most of the surviving Greek manuscripts of Samuel, the text terminates after 2 Sam 24:25; however in a few, Samuel extends through 1 Kgs 2:11.⁴ Though this tradition has no ancient witness in extant Hebrew manuscripts, the practice is quite understandable; 1 Kings' opening chapters provide details of David's latter days and death and assume the readers are aware of facts presented in 1, 2 Samuel.

Following the LXX's practice of arranging the narrative books chronologically, Christian Bibles have placed 1, 2 Samuel immediately after the book of Ruth. In the Hebrew Bible these books stand as the third and fourth books in the Former Prophets, being positioned immediately after Judges.

First and Second Samuel are part of the section of the Hebrew Bible known as the Former Prophets. This section, which includes the books from Joshua to 2 Kings (excluding Ruth), presents a theological narrative of the history of Israel from the time of Israel's entrance into Palestine under Joshua through its departure from the land in the time of Zedekiah. Its overarching purpose is to affirm and explain the teachings of the Torah. Particularly prominent in the Former Prophets are narratives that demonstrate the influence of the Lord's prophets in Israel's history. At times their influence eclipsed that of the kings, perhaps explaining why this section title includes the word “prophets.”

2. Origins of the Canonical Text and the Question of Authorship

The books of 1, 2 Samuel are anonymous. Jewish tradition associates the levitical prophet-judge Samuel, as well as the prophets Gad and Nathan, with the writing of the books.⁵ Although many modern scholars believe Samuel played an important role in recording some of the materials that now comprise the work, the consensus view is that the development of the original canonical (= autographic) form of the book was relatively complex. It is generally conceded that several intermediary steps took place over a considerable period of time leading up to the production of the final form of the book. One especially important aspect of 1, 2 Samuel's prehistory would have been the production of several source documents that were used by the person who produced the canonical work. A discussion of both biblical evidence for the existence of such documents as well as scholarly proposals for a different set of sources follows.

(1) Precanonical Sources Mentioned in the Bible

Explicit textual evidence (cf. 2 Sam 1:18) suggests that at least one preexistent written source, the Book of Jashar, was used in creating the autographic text of 1, 2 Samuel.⁶ First Chronicles indicates that at least four other documents from the early monarchical period were available for later generations to study and use: the Court Records of King David (1 Chr 27:24), the Records of Samuel the Seer (29:29), the Records of Nathan the Prophet (29:29), and the Records of Gad the Seer (29:29). Although it cannot be proven that the writer of 1, 2 Samuel used or even had access to any or all of these other documents, it is reasonable to consider them as possible or even probable sources for the information presented in the canonical book. The relatively heavy emphasis on the roles played by prophets in 1, 2 Samuel, as well as the inclusion of many technical details concerning events within David's reign—for example, lists of David's administrative personnel and key military officers (cf. 2 Sam 8:15–18; 20:23–25; 23:8–39)—provide additional evidence that these sources were indeed utilized.

(2) Proposed Precanonical Sources

Many nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars have suggested that written and unwritten sources other than those mentioned in the Bible were utilized in creating the canonical form of 1, 2 Samuel. These proposed sources were identified on the basis of several text-based criteria: (1) seeming or actual duplications of materials, (2) seeming or actual contradictions, (3) sharply contrasting theological perspectives, and (4) seeming anachronistic references to different offices and geopolitical entities.⁷ Although it is impossible to discuss or even mention all of the proposals that have been made, a short explanation of the most prominent ones is appropriate.

ELI AND SAMUEL TRADITIONS (1 SAMUEL 1–3). M. Noth has suggested that three different traditions were brought together to produce 1 Samuel 1–3: (1) an account, originating in Shiloh, of Samuel's birth and childhood (1:1–2:11), (2) a special tradition, arising from Jerusalem, dealing with problems and judgments against the house of Eli (2:12–17,22–36), and (3) a tradition, written later than the other two, relating Samuel's entrance into the prophetic movement (3:1–21).⁸

ARK TRADITIONS (1 SAMUEL 4–6; 2 SAMUEL 6). A theory crystallized by Rost in 1926 suggests that 1 Sam 4:1b–7:1 and 2 Samuel 6 were originally part of a larger document made up of stories about the ark of the covenant.⁹ According to Rost, this composition came from a member of the priesthood living in Jerusalem during the reign of either David or Solomon. Its purpose was to outline the previous history of the ark for the benefit of festival pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.¹⁰ The absence of any reference to Samuel in this section, even though he is mentioned in the chapters before and after 1 Sam 4–6, is often given as a primary reason for accepting these chapters as coming from a separate source. On the other hand, the close linkage between the events and characters of chaps. 4–6 and those of chaps. 1–3 raises questions about any neat cleavage between these two units of material.

PRO- AND ANTI-MONARCHICAL STORIES (1 SAMUEL 7–15). A theory that goes back at least as far as the late nineteenth century¹¹ suggests that two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the value of kingship for ancient Israel are set forth in 1 Samuel 7–15. One perspective, supposedly coming from an early written source, favors the idea of a king at the crest of the Israelite social and political structure. Sections of 1 Samuel that are believed to come from this hypothetical source include 9:1–10:16; 11:1–11,15. Excerpts from a second nonextant source, this one attributed to a later period in Israelite history when the shortcomings of kingship were well-known, are purportedly found in 7:2–8:22; 10:17–27; 12:1–25. More recent scholarship has tended to reject the theory of juxtaposed, contradictory documents in this section.¹²

RISE-OF-DAVID STORIES (1 SAMUEL 16–2 SAMUEL 5). Since the time of Rost's writings on 1, 2 Samuel, many scholars have accepted the assertion that these twenty-one chapters were originally an independent document written to defend David's right to rule following the death of King Saul.¹³ The sympathetic portrayal of David in these chapters, showing him to be a zealous worshiper of the Lord who used his great abilities in unswervingly loyal service to the king, demonstrates that David was uniquely qualified to lead Israel following Saul's tragic death. Proponents of an originally independent document note numerous instances in the text of these chapters to suggest that they were essentially an apology and thus in “a special category of ancient Near Eastern literature in which the accession of a ruler whose right to the throne is somehow suspect is shown to have been in accordance with the will of the gods and therefore lawful.”¹⁴ Difficulties with this position are seen in the inability of scholars to agree on the beginning (1 Sam 15:1 or 16:1 or 16:14) and ending points (2 Sam 5:10; 6:23; 7:29) of such a document and in the fact that an apologetic dimension to the presentation of David's story is observable beyond the bounds of this supposed document (cf. 2 Sam 9; 19:9a; 21:1–14; 22:1).

SUCCESSION STORIES (2 SAM 9–20). The possibility of this section together with 1 Kings 1–2 being a separate document also was expressed by Rost in 1926. His proposal, followed by many other twentieth-century scholars, was that the document was composed “to show how it was that Solomon, and not one of David's other sons, followed his father on the throne.”¹⁵ Noting that the narratives in these chapters only rarely explicitly affirm God's involvement in the events being described (cf. 2 Sam 11:27; 12:24; 17:14), G. von Rad has suggested that this supposed document demonstrates “a wholly new conception of the nature of God's activity in history.”¹⁶ Here the presence of God is more hidden, and thus the resulting historical account appears more secular.

Even so, there is no unanimity among scholars regarding the writer's purpose in creating this section of 2 Samuel. W. Brueggemann (following Carlson) understands this section to be more concerned with “the demise and failure of David's career” than with the rise of Solomon's.¹⁷

OTHER SOURCES. Attempts to identify the putative pentateuchal sources J and E—two of the sources hypothesized to have been used in the production of the Torah—in 1, 2 Samuel¹⁸ have been fraught with difficulties. Today this attempt has been abandoned.

(3) Production of the Canonical Text

First and Second Samuel were not written to bring recognition to any human author—the text makes no claims con...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Editors
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Editor's Preface
• Author's Preface
• Abbreviations
• Table of Contents
• 1, 2 Samuel
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Selected Bibliography
• Selected Subject Index
• Person Index
• Selected Scripture Index