KINGS
650
KINGS
Although these passages often agree word for word, the
differences are such that the author of Parahpomenon,
the later writer, cannot be said to have copied from
I-II Ivings, and we must conclude that both authors
made use of the same document. This seems to have
been an official record of important pubhc events and
of matters pertaining to the administration, such as
was probably kept by the court " recorder " (II Ivings,
viii, 16; xx", 24), and is very likely the same as the
"Chronicles of Iving David"' (I Par., xxvii, 24). To
this document we may add three others mentioned in
I Par. (xxix, 29) as sources of information for the history of David, namely, the " Book of Samuel", the " Book of Gad ", and the " Book of Nathan ". These were works of the three Prophets, as we gather from
II Par., ix, 29; xii, 15; xx, 34, etc.; and our author would hardly neglect writings recommended by such names. Samuel very probably furnished the matter for Ills own history and for part of Saul's; Gad, David's companion in exile, the details of that part of David's life, as well as of his early days as king; and Nathan, information concerning the latter part, or even the whole, of his reign. Thus between them they would have fairly covered the period treated of, if, indeed, their narratives did not partially overlap. Besides these four documents other sources may occasionally have been used. A comparison of the passages of I-II Ivings and I Par. given in the hst above shows further that both writers frequently transferred their source to their own pages with but few changes; for, since one did not copy from the other, the agreement between them cannot be explained except on the sup- position that they more or less reproduce the same document. We have therefore reason to believe that our author followed the same course in other cases, but to what extent we have no means of determining.
The Critical Theory-. — According to recent crit- ics, I-II Kings is nothing but a compilation of different narratives so unskilfully combined that they may be separated with comparative ease. In spite of this comparative ease in distinguishing the different ele- ments, the critics are not agreed as to the number of sources, nor as to the particular source to which cer- tain passages are to be ascribed. At present the Well- hausen-Budde theory is accepted, at least in its main outUnes, by nearly the whole critical school. Accord- ing to this theory, II, ix-xx, forms one document, which is practically contemporary with the events described; the rest (excluding the appendix) is chiefly made up of two writings, an older one, J, of the ninth century, and a later one, E, of the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. They are designated J and E, because they are either due to the authors of the Jahwist and Elohist documents of the Hexateuch, or to writers belonging to the same schools. Both J and E underwent modifications by a revisor, J- and E- respectively, and after being welded together by a redactor, RJE, were edited by a writer of the Deuteronomic school, RD. After tliis redaction some further additions were made, among them the appendix. The different elements are thus divided by Budde: —
J.— I,ix, l-x,7,9-16;xi,l-ll,15;xiii,l-7a, 15b-18; xiv, 1^6, 52; xvi, 14-23; x\'iii, 5-6, 11, 20-30; xx, 1- 10, 18-39, 42b; xxii, 1-4, 6-18, 20-23; xxiii, l-14a; xxvi; xxvii; xxix-xxxi. II, i, 1-4, 11-12, 17-27; ii, 1-9, 10b, 12-32; iii; iv; v, 1-3, 6-10, 17-25; vi; Lx-xi; xii, 1-9, 13-31; xiii-xx, 22.
P.—l, x, 8; xiii, 7b-15a, 19-22.
E.— I, iv, Ib-vii, 1; xv, 2-34; xvii, 1-11, 14-58; xviii, 1^, 13-19; xix, 1, 4-6, 8-17; xxi, 1-9; xxii, 19; xxiii, 19-xxiv, 19; xxv; xxviii. II, i, 6-10, 13-16; vii.
E'.— I, i, 1-28; ii, ll-22a, 23-26; iii, 1-iv, la; vii, 2-viii, 22; X, 17-24; xii.
RJE.— I, X, 2.5-27; xi, 12-14; xv,l; xviii. 21b; xix, 2-3,7; XX, 11-17, 40-42a; xxii, 10b; xxiii, 14b-18; xxiv, 16, 20-22a. II, i, 5.
RD. — I, iv, 18 (last clause); vii, 2; xiii, 1; xiv, 47-
51; xxviii, 3. II, h, 10a, 11; v, 4-5; viii; xii, 10-12.
Additions of a later editor. — I, iv, 15, 22; vi, lib, 15, 17-19; xi, Sb; xv, 4; xxiv, 14; xxx, 5. II, iii, 30; V, 6b, 7b, 8b; xv, 24; xx, 23-26.
Latest additions. — I, ii, 1-10, 22b; xvi, 1-13; xvii, 12-13; xix, 18-24; xxi, 10-15; xxii, 5. II, xiv, 26; xxi-xxiv.
Tliis minute division, by which even short clauses are to a nicety apportioned to their proper sources, is based on the following grounds. (1) There are dupli- cate narratives giving a different or even a contra- dictory presentation of the same event. There are two accounts of Saul's election (I, viii, 1-xi), of his rejec- tion (xiii, 1-14 and xv), of his death (I, xxxi, 1 sqq., and II, i, 4 sqq.), of liis attempt to pierce David (I, xviii, 10-11, and xix, 9-10). "There are also two ac- counts of David's introduction to Saul (I, xvi, 14 sqq., and xvii, 55-58), of his flight from court (xix, 10 sqq., and xxi, 10), of his taking refuge with Achis (xxi, 10 sqq., and xxvii, 1 sqq.), of his sparing Saul's life (xxiv, and xxvi) . Lastly, there are two accounts of the origin of the proverb : "Is Saul too among the proph- ets?" (x, 12; xix, 24). Some of these double narratives are not only different but contradictory. In one ac- count of Saul's election the people demand a king, be- cause they are dissatisfied with the sons of Samuel; the prophet manifests great displeasure and tries to turn them from their purpose; he yields, however, and Saul is chosen by lot. In the other, Samuel shows no aver- sion to the kingdom; he privately anoints Saul at God's command that he may deliver Israel from the Philistines; Saul is proclaimed king only after, and in reward of, his victory over the Ammonite king, Naas. According to one version of Saul's deatli, lie killed him- self by falling on his sword; accoriling to the other, he was slain at his own request by an Amalecite. Again, in xvi, David, then arrived at full manhood and ex- perienced in warfare, is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour-bearer, and yet in the very next chapter he appears as a shepherd lad unused to arms and unknown both to Saul and to Abner. Moreover, there are statements at variance with one another. In I, vii, 13, it is stated that " the Phihstines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel ... all the days of Samuel"; while in ix, 16, Saul is elected king to dehver Israel from them, and in xiii a Philistine invasion is described. In I, vii, 15, Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life, though in his old age he delegated his powers to liis sons (viii, 1), and after the election of Saul solemnly laid down his office (xii) . Finally, in I, xv, 35, Samuel is said never to have seen Saul again, and yet in xix, 24, Saul appears before him. All this shows that two narratives, often differing in their presentation of the facts, have been combined, the differences in some cases being left unharmonized. (2) Certain passages present religious conceptions belonging to a later age, and must therefore be ascribed to a later writer, who viewed the events of past times in the light of the re- Hgious ideas of his own. A difference of literary style can also be detected in the different parts of the work. If all this were true, the theory of the critics would have to be admitted. In that case much of I-II Kings would have but httle historical value. The argument from the religious conceptions assumes the truth of Wellhausen's theory on the evolution of the religion of Israel; while that from literary style is re- duced to a list of words and expressions most of which must have been part of the current speech, and for this reason could not have been the exclusive property of any writer. The whole theory, therefore, rests on the argument from double narratives and contradic- tions. As this seems very plausible, and presents some real difficulties, it demands an examination.
Doublets and Contradictions. — .Some of the nar- ratives said to be doublets, while having a general re-
