CHAPTER VII. JUDGES, SAMUEL, AND KINGS.

In the history of Hebrew literature, so full as it is of

unfortunate accidents, one lucky circumstance at least requires

to be specially mentioned. Chronicles did not succeed in

superseding the historical books upon which it was founded; the

older and the newer version have been preserved together. But in

Judges, Samuel, and Kings even, we are not presented with

tradition purely in its original condition; already it is

overgrown with later accretions. Alongside of an older narrative

a new one has sprung up, formerly independent, and intelligible in

itself, though in many instances of course adapting itself to the

former. More frequently the new forces have not caused the old

root to send forth a new stock, or even so much as a complete

branch; they have only nourished parasitic growths; the

earlier narrative has become clothed with minor and dependent

additions. To vary the metaphor, the whole area of tradition has

finally been uniformly covered with an alluvial deposit by which

the configuration of the surface has been determined. It is with

this last that we have to deal in the first instance; to

ascertain its character, to find out what the active forces were

by which it was produced. Only afterwards are we in a position

to attempt to discern in the earlier underlying formation the

changing spirit of each successive period.

VII.I.

VII.I.1. The following prologue supplies us with the point of view

from which the period of the judges is estimated.

"After the death of Joshua, the children of Israel did evil in the

sight of the Lord and forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who

brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods,

of the gods of the people that were round about them, the Baals

and Astartes. And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel,

and He delivered them into the hands of spoilers, that spoiled

them and sold them into the hand of their enemies round about;

whithersoever they went out the hand of the Lord was against

them for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn

unto them; and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the

Lord raised up unto them judges, and was with the judge, and

delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days

of the judge, for it repented the Lord because of their

groanings, by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

And it came to pass when the judge was dead that they returned

and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following

other gods to serve them; they ceased not from their own doings,

nor from their stubborn way. And the anger of the Lord was hot

against Israel," &c. &c. (Judges ii.).

Such is the text, afterwards come the examples.

"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,

and forget the Lord their God, and served the Baals and Astartes.

Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He

sold them into the hand of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia,

and they served him eight years. And when the children of Israel

cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up to them a helper, Othniel

b. Kenaz, and delivered the king of Mesopotamia into his hand,

and the land had rest forty years. And Othniel b. Kenaz died."

The same points of view and also for the most part the same

expressions as those which in the case of Othniel fill up the

entire cadre, recur in the cases of Ehud, Deborah, Gideon,

Jephthah, and Samson, but there form only at the beginning and at

the end of the narratives a frame which encloses more copious and

richer contents, occasionally they expand into more exhaustive

disquisitions, as in vi. 7, x. 6. It is in this way that Judges

ii.-xvi. has been constructed with the workman-like regularity it

displays. Only the six great judges, however are included within

the scheme; the six small ones stand in an external relation to it,

and have a special scheme to themselves, doubtless having been

first added by way of appendix to complete the number twelve.

The features which characterise this method of historical work are

few and strongly distinctive. A continuous chronology connects

the times of rest and their separating intervals, and thereby the

continuity of the periods is secured. In order justly to

estimate this chronology, it is necessary to travel somewhat

beyond the limits of Judges. The key to it is to be found in

1Kings vi. 1.

"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of

Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year

of the reign of Solomon, he began to build the house of the Lord."

As observed by Bertheau, and afterwards by Noldeke, who has still

farther pursued the subject, these 480 years correspond to 12

generations of 40 years each. Analogously in 1Chronicles v. 29-34

[vi. 2-8], 12 high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz are assumed for

the same period of time, and the attempt was made to make their

successions determine those of the generations (Numbers xxxv. 28).

Now it is certainly by no means at once clear how this total is

to be brought into accord with the individual entries. Yet even

these make it abundantly plain that 40 is the fundamental number

of the reckoning. The wandering in the wilderness, during which

the generation born in Egypt dies out, lasts for 40 years; the

land has 40 years of rest under Othniel, Deborah, and again under

Gideon; it has 80 under Ehud; the domination of the Philistines

lasts for 40 years, the duration also of David's reign. On the

necessary assumption that the period of the Philistines

(Judges xiii. 1), which far exceeds the ordinary duration of the

foreign dominations, coincides with that of Eli (1Samuel iv. 18),

and at the same time includes the 20 years of Samson (Judges

xvi. 31), and the 20 of the interregnum before Samuel (1Samuel

vii. 2), we have already 8 x 40 accounted for, while 4 x 40 still

remain. For these we must take into account first the years of

the two generations for which no numbers are given, namely,

the generation of Joshua and his surviving contemporaries

(Judges ii. 7), and that of Samuel to Saul, each, it may be

conjectured, having the normal 40, and the two together

certainly reckoning 80 years. For the remaining 80 the most

disputable elements are the 71 years of interregna or of

foreign dominations, and the 70 of the minor judges. One

perceives that these two figures cannot both be counted in,--they

are mutually exclusive equivalents. For my own part, I prefer to

retain the interregna; they alone, so far as we can see at

present, being appropriate to the peculiar scheme of the Book of

Judges. The balance of 9 or IO years still remaining to be

applied are distributed between Jephthah (6 years), and Solomon

(down to the building of the temple), who claims 3 or 4 years, or,

if these are left out of account, 3 years may be given to

Abimelech.

The main thing, however, is not the chronology, but the religious

connection of the events. The two are intimately associated, not

only formally, as can be gathered from the scheme, but also by a

real inner connection. For what is aimed at in both alike is a

connected view of large periods of time, a continuous survey

of the connection and succession of race after race, the detailed

particulars of the occurrences being disregarded; the historical

factors with which the religious pragmatism here has to do are so

uniform that the individual periods in reality need only to be

filled up with the numbers of the years. One is reminded of the

"Satz," `"Gegensatz," and "Vermittelung" of the Hegelian philosophy

when one's ear has once been caught by the monotonous beat with

which the history here advances, or rather moves in a circle.

Rebellion, affliction, conversion, peace; rebellion, affliction,

conversion, peace. The sole subjects of all that is said are

Jehovah and Israel; their mutual relation alone it is that keeps

the course of things in motion, and that too in opposite directions,

so that in the end matters always return to their original position.

"They did what was evil in the sight of Jehovah, they went

a-whoring after strange gods,"-such is the uninterrupted key-note.

Although Jehovistic monolatry is so potently recommended from

without, it yet takes no firm root, never becomes natural to the

people, always remains a precept above and beyond their powers.

For decennia on end indeed they hold fast to it, but soon their

idolatrous tendency, which has only been repressed by fear of the

judge during his lifetime, again finds expression; they must have

a change. Now this rebellion is indeed quite indispensable for

the pragmatism, because otherwise there would be nothing at all

to tell; it is on the unrest in the clock that the whole movement

depends. But at the same time this is of course no extenuation;

the conduct of the people is manifestly totally inexcusable,

the main actions, the deeds of the judges, are for this manner

of historical treatment always only proofs of Israel's sin and

of the unmerited grace of Jehovah that puts them to shame.

That all this is no part of the original contents of the tradition,

but merely a uniform in which it is clothed, is admitted. _Numero

Deus impare gaudet_. It is usual to call this later revision

Deuteronomistic. The law which Jehovah has enjoined upon the

fathers, and the breach of which He has threatened severely to

punish (ii. 15, 21), is not indeed more definitely characterised,

but it is impossible to doubt that its quintessence is the

injunction to worship Jehovah alone and no other God. Now in this

connection it is impossible to think of the Priestly Code, for

in that document such a command is nowhere expressly enjoined,

but, on the contrary, is assumed as a matter of course.

Deuteronomy, on the other hand, has in fact no precept on which it

lays greater emphasis than the "Hear, O Israel-"-that Jehovah is

the only God, and the worship of strange gods the sin of sins.

This precept was apprehended much more clearly by contemporaries

than the moral demands in the interest of humanity and kindness

which are also insisted on in Deuteronomy, but are not new, being

derived from older collections; on this side alone, in so far as

it follows up the monotheism of the prophets into its practical

consequences within the sphere of worship, has Josiah's law-book

had historical importance, on this side alone has it continued to

act upon Ezekiel and those who came after him. If, then, the norm

of the theocratic relationship assumed in the redaction of the

Book of Judges is to be sought in a written Torah, this can

indubitably only be that of Deuteronomy. The decisive

settlement of the question depends in a comparison with the Book

of Kings, and must accordingly be postponed until then.

VII.I.2. As for the relation between this superstructure and that

on which it rests, there is a striking difference between the two

styles. The revised form in which the Book of Judges found its

way into the canon is unquestionably of Judaean origin, but the

histories themselves are not such,--nay, in the song of Deborah,

Judah is not reckoned at all as belonging to Israel. The one judge

who belongs to the tribe of Judah is Othniel, who however is not a

person, but only a clan. What is said of him is quite void of

contents, and is made up merely of the schematic devices of the

redactor, who has set himself to work here, so as to make the

series open with a man of Judah; the selection of Othniel was

readily suggested by Judges i. 12-15. Here again we have an

exception which proves the rule. More important are the inner

differences which reveal themselves. To begin with the most

general,--the historical continuity on which so much stress is

laid by the scheme, is in no way shown in the individual

narratives of the Book of Judges. These stand beside one another

unconnectedly and without any regard to order or sequence, like

isolated points of light which emerge here and there out of the

darkness of forgetfulness. They make no presence of actually

filling up any considerable space of time; they afford no

points of attachment whereon to fasten a chronology. In truth, it

is hardly the dim semblance of a continuity that is imparted to

the tradition by the empty framework of the scheme. The

conception of a period of the judges between Joshua and Saul,

during which judges ruled over Israel and succeeded one another

almost as regularly as did the kings at a later period, is quite

foreign to that tradition. It is impossible to doubt that

Judges i., xvii., xviii. have the best right to be reckoned as

belonging to the original stock; but these portions are excluded

from reception within the scheme, because they have nothing to

say about any judges, and give a picture of the general state

of affairs which accords but ill with that plan. /1/

-- Footnote

1. The redaction, as is well knows, extends only from ii. 6 xvi. 31,

thus excluding both i. 1-ii. 5, and xvii. 1-xxi. 24. But

it is easy to perceive how excellently the first portion fits

into its place as a general introduction to the period between

Moses and the monarchy, and how much more informing and

instructive it is in this respect than the section which follows.

There exists besides a formal connection between i. 16 and iv. 11.

As regards chaps. xvii., xviii., this story relating to the

migration of Dan northwards is plainly connected with that

immediately preceding where the tribe still finds itself "in the

camp of Dan," but is hard pressed and obtains no relief even with

the aid of Samson. In the case of chaps. xix.-xxi., indeed, it

admits of doubt whether they were excluded from the redaction, or

whether they were not extant as yet; but it is worth noticing

that here also chaps. xvii., xviii. are assumed as having gone

before. The Levite of Bethlehem-Judah testifies to this, and

especially the reminiscence contained in xix. 1, which, as we

shall see, has nothing to rest on in chaps. xix.-xxi.

Compare further xx. 19 with i. 1 seq.

-- Footnote

At the bottom of the spurious continuity lies an erroneous

widening of the areas in which the judges exerted their influence.

Out of local contiguity has arisen succession in time, what was

true of the part having been transferred to the whole; it is

always the children of Israel in a body who come upon the scene,

are oppressed by the enemy, and ruled by the judges. In reality

it is only the individual tribes that come into the action; the

judges are tribal heroes,--Ehud of Benjamin, Barak and Deborah of

Issachar, Gideon of Joseph, Jephthah of Gilead, Samson of Dan. It

was only for the struggle against Sisera that a number of tribes

were united, receiving on that account extraordinary praise in

the song of Deborah. It is nowhere said "at the time when the

judges ruled," but "at the time when there was yet no king over

Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes; " the

regular constitution of the period is the patriarchal anarchy of

the system of families and septs. And in chap. i, division and

isolation are made to appear not unclearly as the reason why the

Canaanites were so long of being driven out from the greater

cities; matters did not change until Israel became strong, that

is to say, until his forces were welded into one by means of the

monarchy.

But the unity of Israel is the presupposition upon which rests the

theocratic relation, the reciprocal attitude between Israel and

Jehovah, whereby according to the scheme the course of the

history is solely conditioned. In the genuine tradition the

presupposition disappears, and in connection with this the whole

historical process assumes an essentially different, not to say a

more natural aspect. The people are no longer as a body driven

hither and thither by the same internal and external impulses,

and everything that happens is no longer made to depend on the

attraction and repulsion exercised by Jehovah. Instead of the

alternating see-saw of absolute peace and absolute affliction,

there prevails throughout the whole period a relative unrest;

here peace, there struggle and conflict. Failure and success

alternate, but not as the uniform consequences of loyalty or

disobedience to the covenant. When the anonymous prophet who, in

the insertion in the last redaction (chap. vi. 7-10), makes his

appearance as suddenly as his withdrawal is abrupt, improves the

visitation of the Midianites as the text for a penitential

discourse, the matter is nevertheless looked at immediately

thereafter with quite different eyes. For to the greeting of the

angel, "Jehovah is with thee, thou mighty man of velour," Gideon

answers, "If Jehovah be with us, why then is all this befallen

us? and where be all His miracles, of which our fathers told

us ? "He knows nothing about any guilt on the part of Israel.

Similarly the heroic figures of the judges refuse to fit in with

the story of sin and rebellion: they are the pride of their

countrymen, and not humiliating reminders that Jehovah had

undeservedly again and again made good that which men had

destroyed. Finally, with what artificiality the sins which

appear to be called for are produced, is incidentally made very

clear. After the death of Gideon we read in chap. viii. 33,

"the children of Israel went a-whoring after the Baals, and made

Baal Berith their god." But from the following chapter it appears

that Baal or El Berith was only the patron god of Shechem and some

other cities belonging to the Canaanites; the redactor transforms

the local worship of the Canaanites into an idolatrous worship on

the part of all Israel. In other cases his procedure is still

more simple,--for example, in x. 6 seq., where the number seven

in the case of the deities corresponds with the number seven of

the nations mentioned in that connection. Ordinarily he is

content with "Baals " or "Astartes " or "Asheras," where the

plural number is enough to show how little of what is individual

or positive underlies the idea, not to mention that Asheras are

no divinities at all, but only sacred trees or poles.

In short, what is usually given out as the peculiar theocratic

element in the history of Israel is the element which has been

introduced by the redaction. There sin and grace are introduced

as forces into the order of events in the most mechanical way, the

course of events is systematically withdrawn from all analogy,

miracles are nothing extraordinary, but are the regular form in

which things occur, are matters of course, and produce absolutely

no impression. This pedantic supra-naturalism, "sacred history"

according to the approved recipe, is not to be found in the

original accounts. In these Israel is a people just like other

people, nor is even his relationship to Jehovah otherwise conceived

of than is for example that of Moab to Chemosh (chap. xi. 24).

Of theophanies and manifestations of the Godhead there is no lack,

but the wonders are such as to make one really wonder. Once and

again they interrupt the earthly nexus, but at the same time

they form no connected system; they are poetry, not prose and

dogma. But on the whole the process of history, although to

appearance rougher and more perplexed, is nevertheless in reality

much more intelligible, and though seemingly more broken up,

actually advances more continuously. There is an ascent upward

to the monarchy, not a descent from the splendid times of Moses

and Joshua (Judges i. 28-35, xiii. 5, xviii. 1).

One narrative, it is true, apart from that relating to Othniel,

which is not to be reckoned here, is exactly what sacred history

ought to be in order to fit into the theoretical scheme,--I mean

Judges xix.-xxi. To appreciate it rightly it will be well first

of all to cast a glance upon the preceding narrative relating to

the migration of the tribe of Dan to the north. The Danites, 600

strong, fall upon the Canaanite town of Laish not because it lies

within the limits assigned to the people of God, and because its

conquest is a duty--though they inquire of the oracle, they are

nevertheless far from relying on the divine right so plainly made

known in the Book of Joshua--but because it is inhabited by a

peaceable and unsuspecting people, which is quite defenceless

against such a band of desperadoes; and they have as little

scruple in practicing the same treachery to Israelites such as

Micah. They take it that might is right, and recognise no

restraining consideration; their conduct is natural to the verge

of absolute shamelessness. And yet they are pious in their way;

how highly they value Jehovah they show by this, that they steal

His image out of the house of God, and the priest who keeps it

into the bargain. As for the religious usages mentioned in the

two chapters, hardly an abomination forbidden by the Law is wanting:

the private sanctuary in the possession of the Ephraimite Micah,

the grandson of Moses as priest in his service and pay, ephod

and teraphim as the requisite necessaries in the worship of Jehovah;

and yet all this is so recounted by the narrator as if it were all

quite regular and void of offence, although his purpose in doing so

is not to narrate temporary departures from rule, but the origin of

permanent institutions at a chief sanctuary of ancient Israel.

One is translated into another world on passing from this to the

narrative immediately following, about the shameful deed of the

Benjamites and their exemplary punishment; a greater or more

instructive contrast as regards religious history is hardly to be

found in all the Old Testament. In Judges xx.-xxi. it is not as

invariably elsewhere the individual tribes which act, not even

the people Israel, but the congregation of the covenant, which has

its basis in the unity of worship. The occasion of their action

is a sin committed in their midst which must be done away; it is

the sanctity of the theocracy which brings these 400,000 men to

arms and fills them at once with unction and with sanguinary

zeal. The clerical instincts have entirely taken possession of

this uniform mass, have passed into their flesh and blood, and

moulded them into a single automaton, so that all that takes place

is invariably done by all at once. No individuals come to the

front, not even by name, still less by deeds of velour; the

moral tone is anything but heroic. When the godless reprobates of

Gibeah seek to assail the person of the Levite who is passing the

night there, he hands over to them his wife in order to save

himself, and all Israel finds nothing objectionable in this

revolting act of cowardice, the opinion probably being that by

his conduct the holy man had kept the sinners from still graver

guilt.

"Of the Mosaic law not a word is said in these chapters,

but who could fail to perceive that the spirit which finds its

expression in the law pervaded the community which acted thus?

Had we more narratives of similar contents we should be able to

solve many a riddle of the Pentateuch. Where under the monarchy

could we find an Israel so united, vigorous, earnest, so willing

to enter upon the severest conflict for the sake of the highest

ends? "Thus Bertheau, rightly feeling that this story has a

quite exceptional position, and contradicts all that we learn from

other quarters of the period of the judges or even the kings.

Only we cannot reckon it a proof of the historic value of the story,

that it gives the lie to the rest of the tradition in the Books of

Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and is homogeneous not with these books

but with the Law. On the other hand, the writer betrays himself

with a self-contradiction, when, unconsciously remembering the

preceding chapters, he laments the disorganisation of the time he

is dealing with (xix. 1, xxi. 25), and yet describes Israel to

us as existing in a religious centralisation, such as demonstrably

was never attained in the earlier life of the nation, but only

came about as a consequence of the exile, and is the distinctive

mark of Judaism.

As this narrative is not one of those included in the

Deuteronomistic scheme of the Book of Judges, there may be a

question whether it presupposes the Deuteronomic law only, or the

priestly law as well. Its language has most points of contact

with Deuteronomy; but one extremely important expression and

notion, that of "the congregation of the children of Israel,"

points rather to the Priestly Code. The same may be said of

Phinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron (xx. 28). The latter, however,

occurs but once, and that in a gloss which forms a very awkward

interruption between "and the children of Israel inquired of

Jehovah," and the word "saying" which belongs to that phrase.

We have also to remark that there is no mention of the tabernacle,

for which there is no room in addition to Mizpeh (p. 256),

so that the principal mark of the Priestly Code is wanting.

It is only in preparation, it has not yet appeared: we are still

standing on the ground of Deuteronomy, but the way is being

prepared for the transition.

VII.I.3. Going a step further back from the last revision we meet

with an earlier effort in the same direction, which, however, is

less systematically worked out, in certain supplements and emendations,

which have here and there been patched on to the original narratives.

These may be due in part to the mere love of amplification or of

talking for talking's sake, and in so far we have no further

business with them here. But they originated partly in the

difficulty felt by a later age in sympathising with the religious

usages and ideas of older times. Two instances of this kind occur

in the history of Gideon. We read (vi. 25-32), that in the night

after his call Gideon destroyed, at the commandment of Jehovah,

the altar of Baal in Ophra, his native town, as well as the

Ashera which stood beside it; and that in place of it he built an

altar to Jehovah, and burned on it a yearling bullock, with the

wood of the Ashera for fuel. The next morning the people of Ophra

were full of indignation, and demanded that the author of the

outrage should be given up to them to be put to death; his

father, however, withstood them, saying, "Will ye contend for Baal?

Will ye save him? If he be a god, let Baal contend (Heb. Jareb

Baal) for himself." In consequence of this speech Gideon received

his second name of Jerubbaal. This conflicts with what is said in

an earlier part of the chapter. There Gideon has already made an

altar of the great stone under the oak of Ophra, where he saw

Jehovah sitting, and has offered upon it the first sacrifice, which

was devoured by flames breaking out of themselves, the Deity

Himself ascending in the flames to heaven. Why the two altars

and the two stories of their inauguration, both tracing their

origin to the patron of Ophra? They do not agree together, and

the reason is plain why the second was added. The altar of a

single stone, the flames bursting out of it, the evergreen tree,

the very name of which, Ela, seems to indicate a natural

connection with El, /1/--all this was in the eyes of a later

-- Footnote

1. )LH, )LWN, in Aramaic simply tree, in Hebrew the evergreen,

and in general the holy tree (Isaiah i. 29 seq.) mostly without

distinguishing the species. Not only are oaks and terebinths

included, but also palms. For the )LWN DBWRH at Bethel is

elsewhere called TMR; Elim derives its names from the 70 palms,

and the same may be the case with Elath on the Red sea.

-- Footnote

generation far from correct, indeed it was Baal-work. A desire

that the piety of Gideon should be above suspicion gave rise to

the second story, in which he erects an altar of Jehovah in place

of the former altar of Baal. How far this desire attained its end

we may best judge from the kindred effort to remove another

ground of offence, which lies in the name Jerubbaal. In accordance

with the occasion out of which the name is said to have arisen it

is said to mean, "Let Baal contend." Etymologically this

derivation is extremely far-fetched, and from every point of

view impossible: the name of a god is only assumed by those who

are his worshippers. In Hebrew antiquity Baal and El are

interchangeable and used indifferently; Jehovah Himself is spoken

of up to the times of the prophet Hosea as the Baal, i.e., the

lord. This is distinctly proved by a series of proper names in

the families of Saul and David, Ishbaal, Meribaal, Baaljada, to

which we may now add the name Jerubbaal given to the conqueror of

Midian. If then even in the time of the kings Baal was by no means

simply the antipode of Jehovah, whence the hostile relation of the

two deities, which Jerubbaal displays by the acts he does, although

he praises the great Baal by wearing his name? The view, also,

that the Ashera was incompatible with the worship of Jehovah,

does not agree with the belief of the earlier age; according to

Deuteronomy xvi. 21, these artificial trees must have stood often

enough beside the altars of Jehovah. The inserted passage itself

betrays in a remarkable manner that its writer felt this sort of

zeal for the legitimate worship to be above the level of the age

in question. We receive the impression that the inhabitants of

Ophra do not know their worship of Baal to be illegitimate, that

Gideon also had taken part in it in good faith, and that there had

never been an altar of Jehovah in the place before.

Of a somewhat different form is a correction which is to be found

at the close of the history of Gideon (viii. 22 seq.). After

the victory over the Midianites the Israelites are said to have

asked Gideon to be king over them. This he declined out of regard

to Jehovah the sole ruler of Israel, but he asked for the gold

nose-rings which had been taken from the enemy, and made of them

an image of Jehovah, an ephod, which he set up in Ophra to be

worshipped. "And all Israel went thither a-whoring after it, and

it became a snare to Gideon and to his house." Now the way in

which such a man acts in such a moment is good authority for the

state of the worship of Israel at the time, and not only so, but

we cannot impute it to the original narrator that he chose to

represent his hero as showing his thankfulness to the Deity by

the most gratuitous declension from His worship, as in fact crowning

His victory with an act of idolatry. This is seen to be the more

impossible when we consider that according to the testimony of

Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, such images were even in the Assyrian

period a regular part of the belongings of the "houses of God"

not only in Samaria but in Judah as well. We have also to

remember that the contradiction between a human kingship and the

kingship of Jehovah, such as is spoken of in these verses, rests

upon theories which arose later, and of which we shall have more

to say. /1/ Studer will thus be correct in his assertion that the

-- Footnote

1. "The words of Gideon are only intelligible on the presupposition

that the rule of Jehovah had a visible representative prophet or

priest. But this was not the case in the period of the judges,

as Gideon's own history shows us." Vatke, p. 263. We see besides

from ix. 1 seq. that Gideon really was the ruler of Ephraim and

Manasseh.

-- Footnote

old tradition could not see anything in Gideon's refusing the gold

for himself and dedicating it to God but a fine proof of his

unselfishness and piety, and that in viii. 22-27 we have a

secondary product, in which the original features of the story

are distorted so as to make them suit later tastes. The second

hand has unfortunately supplanted in this instance the work of

the first. The older narrative breaks off (viii. 21) with the

words: "Gideon took away the ornaments that were on the necks of

the camels of the kings." What he did with them we do not learn,

but naturally we must suppose that it was of them that he made

the ephod. According to the secondary passage, which begins

immediately after viii. 21, he used for this purpose the

nose-rings which the whole of Israel had taken from all the

Midianites, amounting in weight to 1700 shekels, besides the

ornaments of the kings and of their camels. The proportion is

similar to that between the 600 Danites in chap. xviii. and the

25,700 Benjamites in chap. xx., or between the 40,000 men of

Israel in v. 8, and the 400,000 in xx. 2.

VII.I.4. In the last place it is possible to trace even in the

original narratives themselves certain differences of religious

attitude which indicate to us unobtrusively and yet clearly that

tendency in the development of the tradition which reached its

end in the revision and ornamentation of which we have hitherto

been speaking. This is especially the case with regard to those

narratives which are preserved to us in a double form. These are

not frequent in Judges, but they do occur. A very simple case

of the kind is seen on comparing chap. iv. with chap. v.

The Canaanites again lift their heads under their great king

Sisera, and from their towns in the plains harass the hill

villages of the new settlers. Deborah unites the Hebrew tribes

for the contest. From the North and from the South the hosts of

Jehovah descend before our eyes towards Jezreel, the prophetess

Deborah at their head, the warrior Barak at her side. The conflict

takes place at the brook Kishon, and ends with the defeat of the

kings of Canaan. Sisera himself is killed in the flight by Jael,

the wife of a nomad Kenite. Such are the contents of the song in

chap. v. In the preceding narrative (chap. iv.) we should

expect to find a historical commentary on the song, but we find a

mere reproduction in which the special features of the story are

blurred and falsified. Instead of the kings of Canaan we have the

king of Canaan, as if Canaan had been a kingdom. Sisera, the head

of the Canaanite kings, is transformed into a mere general; the

oppression of the Hebrews is made general and indefinite. Jael

murders Sisera when he is Iying in a deep sleep by driving a

tent-peg into the ground through his temples. There is nothing

of this in the song: there he is drinking when she strikes the

blow, and is conceived as standing at the time, else he could

not bow down at her feet and fall, and lie struck dead where

he fell (ver. 27).

In the song the campaign is prepared with human means.

Negotiations are carried on among the tribes, and in the course of

these differences crop up. The lukewarmness or the swelling words

of some tribes are reproved, the energetic public spirit and

warlike courage of others praised. In the narrative, on the

contrary, the deliverance is the work of Jehovah alone; the men of

Israel are mere dummies, who show no merit and deserve no praise.

To make up for this, interest is concentrated on the act of Jael,

which instead of being an episode becomes the central point of the

whole narrative. Indeed it is announced as being so, for Deborah

prophesies to Barak that the glory of the conflict will not be his

but a woman's, into whose hand the enemy is to be sold; it is not

the hero, not human strength, that accomplishes what is done:

Jehovah shows His strength in man's weakness. And Barak's part in

the work is depreciated in yet another way. Deborah summons him

to go not to the battle, but to the holy hill of Tabor, where

Jehovah will bring about what is further to happen; he, however,

objects to this, and insists that the prophetess herself shall go

with him. This is regarded as a caprice of unbelief, because the

prophetess is thought to have exhausted her mission when she

transmitted the command of the Deity to His instrument: she has

appeared for no end but to make it known through her prophecy that

Jehovah alone brings everything to pass. In the song this is

different. There Barak is not summoned against his will; on the

contrary, he has a personal motive for taking up arms: "Arise,

Barak; take captive thy captors, thou son of Ahinoam." And the

prophetess has not only to prophesy; she works in a more

psychological manner; she is part of the battle, and inflames with

her song the courage of the fighting battalions: "Awake,

Deborah, awake, sing the song!" /1/ Throughout these variations of

-- Footnote

1. Ver. 12 is a summons to begin the battle, and Deborah cannot

here be singing the song of triumph which celebrates its happy

issue. For a similar reason the translation given above, "take

captive thy captors," is the more natural and correct.

-- Footnote

the prose reproduction we feel that the rich colour of the events

as they occurred is bleached out of them by the one universal first

cause, Jehovah. The presence and energy of Jehovah are not wanting

in the song; they are felt in the enthusiasm which fills the Hebrew

warriors, and in the terror and panic which confound the prancing

vigour of the foe. But in the prose narrative, the Divine action

is stripped of all mystery, and mechanic prophecy finds no

difficulty in showing distinctly and with sober accuracy what the

part of the Deity in the history has been. But the more special

the intervention of Deity, the further is it from us; the more

precise the statements about it, the less do we feel it to be there.

There is another instance in the Book of Judges of the occurrence

of the same historical material in two different forms; it is the

story of Gideon of the Manassite house of Abiezer. Studer saw

that there is a break between viii. 3 and viii. 4, and that the

two stories, from the one of which we pass to the other at that

point, have to be understood separately; viii. 1-3 is the

conclusion of the first story. We have been told how, after the

success of the first attack on the Midianites, Gideon raised the

levy of all Israel for the pursuit, and how then the Ephraimites

seized the fords of the Jordan before the arrival of the flying

nomads and got the two leaders of the Midianites into their hands.

Now we hear in conclusion that the Ephraimites, elated by their

success began to find fault with Gideon, but that he pacified

their wrath by saying, "What have I done now in comparison of

you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the

vintage of Abiezer? God hath delivered into your hand the princes

of Midian, and what was I able to do in comparison of you?"

A domestic contention like this about the respective shares in

the victory could only arise when the victory had been gained,

when the strife with the enemy was fought out; the metaphor of

harvest and gleaning shows that the victory was complete and

all the fruits of it gathered in. Chapter viii. 1-3 concludes

the business, and the following narrative is not a continuation

of what has gone before, but a second version of the story in

which many of the circumstances are quite different. According

to vii. 23 seq. there was a great army on foot, but in viii. 4

seq. Gideon has only his own three hundred men with him. In

viii. 1-3 the vintage and the gleaning are over and the object

of the fighting is attained; but in viii. 4 seq. Gideon pursues

the enemy without any interruption, and when he asks the men of

Succoth and Penuel for bread for his wearied and hungry troops,

they inquire sarcastically whether he is already certain of

success, so that it should be necessary for them to espouse his

cause. The two chiefs who in the former account are called the

princes Oreb and Zeeb, and are already taken, are here called

the kings Zebah and Zalmunna, and are not taken yet. Unfortunately

the beginning of viii. 4 seq. is not preserved, and we cannot make

out whether the pursuit in which we find Gideon here engaged was

preceded by an action. Such a supposition is not exactly impossible,

yet the distance to which the nomads had carried their booty, and

their carelessness in camp, make it more likely that the occurrence

was like that in 1Samuel xxx. This, however, makes no difference as

to the particulars with regard to which the two narratives conflict

with each other.

But how did the difference arise? This we shall best learn by

comparing the beginnings of the two stories. We remarked that the

second, as it stands, wanted a beginning, but what is wanting may

be to some extent supplied from what follows. According to viii.

4 seq., Gideon's aim is to get hold of the two kings of the

Midianites: these appear all through as the particular enemies

whom he is pursuing: as to the rest of the Midianites he is more

or less indifferent. And the reason, as we learn from viii. 18

seq., is that the two kings had slain his brothers at Tabor; it

is to take vengeance for them that he sets out to pursue the

slayers, and does not rest till they are in his hand. It is the

duty of blood-revenge which causes him to take the war-path with

his household, unconcerned by the disproportion in numbers

between his followers and theirs: it is the powerful sentiment of

family which sets him in motion and causes him to become, as it

were incidentally, the liberator of Israel from the spoilers. In

the first account (vi. 11-viii. 3) these natural motives have

completely disappeared, and others have taken their place which

are almost of an opposite character. Before anything has

happened, before the Midianites have made their yearly incursion,

Gideon, who expects nothing of the kind, is summoned by a

theophany to battle against them. When they arrive he is seized

by the Spirit and sets out against them. What is human in him

has no part in the act he is called to do; flesh and blood set

themselves against it. He is impelled by the direct impulse of

Jehovah, and here, of course, he goes forth in behalf of the

public interests of Israel, against the Midianites, not against

their princes personally. And accordingly everything possible is

done to cast the man into the shade behind the Deity. Gideon,

according to the second account a distinguished and royal man,

is in the first of a poor house and family; in the second story

he is remarkable for irrepressible energy, but here he is timid

and shrinking up to the last moment, and new miracles have

constantly to be wrought to encourage and strengthen him.

The 32,000 men with whom he takes the field he is ordered by

Jehovah to send away all but l,000 and again all but 300, "lest

Israel vaunt themselves against Me, and say, Mine own hand hath

saved me." The weapons with which the nocturnal attack of the 300

is made are torches, pitchers, and trumpets; the men have not a

hand left to hold swords (vii. 20); and the hostile army has

accordingly to do itself the work of its own destruction (vii.

22).

Few of the deviations of the religious version from the natural one

are not transparent; one of these few is the removal of the scene

to this side of the Jordan. Most of them are at once recognisable

as due to the process of glorification, illumination, and

religious inflation, by which the body of the tradition is

etherealised and the story lifted up into the region of the air.

For example, the company of Gideon at the main action, the attack

on the hostile camp, consists of 300 men in chap. vii. as well

as in chap viii.; but in chap. vii., to draw out the

significance of the small number, they are treated as the last

residuum of what was at first quite a considerable army; and this

gives rise to a long story. We may also remark that chap. vi.

begins with the relation in which the judge stood to the sanctuary

of his native town, while chap. viii. closes with this. In the

one case he discovers by a theophany, like the patriarchs in

Genesis, the sacredness of the altar-stone under the oak; in the

other he sets up, in far more realistic fashion, the plated image

(ephod) he has made of the golden ornaments of the Midianite

kings. History has to take account principally, if not

exclusively, of the natural version, which is dry in tone and lets

things speak for themselves, not overlaying the simple story with

the significance of its consequences. The relation, however, is

somewhat different from that which we found existing between

Judges iv. and v. Chapter vi. seq. is not based directly on

chap. viii., but was probably formed from independent oral

material Though the local colour is lively, the historical

reminiscences are extremely vague, and there has been a much

freer growth of legend than in Jud. iv., producing pictures of

greater art and more naivete. But in the field of miracle poetry

is manifestly earlier than prose.

In the case of those narratives which have come down to us in

double form, the difference of standpoint is unmistakable; but it

may also be perceived in cases where we have no direct parallels

to compare. How noticeably does the story of Abimelech differ,

say from that of Jephthah which follows it, in the rich detail of

its facts, and in the spontaneous interest it shows in the

secondary and subordinate links in the chain of events! There is

no gilding with a supernatural nimbus; facts are simply and

plainly set down such as they are; the moral is left to speak

for itself as the story goes on. In the Samson legends again we

find two souls united, as it were, in one body. Traits belonging

to the rough life and spirit of the people are wrought, especially

at the beginning and end of the narrative, into a religious

national form; yet the two stand in an inner contrast to each other,

and it is scarcely probable that the exploits of this grotesque

religious hero were at first conceived in the Spirit of Jehovah,

of which, in the story as we have it, they are the product. More

probably the religious way of telling the story was preceded

by a way considerably more profane; but we cannot now separate

the older stage from that which is more recent. We may also

remark that the contrast of historical and unhistorical is

obviously inapplicable to this case, and, moreover, is

unessential for the end we have in view. Only it may stand

as a general principle, that the nearer history is to its

origin the more profane it is. In the pre-Deuteronomic narratives,

the difference is to be recognised less in the _kind_ of piety than

in the _degree_ of it.

VII.II.

VII.II.1. The comprehensive revision which we noticed in the Book

of Judges has left its mark on the Books of Samuel too. As, however,

in this case the period is short, and extremely rich in incident,

and really forms a connected whole, the artificial frame- and

net-work does not make itself so much felt. Yet it is by no

means wanting, as the dates of themselves indicate, whose place in

the chronological system was shown above. It is worthy of notice

how very loosely these are fitted into their context. In 1Samuel

iv. 18 seq. we read:

"And when the messenger made mention of the ark of God, Eli fell

backwards off his seat, and his neck brake, and he died, for he

was an old man and heavy, and _he judged Israel forty years_;

and when his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, who was with

child, heard the tidings," etc.

The statement of the date is not altogether inappropriately

dragged in, indeed, yet it is easy to see that it is dragged in.

In 2Samuel ii. 8-13 we read:

"Abner, the captain of Saul's host, took Ishbaal the son of Saul,

and brought him over the Jordan to Mahanaim, and made him king

over Gilead and Geshur, and Jezreel, and Ephraim, and Benjamin,

and all Israel. _Ishbaal was forty years old when he began to

reign over lsrael, and he reigned two years_. But the house of

Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in

Hebron was seven years and six months. And Abner and the servants

of Ishbaal went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon, and Joab with the

servants of David went out to meet him."

The words in italics <_..._> manifestly interrupt the connection;

and with regard to Ishbaal's dates we have also to remark that from

what we learn of him elsewhere he was, in the first place, still

in the years of pupilage, and in the next must have reigned as long

in Mahanaim as Oavid in Hebron. The number two connected with his

reign is to be explained as in the case of Saul (1Samuel xiii. 1):

_Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two

years over Israel_. In this verse, which is not found in the LXX,

the number for the years of his life is wanting; and originally

the number for the years of his reign was left out too: the _two_

is quite absurd, and has grown out of the following word for year,

which in Hebrew has a somewhat similar appearance.

In company with the chronological formulas, we find also the

religious (1Samuel vii. 2-4).

"While the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim, it was twenty years;

and all the house of Israel came together after Jehovah. And

Samuel spake unto the whole house of Israel, saying: 'If ye do

return to Jehovah with all your hearts, then put away the strange

gods and the Astartes from among you, and prepare your hearts unto

Jehovah, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you out of the

hand of the Philistines.' And the children of Israel did put away

the Baals and Astartes, and served Jehovah only."

We are not told, in what precedes this passage, of any act of

declension from Jehovah, and according to chap. iv. the Israelites

showed no want of faith in Jehovah in the unfortunate battle with

the Philistines. This taking for granted that the yoke of a

foreign rule was laid on them as a punishment for their sins is

characteristic. A further example occurs in the speech of Samuel

(1Samuel. xii.), which, as the introduction to the time of the

kings, may be compared with Judges ii., the introduction to the

time of the judges.

"Stand still that I may reason with you before

Jehovah of all the righteous acts of Jehovah with which He did

right to you and to your fathers! When Jacob was come into

Egypt, your fathers cried to Jehovah, and He sent Moses and Aaron

and brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this

land. And when they forget Jehovah their God, He sold them into

the hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the

hand of the Philistines, and the Moabites, and they fought

against them. And they cried unto Jehovah, and said, We have

sinned, because we have forsaken Jehovah and have served Baal and

Astarte, but now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies and we

will serve Thee. And Jehovah sent Jerubbaal, and Barak, and

Jephthah, and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your

enemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe. And when ye saw that

Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said

unto me, Nay, but a king shall reign over us, when Jehovah your God

is your king. Now therefore behold the king whom ye have desired;

behold, Jehovah has set a king over you. If ye will hear Jehovah

and serve Him and obey His voice, and not rebel

against the commandment of Jehovah, good: but if ye rebel against

the commandment of Jehovah, then shall the hand of Jehovah be

against you as it was against your fathers."

It is the familiar strain: rebellion, affliction, conversion,

peace, Jehovah the keynote, and the first word and the last.

The eye does not dwell on the details of the story; the gaps in

the tradition are turned to account as well as its contents, which

are concentrated at so few points. Details are regarded only as

they bear on the whole; the periods are passed in review in a broad

and general style, and the law enunciated which connects them with

one another. In doing this Samuel seems to presuppose in his

hearers a knowledge of the biblical history in a distinct form;

and he even speaks without hesitation of his own historical

significance. The hearers are bidden to look back upon a period

in the living movement of which they themselves are standing, as

if it were a dead past. As they are thus lifted up to the height

of an objective contemplation of themselves and their fathers,

in the end the result which was to be expected takes place:

they become conscious of their grievous sin. Confronted with

the Deity they have always an uneasy feeling that they deserve

to be punished.

VII.II.2. The Deuteronomist revision asserts itself, it is true,

only in these two places, or rather this one place; but this

is the principal epoch in the book--the transition to the monarchy

which is associated with the name of Samuel. And on this account

the revision here acts the more trenchantly; it is not only an

addition to give a new flavour to the older tradition; it changes

the nature of the tradition entirely. For the passages we have

just quoted from it are merely fragments of a considerable

connected historical scheme. The first piece of this scheme, vii.

2-17, first claims our attention. After summoning the children of

Israel to repentance (vii. 2-4), Samuel convokes an assembly of

them at Mizpeh, near Jerusalem, in order to entreat for them that

the Philistine affliction may be turned away. This measure is of

course closely connected with the previously-mentioned abolition

of idolatry: for, after the guilt has ceased, the punishment also

must be removed. They assemble, draw water to pour it out before

Jehovah, fast, and confess their sins, at Mizpeh. When the

Philistines hear this, they are on the spot the very same day

and fall upon the assembly at its prayers. Samuel, however,

sacrifices a sucking lamb and cries for help to Jehovah, and the

engagement takes place while he is so occupied. Jehovah thunders

terribly against the Philistines and throws them into disorder, so

that they are forced to yield, and are pursued to a great

distance. And the Philistines, this is the end of the narrative,

were humbled and came no more into the coasts of Israel; and the

hand of Jehovah was against the Philistines all the days of

Samuel, and the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel

were recovered; Ekron and Gath and their coasts did Israel take

from the Philistines, and there was peace between Israel and the

Amorites.

The mere recapitulation of the contents of this narrative makes us

feel at once what a pious make-up it is and how full of inherent

impossibilities: to think of all that is compressed into the

space of this one day! But we have also to remark the utter

contradiction of the whole of the rest of the tradition. In the

history which follows we find the domination of the Philistines

by no means at an end; not only do they invade the Israelite

territory several times in Samuel's lifetime, they are in

possession of the land of lsrael, and one of their governors lives

at Gibeah in the midst of Benjamin. The struggle with them is the

true and real origin and task of the monarchy. The writer had no

idea that Samuel had discharged this labour and won this victory

already, and had even "restored " Ekron and Gath. On the contrary,

the yoke of the Philistines lay most heavily on Israel just in

his days. There cannot be a word of truth in the whole narrative.

Its motives, however, are easily seen. Samuel is a saint of the

first degree (Jeremiah xv. 1), and in the theocracy, i.e., in the

religious community such as ancient Israel is represented to have

been, cut to the pattern of Judaism, such a man must take his

place at the head of the whole. His influence must have prevailed

to exclude idolatry and unfaithfulness to Jehovah on the part of

the people; and the general character of the time must on the

whole have answered to the type he set before it. But here a very

unpleasant difficulty suggests itself. If the fact of Samuel being

at the head is sufficient guarantee that all was as it should be

within the state, how can there have been such great pressure

externally, so as to endanger the very existence of the people?

If men do their part, how can Jehovah fail to do His? On the

contrary, it must be believed that the righteousness which

prevailed within had its counterpart in the external vindication

of His people by Jehovah. Even under Samuel the Philistines were

with God's help driven across the border, and as long as he lived

they were not seen within it again. The piety of a praying

assembly was suitably acknowledged by Jehovah, who dropped into

its lap a success such as in after times the sword of warlike

kings sought long and in vain to achieve.

But this example of history corrected does not stand alone, and

becomes completely intelligible only when taken in connection

with the similar pieces which belong to it. 1Samuel vii. is

continued in chap. viii., and chap. viii. again in x. 17-xii.

25. Samuel, after setting the land free from foreign tyranny,

conducts a quiet and successful reign till old age comes upon him.

His sons, however, whom he has made his assessors, do not walk in

his steps; and the elders of Israel make this the occasion to ask

him to give them a king. But this is a mere pretext for their

sinful desire to shake off the divine rule and to be like the

heathen round about them. Samuel is extremely indignant at their

ingratitude, but is directed by Jehovah to comply with their

request.

"They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected

Me, that I should not reign over them; according to all the works

that they have done since the day that I brought them up out of

Egypt, wherewith they have forsaken Me and served other gods. so

do they also unto thee."

It is in vain that Samuel exhibits to them an alarming catalogue

of the rights of the king: they are not to be moved from their

determination, and he accordingly summons a general convention of

the people at Mizpeh (viii. 22, x. 17). There, after the

opening lecture, lots are drawn for the king, and Saul is chosen,

whereupon Samuel has still to write down the law of the kingdom and

lay it up before Jehovah. The people are then dismissed; "and

Saul also went home to Gibeah, and with him the warriors whose

heart God had touched, but the children of Belial despised him,

and said 'How shall this man save us!'"

But Saul is at this point only king _de jure_; he does not become

king _de facto_ until after he has proved himself, chap. xi. After

an interval of a month (x. 27 LXX) the men of Jabesh, besieged by

the Ammonites and in great straits, send messengers throughout

Israel to implore speedy assistance, since in seven days they

have to surrender to their enemies and each of them to lose his

right eye. The messengers come to the town of Saul, Gibeah in

Benjamin, and tell their message before the people; the people

lift up their voices and weep. Saul meanwhile comes from the

field with a yoke of oxen, and, observing the general weeping,

asks what has happened. The story is told him, and at once the

Spirit of God comes upon him and his anger is kindled greatly;

he hews in pieces his oxen and sends the pieces throughout Israel

with the summons: Whoever does not come forth to the battle, so

shall it be done to his oxen! And the fear of Jehovah falls on

the people, and they go out as one man and relieve the besieged

town. Hereupon "the kingdom is renewed" for Saul at Gilgal, and

only now does Samuel abdicate his government, in the long speech

(chap. xii.) a considerable portion of which was given above.

That chap. xi. is now an integral part of this version of the

history is clear from xii. 12, and also from xi. 12-14. But it

was not originally designed for this connection. For we hear

nothing of the warriors who according to x. 26 were in company

with Saul; it is not on his account that the messengers of Jabesh

came to Gibeah. When the supposed king comes home from ploughing,

nothing is done to indicate that the news concerns him specially:

no one tells him what has happened, he has to ask the reason of

the general weeping. He summons the levy of Israel not in virtue

of his office as king, but in the authority of the Spirit, and it

is owing to the Spirit acting on the people that he is obeyed.

Only after he has showed his power and defeated the Ammonites do

the people make him king (xi. 15); the "renewal" of the kingdom

(xi. 14), after a month's interval, is a transparent artifice of

the author of viii. 10, 1) seq. to incorporate in his own narrative

the piece which he had borrowed from some other quarter: the verses

xi. 12-14 are due to him.

Chapter xi. stood originally in connection with the other

narrative of the elevation of Saul (ix. 1-X. 16). Hero Saul

first appears engaged in searching for strayed she-asses. After

a vain search of several days he arrives in the neighbourhood

of Ramah, and at the suggestion of his servant applies for

information as to the asses to a seer there, to Samuel. His

approach has been announced to the seer by Jehovah the day

before: "To-morrow I will send to thee a man out of the land of

Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be ruler over My people

Israel; he shall save them from the Philistines." He was

accordingly expecting him, and had instituted a sacrificial feast

on the bamah for him even before he arrived. At this moment

Samuel has gone down to the town between the sacrificial act and

the meal which followed it, and just as he is going back to his

guests he meets in the gate Saul, who is asking for him, and at a

whisper from Jehovah he recognises in him his man. He takes him up

with him to the bamah, reassures him about the asses, and then at

once tells him to what high things he is called, and gives him

convincing proofs that he had reckoned on his presence at the feast

as the guest of the occasion. He then gives him lodgings for the

night, and accompanies him on his way next morning. The servant is

sent on a little way before, Samuel stands still and anoints Saul,

for a sign that he is chosen by Jehovah to be the king and deliverer

of Israel, and in conclusion instructs him that, when the opportunity

for action comes, he is to use it, in the consciousness that God

is with him. On his way home three signs come to pass which the

seer had announced to him. He is thus assured that all that was

said to him was true; his heart is changed by degrees till he

cannot contain himself; on his arrival at Gibeah his acquaintances

are struck with his strange demeanour, but he does not disclose

even to his most intimate friend at home what Samuel had said to

him, but waits for the things that shall come to pass.

This is the point arrived at in x. 16. It is clear that thus far

no conclusion has yet been reached: the seed that is sown must

spring up, the changed spirit must produce its effects. And this

requirement is abundantly satisfied if chap. xi. is regarded as

immediately continuing the story from x. 16. After about a

month, the opportunity presents itself for Saul to act, which

Samuel had bidden him to look for. While others are weeping at

the disgrace which threatens an Israelite town at the hands of

the Ammonites, he is filled with the Spirit and with rage,

the arrow is still in his heart from that conversation, and he

now does "what his hand finds to do." The result is a great

success; the word of the seer finds its fulfilment in the most

natural way in the world.

If chap. xi. belongs originally to the narrative of ix. 1.-x. 16,

it follows at once that the other sections are dependent and

later. But what is the inner relation of the one version to the

other? They coincide in their ideas here and there. In the one

story Saul seeks the asses and finds the crown, in the other he

hides himself among the stuff and is drawn forth king. In the one

he is called by the seer, in the other he is chosen by lot--the

divine causality operative in both cases. But how the idea is

exaggerated at the later stage, and how nakedly it is put forward!

And if there is this similarity of view, yet the deviation of the

secondary version from the original is much more striking than

the resemblance. For its tendency we are prepared by chapter

vii. Samuel has set his countrymen free from their enemies, and

ruled over them afterwards in righteousness and prosperity; why

then should they desire a change in the form of government? They

have just as much and as little reason for desiring this as for

the falling away from Jehovah, which also is a periodical

craving on their part, whenever they have had some years' rest:

it is the expression of the deep-seated heathenism of their nature.

That is the account of chapter viii. with what belongs to it.

Chapter ix. seq., however, gives quite a different account. Here,

at the end of the period of the judges, Israel is not at the

summit of power and prosperity, but in a state of the deepest

humiliation and the means of saving the people from this state is

seen in the monarchy alone. And this difference is closely

connected with another as to the view taken of the authority of

Samuel. In chap. viii. as in chap. vii. he is the vicegerent

of Jehovah, with unlimited authority. He feels the institution of

the monarchy to be his own deposition, yet the children of Israel

by no means rebel against him; they come to him to ask him for

a king. He might have refused the request; he might also have

given them a ruler according to his own good pleasure, but as a

correct theocrat he leaves the decision to Jehovah. At the end he

solemnly lays down the government he has hitherto carried on, and

hands it over to his successor. The latter is superior to him in

point of title, but not in point of power: indeed in the latter

respect he is rather inferior to Samuel, being a mere earthly

prince (xii. 23 seq.). But how do matters stand in chap. ix. seq.?

Here Samuel is quite a stranger to Saul, who knows neither his

name nor his residence. Only his servant has heard of Samuel,

who enjoys a high reputation as a seer in his own neighbourhood.

What we are to think of when we read of a seer of that period,

we are clearly and circumstantially informed: for Samuel is

consulted as to the whereabouts of strayed she-asses, and a fee

of a quarter of a silver shekel is tendered to him for his advice.

This seer stands, it is clear, above the average of those who

practiced the same calling; yet his action on the history is quite

within the limits of what was possible, say to Calchas: it

exhibits not a trace of the legislative and executive power of

a regent of the theocracy. He does not bring help; he only

descries help and the helper. The very event which, according

to chap. viii. seq., involved the removal of Samuel from his

place and his withdrawal to the background of the history, is

here the sole basis of his reputation: the monarchy of Saul,

if not his work, is his idea. He announces to the Benjamite his

high calling, interpreting in this the thoughts of the man's own

heart (ix. 19). With this his work is done; he has no commission

and no power to nominate his successor in the government.

Everything else he leaves to the course of events and to the

Spirit of Jehovah which will place Saul on his own feet.

In the great difference which separates these two narratives we

recognise 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. It

was preceded by a period of unrest and affliction, when every man

did what was right in his own eyes, and the enemies of Israel

accordingly got everything their own way. Under it the people

dwell securely and respected by those round about; guarded by

the shelter of civil order, the citizen can sit under his own

vine and his own fig-tree. That is the work of the first two

kings, who saved Israel from his spoilers, and gave him power

and rest. No difference is made between them in this respect:

the one commenced the work which the other completed (1Samuel

ix. 16, xiv. 48; 2Samuel iii. 18, xix. 9). Before them there was

no breathing space left in the hard work of fighting, but now

there is time to think of other things. Even Deuteronomy,

which was written not long before the exile, regards the period

before the monarchy as a time of preparation and transition,

not to be counted complete in itself: Israel must first acquire

fixed seats and a settled way of living, and then Jehovah also

will choose a seat for Himself and make known His desires with

regard to the cultus. David brought things so far that the

people had room and struck firm roots into the ground, and

ceased to tremble before their enemies, who had kept them on the

strain from the beginning, and all the days of the judges; and

under his successor the time came when the temple could be built

and higher interests receive attention. That Hebrew antiquity

knew nothing of any hostility or incompatibility between the

heavenly and the earthly ruler is plain from the title Anointed

of Jehovah, and from the hope of the prophets, whose ideal future

would be incomplete without a human king. The ancient Israelites

were as fully conscious as any other people of the gratitude

they owed to the men and to the institutions by whose aid they

had been lifted out of anarchy and oppression, and formed into an

orderly community, capable of self-defence. Of this the Books of

Samuel afford the most eloquent testimony. /1/

-- Footnote

l In Balaam's view of the happy future of Israel (Numbers xxiii.

seq.), the monarchy is spoken of as one of Israel's chief

blessings. Generally (xxiii. 21): "Jehovah his God is with

him, and the shout of a king is among them." With reference to

Saul (xxiv. 7): "And his king triumphs over Agag. and his

kingdom shall be exalted." To David (xxiv. 17): "I see him,

though not now; I behold him, though not nigh: there rises (ZRX)

a star out of Jacob and a rod out of Israel, and smites in pieces

the temples of Moab and the skull of all the sons of Seth: and Edom

also becomes a conquest." According to Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4, 5,

the monarchy and the Torah are the two great gifts of God's grace

to Israel.

-- Footnote

The position taken up in the version of 1 Samuel 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. There can be no progress

beyond the Mosaic ideal; the greater the departure from it the

greater the declension. The capital sin of placing a human ruler

on the throne of Jehovah makes even the period of the judges

appear not quite black. Dark as the colours are with which that

period is generally painted, it held fast to the original form of

the theocracy, and so appears somewhat brighter: at last indeed,

to heighten the contrast, it is represented as a splendid age.

Under the rule of Samuel, everything was as it should be. Should

we ask, _how_ were things then? what was exactly the nature of

the theocratic constitution? we receive, it is true, no

satisfactory answer to the question. We might draw conclusions

with regard to the body from the head: but what sort of an idea

can we form of the position of Samuel? As he appears in these

chapters, we entirely fail to dispose of him in any of the

categories applicable to the subject; he is not a judge, not

a priest, not a prophet,--if at least we use these words with

their true historical meaning. He is a second Moses? Yes, but

that does not tell us much. So much only is clear, that the

theocracy is arranged on quite a different footing from the

kingdoms of this world, and that it amounts to a falling away

into heathenism when the Israelites place a king at their head

like other nations, and he keeps courtiers and ministers, officers

and soldiers, horses and chariots. It is accordingly a spiritual

community: the spiritual character of the regent places this

beyond doubt. Samuel admonishes the people to give up idolatry;

he presides at the great day of repentance at Mizpeh, which forms

an epoch in the sacred history; and Jehovah can refuse nothing to

his prayers and cries (xii. 1 7). "God forbid," he says in

taking leave of them (xii. 23), "that I should cease to pray for

you and teach you the good way." Such is his position: and the

citizens of the theocracy have the corresponding duty of

cultivating the worship of Jehovah, and not withdrawing themselves

from the guidance of the representative of Deity. They do not

need to trouble themselves about means for warding off the attacks

of their enemies; if they fast and pray, and give up their sins,

Jehovah hurls back the foe with His thunder and lightning, and so

long as they are pious He will not allow their land to be

invaded. All the expenses are then naturally superfluous by

which a people usually safeguards it own existence. That this

view is unhistorical is self-evident; and that it contradicts the

genuine tradition we have seen. The ancient Israelites did not

build a church first of all: what they built first was a house

to live in, and they rejoiced not a little when they got it

happily roofed over (xi. 15). But we have still to add, in

conclusion, that the idea here before us can only have arisen in

an age which had no knowledge of Israel as a people and a state,

and which had no experience of the real conditions of existence in

these forms; in other words. It is the offspring of exilic or

post-exilic Judaism. At that time the nation was transformed into

a religious community, whose members were at liberty to

concentrate themselves on what they held to be the great business

of life, worship and religiousness, because the Chaldeans or the

Persians had relieved them of all care for worldly concerns. At

that time, accordingly, the theocracy _existed_, and it is from

that time that it is transported in an idealised form to early

times. The material basis on which the theocracy rested in fact,

namely, the foreign domination, is put out of sight, and it is

counted heathenism in the old Israelites that they cared for the

external conditions of their national existence, that they are a

people in the full sense of the word, and seek to maintain

themselves as such with the weapons which are found necessary in

the work-a-day world. It naturally never came into the heads of

these epigoni to conceive that the political organisation and

centralisation which the monarchy called into being provided the

basis for the organisation and centralisation of the worship, and

that their church was merely a spiritualised survival of the

nation. What is added to Moses is taken away from the monarchy.

One more point has to be noticed. The chapters vii. viii. x. 17

seq. xii. betray a close relationship with Judges xix.-xxi.,

not only by their general tendency, but by a geographical

detail in which the two passages agree. It is only here that

Mizpeh, near Jerusalem, occurs as the place of meeting of all

Israel; we find no further mention of the place in the whole

period of the judges and the kings. Only after the destruction

of Jerusalem is it mentioned, and there as the centre of the new

Jewish community instituted by the Chaldeans (Jeremiah xl. seq.) as

the substitute of the old capital. It appears once more, and in a

similar character, in I Maccabees iii. 46 seq. at a time when the

temple of Jerusalem was in the hands of the Syrians, and the Jews

could not get to it. The Mizpeh of Judges xx., 1Samuel vii. 10,

is probably the same as that of Jeremiah xl. seq., and intended to

be, like these, in place of Jerusalem, the only legitimate

sanctuary, which, however, did not exist at that early time.

This is a further proof of the post-Deuteronomic and Jewish origin

of these narratives, but at the same time an indication that, with

every inclination to the views of the Priestly Code, the writer

yet had not that code before him. For in that work the projection

of Jerusalem into the period before Solomon is carried out in

quite a different way: the tabernacle renders Mizpeh superfluous.

It has also to be remarked that the rite of pouring out water

(1Samuel vii.) is foreign to the Priestly Code.

VII.II.3. The relation of Saul to Samuel is a subject which lends

itself readily to general views, and the development of the

tradition is visible in it in other particulars besides those we

have mentioned. Taking the view of 1Samuel vii. viii. xii. as

the lower limit, the narrative nearest in character is the story

about Samuel contained in an insertion in chap. xiii. After Saul

is made king at Gilgal by the levy with which he relieved Jabesh,

he selects from it a body of men who camp with him and Jonathan

at Gibeah and the neighbouring Michmash: and Jonathan, by killing

the officer at Gibeah, gives the signal for battle with the old

enemy of his race. The Philistines advance, and take up a position

to the north of Gibeah, with only a deep valley between them and

the Israelites. But Saul, we hear all at once, xiii. 7 (cf. ver. 4)

was yet in Gilgal, and waited seven days for Samuel, according

to the set time the latter had appointed; but Samuel did not come,

and the warriors began to scatter. As he was himself offering the

sacrifice without which no campaign could be commenced, Samuel

arrived, and at once opened upon him. Saul defended his act

with great force: the people were scattering, and Samuel had not

come at the appointed time, and as the Philistines had advanced

close up to Gibeah, he had found it impossible to delay longer,

and had offered the sacrifice in order to advance against them.

To all this Samuel's only answer was:

"Thou hast done foolishly; if thou hadst kept the commandment of

Jehovah, He would have established thy kingdom for ever, but

now thy kingdom shall not continue; Jehovah has sought Him a man

after His own heart, and appointed him to be ruler over His people,

because thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee."

So he said, and walked off; but Saul went with the army from Gilgal

to Gibeah. At Gibeah, the following verse (xiii. 16) goes on,

abode Saul and Jonathan, and their men, when the Philistines

encamped in Michmash.

The change of place distinctly shows the whole passage about the

meeting of the king with the prophet at Gilgal (xiii. 7-15) to be

an insertion by a later hand. At the beginning of the narrative

Saul is at Gibeah (ver. 2, 3), and the Philistines seek him

there, and halt before the place because they meet with

resistance. All at once, at ver. 7, it is assumed without being

stated, that Saul had stayed at Gilgal since he was chosen king

till now, and had only now advanced from there against the

Philistines who were waiting for him before Gibeah. Verse 16,

however, gives us the impression that Saul had been posted at

Gibeah with his men for some time, when the Philistines took up

their camp over against them. Only in this way is justice done

to the contrasted participle of state (_sedentes_) and inchoative

perfect (_castrametati sunt_). And in the sequel the triumphant

continuation of the story, especially in chap. xiv., shows no

indication that the ominous scene in Gilgal weighed on the mind of

Saul, or of the people, or of the historian.

According to xiii. 7-15, Saul is to wait seven days for Samuel at

Gilgal. Here there is a reference to x. 8, where the seer says

to the future king, "Thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal, and

I will come after thee there to offer sacrifices; seven days

shalt thou tarry till I come and show thee what thou shalt do."

This verse is condemned by other arguments than its connection

with xii. 7-15. Samuel's object at this point, according to x.

I-7, is to overcome the reluctance of the Benjamite who had gone

forth to seek his asses, to undertake the high calling announced

to him, and to inspire him with faith and confidence,--not to give

him unintelligible directions as to what he is to do first when he

has actually become king, and how long he has to wait for the

seer at Gilgal. The schoolmaster tone of x. 8 is particularly

out of place after the preceding words of ver. 7, that, when the

three signs have come to pass, Saul is to do what his hand finds,

because God is with him. This is surely giving him perfect

freedom of action, and for the reason that God's Spirit is working

in him, which "bloweth where it listeth," and suffers no

interference from any authority. /1/

-- Footnote

1. It is also clear that the writer of x. 8, xiii. 7-15 cannot

possibly have found Samuel in Gilgal in chap. xi. before making

him go there in chap. xiii. We have already seen xi. 12-14 to

be a later addition; the name of Samuel must be interpolated

in xi.7, too. In fact in xi. 15 the people, i.e., the army,

acts quite of itself even in our present text. Hence it follows

also, that x. 8, xiii. 7-15 are older than vii. viii. x. 17 seq.

xii.

-- Footnote

This insertion is based on an older account of the breach between

Samuel and Saul in 1Samuel xv. Here also the matter of dispute is

a sacrifice, and Gilgal is the scene; and this alone serves to

explain how Gilgal is adhered to in xiii. 7-15 in spite of all

impossibility, as being the right and necessary place for the

occurrence. Jehovah, by the mouth of Samuel, commands the king

to devote the Amalekites to destruction because of an act of

treachery they had committed against Israel in ancient times,

and to spare no living thing. Saul accordingly makes war on the

Amalekites and defeats them; but he does not carry out the

proscription entirely, as he spares the best of their cattle and

their king Agag, whom he takes prisoner. At Gilgal, where the

victory is celebrated before Jehovah, he is called to account for

this by Samuel, and states that he intended the booty for a

sacrifice to Jehovah. His statement, however, makes no

impression. "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to

hearken than the fat of rams: behold, rebellion is as the sin

of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim.

Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He also hath

rejected thee."

The king acknowledges his guilt, and tries to pacify Samuel;

but the latter turns from him in anger, and when Saul lays

hold of him, his mantle tears.

"Jehovah hath torn the kingdom of Israel from thee this day,

and given it to one better than thee; and the Truthful One of

Israel will not lie nor repent; for He is not a man, that He

should repent."

Yet at Saul's entreaty that he would at least not refuse

to honour him before the people, Samuel takes part in the

sacrifice, and even begins it by hewing Agag in pieces before

Jehovah. Then they part, never to see each other again; but

Samuel mourns for Saul, that Jehovah had repented of having made

him king over Israel. There is another narrative intimately

connected with this one in subject and treatment, thought and

expression, namely, that of the witch of Endor. When Saul, shortly

before the battle in which he fell, surveyed the hostile army, he

was seized with anxiety and terror. He inquired of Jehovah, but

received no answer, neither by dreams, nor by the ephod, nor by

prophets. In his extremity he was driven into the arms of a

black art which he had formerly persecuted and sought to

extirpate. By night and in disguise, with two companions, he

sought out a woman at Endor who practiced the raising of the dead,

and after reassuring her with regard to the mortal danger

connected with the practice of her art, he bade her call up

Samuel. She, on seeing the spirit ascending, at once perceives

that the man he had come up to converse with is the king himself;

she cries out loud, but allows herself to be reassured, and

describes the appearance of the dead person. Saul does not see

him, only hears him speak.

"Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? Jehovah doeth to

thee as He spake by me: He rends the kingdom out of thy hand,

and gives it to another, because thou obeyedst not the voice of

Jehovah, nor executedst His fierce wrath upon Amalek; to-morrow

shalt thou and thy sons be with me, and Jehovah also shall deliver

the host of Israel into the hands of the Philistines."

At these words Saul falls all his length on the ground. He had

eaten nothing all the day before and all night; he is with

difficulty induced to take some food: then he rises up with his

men to go and meet his fate (1 Samuel xxviii. 3-25).

Comparing with this original the copy in xiii. 7-15, we are

struck, in the first place, with the placing of the rupture so

much earlier. Scarcely is Saul made king when he is deposed, on

the spot, at Gilgal. And for what reason? Samuel has fixed, in

a purely arbitrary fashion, the time he is to wait, and Saul waits,

and makes arrangements for departure only when the time has run out,

although the need is pressing; and for this he is rejected! It is

clear that Samuel has from the first felt towards him as a

legitimate prince feels to a usurper; he has arranged so as to

find an occasion to show unmistakably where they both stand.

Strictly speaking he did not find the occasion, Saul having

observed the appointed time; but the opinion is present, though

unexpressed, that the king was not entitled to sacrifice, either

before the expiry of the seven days or at any time: his sacrificing

is regarded as sacrilege. And thus the autonomous theocracy stands

all at once before our eyes, which no one thought of before Ezekiel.

We are reminded of the stories of Joash and Uzziah in the Chronicles.

The incidents in 1Samuel xv. xxviii. are similar, but the spirit

of the narrative is different and more antique. The rejection does

not come here with such mad haste, and we do not get the impression

that Samuel is glad of the opportunity to wash his hands of the

king. On the contrary, he honours him before the people, he

mourns that Jehovah has rejected him; and Saul, who never again

sees him alive, turns to him dead in the hour of his extremity,

and does not regard him as his implacable enemy. Again, in the

former case the king's offence is that he has too low an estimate

of the sacredness of sacrifice, and fails to regard the altar as

unapproachable to the laity: while in the latter case he is

reproached with attaching. to sacrifice far too high a value. In

the former case, in fine, the Deity and the representative of the

Deity act with absolute caprice, confront men stiffly with

commands of incredible smallness, and challenge them to opposition;

in the latter, the conduct of Samuel is not (supposing it to have

been the custom to devote enemies to destruction) unintelligible,

nor his demeanour devoid of natural spirit; he appeals not to an

irresponsible position, but to the manifest truth that obedience

is better than the fat of rams.

Not that chapters xv. and xxviii. belong to the original growth of

the tradition. In the case of xxviii. 3-25 it is easy to show

the insertion: the thread of xxviii. 1, 2, coming from chapter

xxvii. is continued at xxix. 1. According to xxviii. 4 the

Philistines have advanced as far as Shunem in Jezreel; in xxix. 1

they are only at Aphek in Sharon, and they do not go on to

Jezreel till xxix. 11. To prove an insertion in the case of

chap. xv. we might point to the fact that there is a direct

connection between xiv. 52 and xvi. 14; but this must be proved

somewhat circumstantially. Let it suffice, then, to say that in

the preceding narrative of Saul's history, the war with the

Amalekites appears in quite a different light (ix. 1-X. 16, xi. xiii.

xiv.; cf. also Numbers xxiv. 7). The occasion of it, according to

xiv. 48, lay in the needs of the time, and the object was the

very practical one of "saving Israel out of the hands of them

that spoiled them." There is nothing here to suggest that the

campaign was undertaken in consequence of a religious command,

to punish the Amalekites for an offence over which long ages had

passed, and information about which could only be gathered from

historical books dealing with the age of Moses. Both the

narratives, chap. xv. as well as chap. xxviii, are preludes of

events afterwards to happen. At chap. xvi. David appears upon

the scene; he is thenceforth the principal person of the story,

and thrusts Saul on one side. Chapter xv. is the prophetic

introduction to this change. The fact had been handed down that

Saul was chosen by Jehovah to be king. How was it possible that in

spite of this his rule had no continuance? Jehovah, who as a rule

does not change His mind, was mistaken in him; and Samuel, who

called the king, had now to his great sorrow to pronounce the

sentence of rejection against him. The occasion on which he does

this is evidently historical, namely, the festival of victory

at Gilgal, at which the captured leader of the Amalekites was

offered up as the principal victim. The sacrifice of Agag being

quite repugnant to later custom, it was sought to account for it

by saying that Saul spared the king, but Jehovah required his

death, and caused him to be hewn in pieces at the altar by

Samuel. The rest could easily be spun out of this; it is

superfluous to discuss how. Chapter xxviii., again, is related to

chap. xv. as the second step to the first. No proof is wanted to

show that this is the prophetic shadow cast before the fall of

Saul in his last fight with the Philistines. His turning to the

witch to call up to him the departed Samuel suggests in the most

powerful way his condition of God-forsakenness since Samuel

turned away from him. And, to conclude-the general colouring of

the hostile relation between Saul and Samuel is borrowed from the

actual relations which must have come to subsist between the

prophets and the kings, particularly in the kingdom of Samaria (I

Kings xiv. 7). In their treatment of this relation our

narratives manifestly take up the prophetic position; and the

doctrinal ideas of which they are made the vehicles clearly

show them to be prophetic conceptions.