I & II Samuel. The Old Testament Library.
by A. Graeme Auld
Westminster John Knox, Louisville, 2011. 708 pp. $75. ISBN-13: 978-0-664-22105-8.
Most Old Testament introductions state that the author of 1 and 2 Chronicles used as his principal source the books of Samuel-Kings in their present shape, even if the Chronicler’s copy of Samuel-Kings had numerous readings that were different from the Masoretic Text. For some years Auld has turned that theory on its head and argued that the authors of Samuel-Kings, on the one hand, and Chronicles, on the other hand, drew on a common source. That source was much shorter, containing only those passages that are now in both Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. So the source began with the death of Saul (1 Sam 31:1-13//1 Chr 10:1-12) and lacked all of 1 Samuel 1-30 (the stories of Samuel, Saul’s kingship, and his rivalry with David). It also lacked almost all of 2 Samuel (2 Samuel 1-4; 9; 11:2-12:25; 13-20; 21:1-17; 22; 23:1-7). Auld calls this purported source “The Book of the Two Houses” (BTH), namely, the house of Yahweh [the temple] and the house of David [David’s royal descendants in Judah). This hypothetical source contained almost nothing about the Northern Kingdom.
1 Samuel 1-30 was added, according to this proposal, in stages. First came 1 Samuel 9-15 (Saul’s rise and rejection, though chs. 11-12 may be a later addition [p. 139]) and 1 Samuel 16-24 (the meeting of Saul and David and their worsening relationship). In subsequent phases editors added 1 Samuel 1-8 (the story of Samuel) and then 1 Samuel 25-30, 2 Sam 1-4, 20, and 1 Sam 19:20-24 and possibly all of 1 Samuel 20. While a few passages may show Deuteronomistic editing, Auld does not believe that BTH and/or 1 and 2 Samuel are part of a Deuteronomistic History extending from Joshua to Kings (p. 17).
Auld has defended the hypothesis of BTH as the common source of Samuel/Kings and Chronicles in a number of previous publications and now works out in detail how this affects the composition and meaning of the books of Samuel. Auld doubts that 1 Samuel 4-6 (the first part of the Ark Narrative) is historically valuable (p. 65) and believes that little if any of the story of David is historical (p. 193). The anti-monarchical views in 1 Sam 8:11-18 are also very late, and the description of Goliath’s armor is no earlier than the Persian period. His hypothesis also throws into question much of what Kings says historically about the Northern Kingdom. In Excursus 8 he proposes how the traditions about Joab, various women (Michal, Bathsheba, Tamar, the wise woman of Tekoa, and Abigail), and Jonathan developed. Auld does not frequently document his interaction with other studies on Samuel (p. xvii), but, of course, most of those studies have far different presuppositions than he has.
Auld’s starting point and style make for difficult reading, and his commentary will be of more interest to those dedicated to reconstructing how biblical books came together or to historians of Israel (calling much of the evidence into question) than to parish pastors or to other religious leaders. Auld pays close attention to the Hebrew and Greek texts of Samuel and the Dead Sea Scrolls in his literal translation and tries to represent the variant readings through the use of regular and italic typefaces and brackets, and this results in translations like the following (LXX is in italic font and MT in brackets): Cast [Attach] me [please] to one of your [the] priesthoods, to eat [a piece of] food (1 Sam 2:36). He chose a literal style of translating to reveal Hebrew rhetoric, but I often found the resulting translations awkward: For Holy there is not like Yahweh (1 Sam 2:2). Do not multiply speaking “Height, height” (1 Sam 2:3); And she many in sons mourns (1 Sam 2:5); There was no vision broken through (1 Sam 3:1); I kinged a king over you (1 Sam 12:1); And he let be the flock to a watcher (1 Sam 17:20).
This is not the place to develop a major argument against his theory of the Book of Two Houses as the source used by the authors of both Samuel/Kings and Chronicles, but permit me a few objections. Michal’s appearance in 2 Sam 6:16 in BTH is very problematical since according to the theory no part of her previous or subsequent story was included in BTH (1 Samuel 18-19; 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13-16; 2 Sam 6:20b-23). Why would BTH mention that this daughter of Saul—not the erstwhile wife of David--despised David? The omission in Chronicles of the passages listed in the parenthesis is understandable since they tie David to Saul through Michal whereas David’s kingship in Chronicles is the direct result of divine intervention (1 Chr 10:13-14), or they cast David in an unfavorable light (David forcefully breaks off Michal’s relationship to her husband Palti, and he is accused by Michal of improper dancing). The Chronicler’s citation of 2 Sam 6:16 in 1 Chr 15:19, however, fits his theological accusation that the house of Saul did not seek Yahweh (1 Chr 10:14) or the ark (1 Chr 13:3). Michal despises David precisely as he brings the ark into Jerusalem. I think the Chronicler presupposed that his readers knew the books of Samuel and Kings (contra Auld, p. 414). Auld’s proposal that the suggestiveness of 2 Sam 6:16 encouraged the authors of Samuel to develop the elaborate story about Michal seems desperate to me.
Second, the Chronicler moved the first part of the narrative of the ark’s procession to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11//1 Chr 13:5-14) ahead of the accounts of his building a palace, the list of his progeny, and his defeat of the Philistines (2 Sam 5:11-25//1 Chr 14:1-17), not because he was dependent on the hypothetical BTH, but because he wanted to make David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem his first royal action after his coronation and his capture of Jerusalem. As Sara Japhet has suggested, David’s accomplishments in 1 Chr 14:1-17 should be seen as rewards for his seeking the ark. Historically speaking, the sequence in Samuel is much more likely since David could not have moved the ark to Jerusalem before he had solved the Philistine threat. I question Auld’s assertion (p. 622) that Chronicles is the more conservative version of the story held in common.
Third, the Chronicler moved the account of David’s heroes (2 Sam 23:8-39) ahead to 1 Chr 11:11-41a, right after David’s coronation and capture of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:1-3, 6-10//1 Chr 11:1-9) as part of the impressive rallying to David of military heroes and tribal representatives that continues in 1 Chr 12:1-41 (40). The Chronicler’s addition of ch. 12 is an important clue to this strategy, as is his addition of 1 Chr 11:10: These are the heads of David’s warriors who gave him strong support in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of Yahweh concerning Israel (my translation).
While I disagree strongly with Auld’s approach (see also my commentary on 1 Samuel in the Word series and especially my commentaries on 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Hermeneia series), Auld is a major contemporary scholar, and this commentary breaks new ground on many passages, but it will also evoke many scholarly debates. Perhaps the most surprising assertion in this commentary is his treatment of 2 Sam 24:1 where Yahweh’s anger continued to burn against Israel and enticed David to number the people. The parallel verse in 1 Chr 21:1 states that Satan incited David to number Israel. The reading in Chronicles is usually understood as an attempt to exonerate Yahweh from directly leading David into sin. Auld proposes, however, that Satan is the original reading and that both Samuel and Chronicles blame David’s sinning on Yahweh or a divine agent.
Typos are rare, but Yahweh prays to Yahweh instead of David praying to Yahweh in the commentary on 2 Sam 7:25-29 (p. 425, n. 43). In the left hand column of the synoptic table (p. 10), read 11:9-41a for 11:10-41a; 13:5-14 for 13:1-14 and 15:25-16:3 for 15:1-16:3.
Ralph W. Klein
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
5