COVENANT RENEWAL
AT GILGAL
A Study of I
Samuel 11:14-12:25
J. ROBERT VANNOY
MACK PUBLISHING
COMPANY
Digitized
by Ted Hildebrandt in appreciation to author, who, as my former
professor, opened my understanding
to the Old Testament.
For of him, and through
him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory
for ever. Amen.
Romans 11:36
To my
mother
Margaret B.
Vannoy
In memory of my father
Wesley G.
Vannoy
February 28, 1900—September
3, 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGM
NTS xi
INTRODUCTION
1
PART I
TRANSLATION
WITH EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25
WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS
ON
JURIDICAL
AND COVENANT TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS
I.
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 12:1-25 9
II.
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 11:14-15 61
PART
II
LITERARY CRITICAL AND GENRE-HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS OF I SAMUEL
11:14-12:25
III.
I SAMUEL 11: 4-12:25 AS A COMPOSITE UNIT 95
Section 1. A Survey of the Literary
Criticism of I Samuel
11:14-12:2 95
A. I Samuel 12:1-25 96
1. I Samuel 12 as an
original unity 98
a. I Samuel
12 as a reliable historical record 98
1)
Representatives of "conservative biblical
scholarship" 98
2)
E. Robertson 99
b. Samuel 12
as the composition of a "deutero-
omistic historian" 100
1)
J. Wellhausen 100
2)
H. P. Smith 100
3)
M. Noth (H. J. Boecker) 101
4)
R. H. Pfeiffer 102
c. Samuel 12 as an independent tradition unit 103
1)
H. Gressman 103
2)
A. Weiser 103
2. I Samuel 12 as an
original unit modified by
redactional reworking 104
a. K. Budde 104
b. S. R.
Driver 105
c. O.
Eissfeldt 106
d. G. B.
Caird 106
e. M. Buber 106
f. G. Wallis
108
g. B. C.
Birch 109
h. N. Gottwald
110
i. H. J. Stoebe 111
3. I Samuel 12 as a
composite of disparate material 112
a.
vi Table
of Contents
b. H.
Seebass 113
4. Provisional
conclusion 114
B. I SAMUEL 11:14-15 114
1. I Samuel 11:14 as a
redactional introduction to I
Samuel 11:14 115
a. Entirety
of I Samuel 11:12-14 as redactional 115
1)
J. Welihausen 115
2)
H. P. Smith 115
3)
H. Gressman 116
4)
H. Wildberger 117
5)
G. Wallis 118
b. The phrase
''renew the kingdom" (v. 14) as
redactional 119
1)
S. R. Driver 119
2)
R. Press 119
3)
K. Möhlenbrink 119
4)
M. Noth 120
5)
A. Weiser 120
6)
H. W. Hertzberg 121
2. I Samuel 11:12-14
(15) as a part of an originally
separate tradition 121
a. Th. C.
Vriezim 121
b. H.
Seebass 122
c
d. H. J.
Stoebe 124
e. E.
Robertson 125
3. Provisional
conclusion 126
Section 2. The Structure of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 127
A. The Relationship of I Samuel
11:14-15 to I Samuel
12:1-25 127
B. Structural Elements of I Samuel
12:1-25 131
IV.
THE COVENANT FORM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND
I
SAMUEL 11:14-12:25 132
Section 1. The Covenant Form in the Old
Testament 132
A. The Covenant-Treaty Analogy 132
B. Characteristic Features of the
Old Testament
Covenant Form 138
C. Extent and Variety of Utilization
of the Old
Testament Covenant Form 142
D. Sitz im Leben of the Old Testament Covenant
Form; Historical Implications of Its Presence 144
1. The nature of the
covenant form and its
origin—cultic or historical? 146
2. The evolution of the
treaty form and its
implications for the date of the book of
Deuteronomy 150
Table of
Contents
vii
a. The vassal
treaties of Esarhaddon compared
with the Hittite suzerainty treaties 151
1)
Absence of a historical prologue 151
2)
Absence of a Grundsatzerklarung 152
3)
Absence of blessings 153
4)
Conclusion 153
b. The Aramaic
treaties from Sefire compared
with the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and
with the Hittite suzerainty treaties 154
1)
Similarities of the Sefire treaties to the
2)
Similarities of the Sefire treaties to the
Hittite treaties 155
3)
Conclusion 156
c.
Implications of the treaty-covenant analogy 156
for the date of Deuteronomy
Section
2. The Covenant Form in I Samuel 11:14-12:25
A. Characteristic Features of the Covenant
Form in
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 160
1. Appeal to antecedent
history (I Sam. 12:6-12) 161
2. The challenge to the
basic covenantal obligation
of undivided allegiance to Yahweh
introduced by
the transitional "and now" (I
Sam. 12:13a, 14a,
15a, 20-21, 24) 164
3. Blessing and curse
sanctions (I Sam. 12:14b, 15b,
25) 167
4. Theophanic sign (I
Sam. 12:16-18a) 168
B. Implications of the Covenant Form
in I Samuel
11:1 -12:25 for its Interpretation and Unity 169
1. Implications for its
Interpretation 169
a.
Elucidation of the covenantal character and
purposes of the Gilgal assembly 170
b.
Elucidation of the covenantal background for
various statements and terms occurring in
I Samuel 11:14-12:25 179
1)
"Renew the kingdom" (I Sam. 11:14) 179
2)
(I Sam. 12:17, 20) 179
3)
"Peace offerings" (I Sam. 11:15);
"righteous acts of Yahweh" (I
Sam. 12:7);
"good and right way" (I Sam.
12:23) 182
2. Implications of the
covenant form of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 for its unity 184
a.
Clarification of the relationship between
I Sam. 11:14-15 and I Sam. 12:1-15 184
b. The
covenant form and the structural integrity
of I Samuel 12 185
viii Table of
Contents
1)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as an original unity
modified by redactional reworking 185
2)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as a composite of
disparate material 188
3)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as an independent
tradition unit 188
4)
Implications of the covenant form for
viewing I Samuel 12 as the composition of
a "deuteronomistic historian" 189
APPENDIX
192
V.
THE LITERARY CRITICISM OF I SAMUEL 8-12 IN THE
LIGHT OF THE COVENANTAL CHARACTER OF
I SAMUEL 11:14-12:25 197
Section 1. A Survey of the History of
Criticism of I Samuel
8-12 198
A. The Documentary-Source Approach 198
1. J. Wellhausen 198
2. K. Budde 199
3. H. P. Smith 200
4. S. R. Driver 201
5. O. Eissfeldt 201
B. The Fragmentary Approach 203
1. H. Gressmann 203
2. M. Noth 205
3. H. J. Boecker 207
C. The Tradition-History Approach 209
1. W. Caspari 209
2. Th. C. Vriezen 210
3. A. Weiser 211
4. B. C. Birch 216
5. H. J. Stoebe 217
6. D. J. McCarthy 219
D. The Approach of
"Conservative Biblical Scholarship" 223
Section 2. An Assessment of the Criticism
of I Samuel 8-12
in the Light of the Covenantal
Character of I Samuel
11:14-12:25 225
A. The Ambivalent Attitude Toward
Kingship in the
Narratives of I Samuel 8-12 in the Light of the
Covenantal Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 227
B. The Narrative Sequence of I
Samuel 8-12 in the Light
of the Covenantal Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 232
Table of
Contents ix
C. "Deuteronomic
Influence" in the Narratives of
I Samuel 8-12 in the Light of the Covenantal
Character of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 235
D. Concluding Remarks 239
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
ABBREVIATIONS 241
BIBLIOGRAPHY
245
SUMMARY 259
TRANSLATIONS 262
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with praise to God for his
enablement and thanks to
many
individuals for their encouragement and assistance that
this
study is published.
The writer is particularly grateful
to Prof. Dr. Nic. H.
Ridderbos
for his example of careful scholarship, and the
readiness
with which he gave generously of his time and
expertise
in the supervision of the writing of this dissertation.
This
writer has benefited in more ways than can be enumer-
ated
here from the tutelage of Prof. Ridderbos. I also express
my
appreciation to Dr. Allan A. MacRae, President and Prof.
of
Old Testament at Biblical
to
me in biblical studies, initially as one of his students and in
more
recent years as a colleague and friend.
Thanks is also extended to the
trustees of Biblical School
of
Theology whose grant of a sabbatical leave during the
1973-1974
school year enabled significant progress to be
made
in the research and writing of this work. Particular
acknowledgment
is due Prof. Thomas V.
teaching
responsibilities during my absence.
Many others have helped with this
effort in a variety of
ways
contributing significantly to its completion. Thanks are
extended
to Mrs. William Taylor, typing; Dr. Perry Phillips,
proof
reading, checking citations; Mrs. James Pakala, proof
reading;
Mrs. Blair Ribeca, proof reading; my wife, Kathe,
proof
reading.
Finally, I express appreciation to
my family for their
encouragement,
patience, and assistance during the time of
the
preparation of this study. It is not possible to convey in a
xi
xii Acknowledgments
few
words the deep debt which I owe to my parents for their
support
through many years of educational pursuits and for
their
godly life and example. To my wife, Kathe, and our
children,
Anna, Robert, Mark, and Jonathan, I express my
appreciation
for their patience during the many hours that
this
study took from other activities in which they could also
be
actively involved.
I
Chronicles 29:11-13
INTRODUCTION
There
are few sections in the Old Testament which have been
the
object of more literary critical assessment than the narra-
tives
which decribe the rise of the monarchy in
tained
in I Samuel 8-12. During the first half of the 20th
century
these chapters were often pointed to by advocates of
the
documentary approach to the Old Testament as a show-
case
example for the combination of two contradictory
sources
(one considered to be early and pro-monarchial, and
the
other considered to be late and anti-monarchial) into a
composite
and historically dubious narrative sequence. The
result
of this approach was the obscuration of the historical
setting
for the rise of kingship which in turn contributed to
the
creation of many difficulties in evaluating the role of
kingship
in ancient
cance.
It is inevitably the case that the question of origin has
implications
for understanding the nature of a given phe-
nomenon
as well as for assessing the course of its develop-
ment.
This is especially true with regard to kingship in
When
one considers the prominence which the notion of
kingship
assumes in connection with the Messianic theme in
the
Old Testament, it is certainly of great importance to
understand
the circumstances and conceptual considerations
which
were associated with the origin of the institution. Was
kingship
an aberration from the legitimate form of rule for
the
theocracy according to the Sinai covenant? Is kingship as
conceived
under David properly understood as a rejection of
the
covenant-kingship of Yahweh and in fundamental anti-
thesis
with it? Questions such as these with their many
implications
are inseparably related to the matter of how one
understands
I Samuel 8-12 which describes the events asso-
ciated
with the establishment of the monarchy. For this
2 Introduction
reason
the interpretation of these chapters is of great impor-
tance
for understanding one of the central themes of the Old
Testament.
It has generally been the case that
I Samuel 11:14-12:25
has
been granted little or no place in attempts by critical
scholars
to assess the historical situation in which Israelite
kingship
was established. This is largely due to the fact that
I
Samuel 11:14-12:25 has generally been regarded as a late
and
historically untrustworthy appendage to the preceding
narratives
of I Samuel 8-12. Even from the standpoint of
conservative
biblical scholarship, which has recognized the
historical
trustworthiness of I Samuel 12, it has generally been
treated
merely as Samuel's farewell address at the time of
Saul's
inauguration to be king and little further of signifi-
cance
has been attached to the events described in the chap-
ter.
It is our contention, however, that neither of these
approaches
do justice to the content and importance of this
passage,
and that instead of a relatively insignificant appen-
dage
to the preceding narratives, one here encounters the
climax
to the narrative sequence of I Samuel 8-12 in which
the
key to the interpretation of this section of I Samuel is
found.
It is also here that a perspective is found in which the
pro
and anti monarchial tension which has so often been
pointed
to in these chapters is to be understood. I Samuel
11:14-12:25
is thus to be regarded as a vitally important
passage
which is of great significance for understanding the
concept
of kingship in
and
also for delineating the relationship which existed be-
tween
human kingship and Yahweh's kingship.
In the discussion which follows it
is our purpose to
demonstrate
by exegetical, literary critical, and form critical
analysis
that many features of I Samuel 11:14-12:25 strong-
ly
indicate that the assembly which is here described is
properly
understood as a covenant renewal ceremony, and
that
there is good reason to view this ceremony as an his-
torically
appropriate if not necessary event at this particular
Introduction
3
juncture
in
newal
of the covenant here described served a dual purpose.
First,
it served to restore the covenant relationship between
Yahweh
and his people after the people had abrogated the
covenant
by their sin in asking for a king "as the nations."
And
secondly, it provided a means for instituting the era of
the
monarchy in
the
suzerainty of Yahweh was in no way diminished by the
establishment
of kingship. It was Samuel's purpose, there-
fore,
in calling for the assembly to provide for covenant
continuity
through a period of major restructuring of the
theocracy.
In our study of I Samuel
11:14-12:25, Chapters I and II
will
be given to the translation and exegesis of I Samuel 12
and
I Samuel 11:14-15 in that order. Chapter III will assess
these
same two units from a literary critical standpoint.
Chapter
IV will discuss the "covenant form" in the Old
Testament
and then investigate the implications which this
form
may have for the interpretation and unity of I Samuel
11:14-12:25.
Chapter V will utilize the covenantal perspec-
tive
found in I Samuel 11:14-12:25 for the assessment of the
literary
criticism of I Samuel 8-12, and particularly for sug-
gesting
a means for resolving the pro and anti monarchial
tension
which has so often been pointed to in this section of
I
Samuel.
A few additional words of comment
concerning organiza-
tion
are in order at this point. First, as has already been
indicated
we have chosen to place the exegetical and literary
critical
discussion of I Samuel 12 before that of I Samuel
11:14-15.
The reason for this is that I Samuel 12 in our view
provides
the basis for understanding I Samuel 11:14-15 as a
brief
synopsis of the Gilgal assembly prefaced to the narrative
of
I Samuel 12, which we take to be a more detailed descrip-
tion
of the same assembly. Our exegesis of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
has no pretensions of providing a more or less com-
plete
exegesis. We have delved more deeply into only those
4 Introduction
points
which were considered of particular importance for
the
purposes of this study.
Secondly, the survey of the history
of the literary criti-
cism
of I Samuel 12 and I Samuel 11:14-15 precedes that of
the
larger section of the book (I Samuel 8-12) for which they
form
the concluding segment because our primary interest is
in
these two units, and we have chosen to take them as the
starting
point for our assessment of the larger section. This,
however,
requires some overlap between Chapters III and V
because
in certain instances it has been necessary to give a
general
orientation to the criticism of the entire section
(I
Samuel 8-12) in Chapter III in order to adequately de-
scribe
the approach a given author has taken to the literary
criticism
of I Samuel 12 and I Samuel 11:14-15. For this
reason
the standpoint of certain authors is given three or four
times.
This occurs from a different perspective in each case,
although
of necessity some degree of repetition is involved.
This,
of course, has its objections, but I hope that the
advantages
will outweigh the disadvantages for the one who
reads
or consults the book.
Thirdly, the greatest difficulty was
caused by the struc-
turing
of Chapter IV. On the one hand, the issues which are
under
discussion in this chapter are of very great significance
for
our topic. On the other hand, such issues as the occur-
rence
of the "covenant form" in the Old Testament, the origin
of
the form, the significance of the form for the dating of
Deuteronomy,
etc., are such broad matters that it is impossi-
be
to handle them satisfactorily in the scope of this disserta-
tion.
Let me make three remarks in this connection. 1) This
is
not the first time that something has been written on these
issues.
I have included a rather large number of references to
pertinent
literature, particularly that which in my opinion
points
in the right direction, although without ignoring litera-
ture
in which other standpoints are defended. 2) Matters that
are
of particular importance for my subject I have discussed
in
more detail. 3) The discussion of the covenant form in the
Introduction
5
Old
Testament, Chapter IV, Section 1, does not, of course,
stand
by itself; it is an introduction to Chapter IV, Section 2
and
to Chapter V. The discussion in Chapter IV, Section 1
depends
to a great extent on the work of M. Kline (and
others,
such as K. A. Kitchen). I have tried to utilize the
model
which Kline has constructed in analyzing I Samuel 12,
I
Samuel 8-12. If some new light is thrown on these per-
copes
in this way, that in turn can argue that Kline has
constructed
his model correctly.
Fourthly, Chapter V is chiefly
concerned with the impli-
cations
which the covenantal character of I Samuel 11:14-
12:25
may have for the literary critical assessment of I Sam-
uel
8-12. It is not our purpose, in this chapter, to discuss
literary
critical matters which are not closely related to the
covenantal
perspective provided by I Samuel 11:14-12:15. It
is our position that the tensions and
irregularities between
various
segments of I Samuel 8-12 which have been pointed
out
and discussed by many, are not of a sort which requires
one
to conclude that contradictory sources have been linked
together
in this section of I Samuel. Where such matters have
been
raised in connection with specific statements in I Sam-
uel
11:14-12:2 on which the covenant form has no particu-
lar
bearing, they are discussed in our exegetical discussions of
Chapters
I and II.
PART I
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL
11:14-12:25 WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON
JURIDICAL
AND COVENANT TERMINOLOGY AND
CONCEPTS
I
TRANSLATION
AND EXEGESIS OF I SAMUEL 12:1-25
I Sam. 12:1. And Samuel said to all
your
voice1 in all which you said to me, and I have placed a king over
you.
The absence of a time or place
designation at the begin-
ning
of I Samuel 12 is an indication that it is intended to be
understood
as related to the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal
which
was briefly summarized in the last two verses of
I
Samuel 11. See further Chapter III, Sections 1 and 2 A.
Samuel's statement to the Gilgal
assembly makes refer-
ence
to what had transpired at two previous gatherings, one
in
Ramah (I Sam. 8:4, 5, 19-22) and the other in Mizpah
(I
Sam. 10:17-27). At Ramah the elders of
Samuel
and requested him to appoint them, "a king for us to
judge,
us like all the nations" (I Sam. 8:5).2 Even though
Samuel
warned them that a king as the nations round about
would
be a burden rather than a blessing (I Sam. 8:10-18),3
1. For the use of lvqb
fmw in the
sense of "yield to" or "obey" a request
or
entreaty see: BDB and KBL, s.v. fmw; cf. vv. 14, 15 below.
2. Bible quotations in most
instances are from the New American
Standard
Bible (New York: 1963), with
the modification that Yahweh has been used in
place
of LORD for the designation of the name of
it
has been necessary to deviate from the NASB,
I have given my own translation.
3. There is no need to assume that
the description of the "manner of the
king"
contained in I Sam. 8:11-18 represents a late source expressing the bad
experience
that
maintained.
See, e.g.: H. P. Smith, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: 1899)
55; G. Caird, "Introduction and
Exegesis
of I-II Samuel," IB, II (
History of
on
the basis of texts from Alalakh and
of
the city-state kings of Canaanite society from the 18th to 13th centuries B.C.,
9
10 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
the
elders nevertheless insisted that they wanted a king
(I
Sam. 8:19), and Yahweh instructed Samuel to acquiesce to
their
request and, "appoint them a king" (I Sam. 8:22).
Subsequent
to this, Yahweh made Saul known to Samuel as
he
sought his father's stray asses, and after a private anoint-
ing,
and the giving of signs to demonstrate to Saul that the
anointing
was truly of Yahweh (I Sam. 9:1-10:16), Samuel
called
all the people together to Mizpah (I Sam. 10:17-27)
for
a public designation by Yahweh of the man who was to
be
their king. After the lot had fallen on Saul, Samuel
addressed
the Mizpah assembly and said, "Do you see him
whom
Yahweh has chosen? Surely there is no one like him
among
all the people.’ So all the people shouted and said,
‘Long
live the king!’ Then Samuel told the people the manner
of
the kingdom and wrote it in a book and placed it before
Yahweh
. . ." (I Sam. 10:24, 25).
Now at the gathering in Gilgal,
which had been called by
Samuel
to "renew the kingdom" after Yahweh had given
victory
in battle over the Ammonites under Saul's leadership,
Samuel
had led the people in the formal inauguration of the
reign
of Saul (I Sam. 11:15a, "they made Saul king before
Yahweh
in Gilgal").4 This having been accomplished, he now
presents
the newly inaugurated king to the people, and says
that
he has done what they had requested (I Samuel 8,
Ramah),
and has placed a king over them (I Sam. 10:17-27,
Mizpah;
I Sam. 11:15a, Gilgal).
see,
I. Mendelsohn, "Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of Akkadian
Documents
from
concludes,
"In view of the evidence from the Akkadian texts from
obvious
that the Samuel summary of 'the manner of the king' does not constitute
‘a
rewriting of history’ by a late opponent of kingship, but represents an
eloquent
appeal
to the people by a contemporary of Saul not to impose upon themselves a
Canaanite
institution alien to their own way of life." See further below, Chap-
ter
V, Section 2,A.
4. For discussion of when the
inauguration of Saul took place, see below,
Chapter
II.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 11
I Sam. 12:2. And now,5 behold, the king shall
walk6 before you; as for
me,
I have become old and grey headed, and behold, my sons are with
you;
and I have walked before you from my youth until this day.
With the twofold ynx and the double use of
Hithpael
forms
of the Verb jlh for both himself and the newly
inaugurated
king,7 Samuel draws attention to the transition
in
leadership which was being formally implemented at the
Gilgal
assembly. Just as Samuel had lived openly before the
people
for an entire lifetime, in the performance of a variety
of
public functions in the service of Yahweh, so now the king
is
to assume his public responsibilities under the guidelines
which
Samuel had previously explained to the king and the
people
at Mizpah (I Sam. 10:25).
In his introduction of the king
Samuel makes allusion to
his
own advanced age, and to the presence of his sons among
the
people.8 His age and his sons had both been cited by the
5. On the various uses of htfv see H. A. Brongers,
"Bemerkungen zum
Gebrauch
des Adverbialen We'ATTAH
im Alten Testament," VT 15 (1965)
289-299;
and A. Laurentin, "Weattah-Kai nun.
Formule caracteristique des textes
juridiques et liturgiques," Bib 45 (1964) 168-195. htfv is used to mark important
transitions
at three places in I Samuel 12: vv. 2, 7, 13 (16 [htf-Mg]). It marks a
secondary
transition in v. 10, where it is used in Samuel's resume of Yahweh's
righteous
acts. See further below, Chapter IV, Section 2,A,2.
6. GK §116 a.
7. In BDB (s.v.) this use of jlhth is defined as,
"fig. walk about=live; the
king
before (ynpl)
his people I S 12:2, so of Samuel v. 2." S. R. Driver (Notes on
the Hebrew Text and the
Topography of the Books of Samuel [
38)
comments: "To walk before any
one is to live and move openly before him;
esp.
in such a way as a) to deserve, and consequently b) to enjoy his approval and
favour."
Smith (Samuel, ICC, 83) cites Num.
27:16 f. and comments: "the king is
thought
of as a shepherd walking before his flock." See further: G. Sauer, THAT,
I,
491 f. on jlh.
8. Some commentators have questioned
whether the expression, "I have
become
old and grey headed, and behold my sons are with you" is to be
considered
original. See for example: K. Budde, Die
Bucher Samuel (KHC 8;
Prophetie
evidence
for eliminating this segment of the verse, and the allusion to Samuel's
age
and his sons does have relevance to the matters of concern at the Gilgal
assembly.
It is also not necessary to assume as does Caird (IB, II, 941) that, "the
author
must have forgotten their [the sons] misdemeanors, or he would not have
committed
the blunder of mentioning them at the very moment when Samuel is
protesting
his innocence from the crimes of which they had been accused."
12 Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25
elders
as reasons for their initial request for a king at Ramah
(I
Sam. 8:5). Samuel alludes to these matters here, however,
in
neutral terms, indicating neither acceptance nor rejection
of
their legitimacy as a basis for the establishment of king-
ship.9 It was nevertheless,
clear to all, that Samuel did not
have
many more years to continue to give guidance and
counsel
to the nation, and the people were well aware of the
unfitness
of his sons to carry on in his place.
I Sam. 12:3. Here I am; testify
against me10 in the sight of Yahweh and
in
the sight of his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose ass have I
taken?
Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from
whose
hand have I taken a bribe11 to pervert justice?12 And I will repay
you.
9. It seems that for the people
Samuel's age and the conduct of his sons
provided
a convenient occasion for their request for a king. Their real desire,
however,
particularly in the face of the Philistine and Ammonite threats to their
borders,
was for a "king as the nations" round about to lead them in battle
and
bring
them deliverance (see especially I Sam. 8:20). The narratives of I Samuel
8-12
make it clear that the request for a king involved a rejection of the kingship
of
Yahweh (I Sam. 8:7; 10:19; 12:12, 19). The people were seeking a national
hero,
a symbol of national power and unity, and a guarantee of security which they
thought
they could find in the person of a human king. See further the exegesis of
I
Sam. 12:12 below, and A. A. Koolhaas, Theocratie
en Monarchie in
(Wageningen:
1957) 53-57.
10. For the use of hnf in the technical sense
of responding as a witness or
testifying
(with 2 of pers. usually meaning against) see BDB, s.v.l, 3. See also the
discussion
of H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des
Rechtslebens im Alten Testament
(WMANT
14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1964) 103.
11. rpk is usually used in the
sense of ransom for a forfeited life (Ex. 21:30;
N
m. 35:31, 32). J. Herrmann, ("i[lasmo<j," TDNT, III, 303) says of its use in
I
Sam. 12:3 that the, "context leaves it uncertain whether he [Samuel] means
an
expiatory
ransom for a forfeited life, but there is nothing to rule out this view.
The
same is true in Amos 5:12." In a similar vein Driver (Notes, 89) says,
"In
Amos
5:12 the nobles of
uniform
usage of the word, it follows that what Samuel here repudiates is that he
has
ever as judge taken a money payment on condition of acquitting a murderer
brought
before him for justice." According to KBL (s.v. IV) rpk has in I Sam.
12:3,
Amos 5:12, and Prov. 6:35 (where it parallels rHw, cf. also I Sam. 8:3
for
7
), however, a broader meaning: "hush-money" in general, so also,
e.g., H. J.
Stoebe
(Das erste Buch Samuelis [KAT VIII/I;
position
appears preferable to me. There is insufficient basis for the restriction in
meaning
indicated by Herrmann and Driver.
12. a) Literally, "so that I
would have covered my eyes with it." On the use
of
the imperfect here, see GK § 107r.
Note also the statement in I Sam. 8:3 which
indicates
that Samuel's sons were guilty of this very offense.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 13
Samuel now proceeds to draw
attention to his own past
leadership
over the people. He does this by putting himself as
b) There is a variant reading for
this phrase found in the LXXAB, the
Old
Latin Version, and confirmed in the paraphrase of Ben Sira (49:19). The
LXX
version reads, kai> u[po<dhma; a]pokri<qhte
kat ] e]mou?, . . . which
presupposes a
Hebrew
text reading, yb vnf Mylfnv (utilizing the Hebrew
dual form of lfn
for
a pair of shoes, cf., the Greek u[podhma<twn of Ben Sira). The
resulting
translation,
". . . (oil from whose hand have I taken a bribe) and a pair of shoes?
Testify
against me (and I will return it to you)," may appear to make little
sense.
See,
however, the discussion of this phrase by
BASOR 77 (1940) 15-20.
Speiser points out that the difference between the MT
and
the reconstructed Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX is only the differ-
ence
between an x and n (provided the comparison
is on the basis of a purely
consonantal
text). The question which naturally arises with the LXX rendering,
however,
is why would a shoe be used in connection with a bribe? Smith (Samuel,
ICC,
85), supported by Driver (Notes, 89) understands the expression as repre-
sentative
of a bribe that would be something very insignificant, even something of
as
little worth as a pair of shoes, but says that then one would expect the Hebrew
to
read either Mylfn Mg or Mylfnv Jxv. Both Smith and Driver
feel that rpk
and
Mylfn do not agree well together, and that it
is questionable whether a pair of
shoes
is a likely bribe for a judge. They thus favor retention of the reading of the
MT.
Speiser, however, maintains on the
basis of a similar mentioning of shoes as
legal
symbols in two Nuzi texts that the shoes here are not to be understood
simply
in the sense of something of little worth, but rather, as in the Nuzi texts,
in
the sense of, "token payments to validate special transactions by lending
them
the
appearance of normal business practice." Speiser finds similar usages in
the
OT
in Ruth 4:7, Amos 2:6, and 8:6. His conclusion regarding Samuel's remark in
I
Sam. 12:3 is that, "in his capacity as judge he had never accepted bribes
or
gratuities
from any litigant; what is more, he had had nothing to do with cases
where
the law could be circumvented through some technicality." On the basis
that
the more difficult reading deserves preference in matters of textual criticism,
Speiser,
with this "outside support" favors the LXX version. While Speiser's
argument
is interesting, and may well be the key to understanding the LXX
version,
the argument of Smith and Driver that one would expect something other
than
simple I remains valid.
For another approach to this problem
see: R. Gordis, "Na'alam and other
observations
on the Ain Feshka Scrolls," JNES
9 (1950) 44-47. Gordis maintains
that
in spite of Speiser's proposal, Driver's objections are still valid. He then
proposes
another solution, namely that the word in question is a Hebrew noun
MlAfEna, (otherwise unknown) meaning literally
"concealing substance" or bribe,
which
is then a synonym for rpk. He translates the phrase, "From whose
hand
have
I taken ransom-money or a bribe; testify against me." His proposal is
based
on
the Hebrew Genizah text of Ben Sira which reads: yGhpl ymm
Mlfnv rpvk.
Gordis
says, "Unfortunately, scholars have emended it to read kopher vena
‘alayim, 'ransom and shoes,' to
conform with the Greek, ignoring the independent
testimony
of the Syriac suhada wekurbhana, 'bribe and offering.' This latter
rendering
clearly presupposes a noun, probably MlAfEna: (or MlAfAna) synonymous
with
kopher."
14 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
it
were on trial, and requesting legal testimony from anyone
who
could point to some irregularity or injustice in his own
previous
leadership of the nation.
This testimony is to be given before
Yahweh and before
the
newly chosen king, who as king has now become the
chief
judicial officer in the land.13 Samuel's referring to
the
king
as Yahweh's anointed,14 as well as granting to him the
In conclusion, it can be said that
because of the indecisiveness of the
available
evidence, it is not possible to give strong
preference to any one of these
three
alternatives for the best reading of the text.
With regard to the words yb
vnf, while
they may have fallen out after
vb yvyf because of their close similarity as is
suggested by Driver (Notes, 89), it
would
seem better to follow the MT unless one chooses to adopt the entire LXX
rendering,
since the is not necessary for the sense of the verse. Note,
however,
that both the RS V and
(yb
vnf ) into
their translation, but exclude "and a shoe" ( Mylfnv).
13. Indications of the function of
the king as judge are found in the time of
David
(II Sam. 15:1-6), and in the time of Solomon (I Kings 3:16, 28; and 7:7).
From
these and other references it appears that legal cases could either be
appealed
to the king from local jurisdiction, or in some cases be brought directly
to
the king. For discussion of the legislative and judicial powers of the king in
152-166.
14. This is the first time in the OT
(apart from the references of I Sam.
2:10,
35) that the king of
(Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament and
im Alten Orient [BZAW 87;
by
representatives of the people, and the idea of anointing by Yahweh through his
representative
represents a late "theologumenon," and thus the stories that utilize
the
expression "the anointed of Yahweh" in I Samuel in connection with
Saul and
David
are late, and not historically reliable. For a variation of this view see R.
Knierim,
"The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel," in Jesus and the
Historian, ed. F. T. Trotter (
anointment
by the people was the original practice and suggests that the reference
to
the anointing of Saul through the people as contained in the LXX version of
I
Sam. 11:15 has been displaced in favor of a later "prophetic view" of
Saul's
anointing
from Yahweh through Samuel his prophet. Knierim's view is adopted
and
elaborated on by B. C. Birch, "The Development of the Tradition on the
Anointing
of Saul in I Sam. 9:1-10:16," JBL
90 (1971) 55-68. This notion,
however,
has rightly been questioned by J. Scharbert in his review of Kutsch's
work
(BZ 9 [1965] 103, 104). Scharbert
says, "Auch die Vorstellung von einer
Salbung
des Königs durch Jahwe bzw einen Gottesmann dürfte kein blosses
Theologumenon
sein, sondern in einem sakralen, tatsächlich geübten Ritus ihre
Grundlage
haben." He says, further; "Wenn Könige in Juda durch das Volk oder
durch
dessen Vertreter gesalbt wurden, schliesst das weder die Mitwirkung von
Gottesmannern
noch die Vorstellung aus, dass der Konig als von Jahwe gesalbt
gilt."
For further discussion of the phrase "the anointed of Yahweh" and its
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 15
function
of the highest tribunal in the land reflects his
positive
disposition toward the king and kingship, now that
Saul
has been installed and is assuming his new responsibili-
ties.
The brief formula by which Samuel
elicits either his own
indictment
or exoneration touches on several major types of
misdemeanors
which frequently are characteristic of the
abuse
of power by public officials.
He first asks whose ox or whose ass
he had taken. These
two
animals were probably the most important domestic
animals
for the Israelite.15 Because of their importance it was
not
uncommon for them to be stolen, and accordingly this
was
specifically prohibited in the Pentateuch not only in the
general
terms of the apodictic laws, "You shall not steal"
(Ex.
20:15), and "you shall not covet your neighbor's . . . ox,
or
his ass or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex.
20:17,
cf. Deut. 5:21), but also in the specific terms of the
case
laws of Exodus 21:37 (22:1); 22:3, 8 (22:4, 9).
It is striking that Moses defended
the integrity of his
leadership
of the nation in a similar manner when he said to
Yahweh
at the time of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram,
"Do
not regard their offering! I have not taken a single ass
significance
see the, essay by R. de Vaux "The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,"
in
The Bible and the Ancient Near East
(New York: 1971) 152-166.
Apart from the above question it is
certainly noteworthy, however, that
Samuel
in addressing the assembly speaks of Saul as the "anointed of Yahweh"
as
if
this was something which was known to the people. How is this to be
explained?
Had he previously told them the story of chapters 9 and 10, or was
Samuel
publicly anointed prior to this statement in the Gilgal assembly itself (cf.
LXX
of I Sam. 11:14-15, and Chapter II, pp. 85-88 below)? However this may
be
answered, this is one of a number of indications that I Sam. 8-12 is a com-
posite
of originally separate sources (cf. below, Chapter V, Section 1, D and
Section
2). In this connection it should be noted, however, that the account of
the
anointing of Saul by Samuel as the agent of Yahweh is found in I Sam. 10:1
which
normally is assigned to the earlier more reliable "source," rather
than to
the
"later source" often viewed as the prophetically influenced, less
reliable,
theological
source.
15. For a discussion of their
significance, see: E. Nielsen, "Ass and Ox in the
Old
Testament," in the Pedersen Festschrift, Studia Orientalia (
1953)
163-174.
16 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
from
them; nor have I done harm to any of them" (Num.
16:15).
Now Samuel is bringing to the attention of the
people
that he has not used his position of leadership for his
own
personal advantage.16
In this connection, Samuel seems to
be implying a con-
trast
between his own past conduct in which he had not
taken
( Hql)
anything from the people, and the warning
which
he had given to the people previously at Ramah
(I
Sam. 8:10-17) where he had said that a king as the nations
round
about would take their sons (v. 11), take their daugh-
ters
(v. 13), take their fields (v. 14), take the tenth of their
seed
(v. 15), take their menservants, and maidservants (v. 16),
and
take the tenth of their sheep (v. 17).17 It was often the
case
that kings in the ancient near East taxed and expropri-
ated
property and possessions from those over whom they
ruled.
Samuel had done nothing of this sort. He, like Moses
before
him, had performed his duties as a true servant of
Yahweh
and Yahweh's people.
Samuel then asks whom he has
defrauded (qwf )18 or
oppressed
(Nycr).
The defrauding of a neighbor (Lev. 19:13),
16. G. von Rad, building on the work
of K. Galling, has associated the series
of
questions in this verse with the Gattung
of the "confessional list," although in
doing
so he questions the appropriateness of the label "confessional list"
since
innocence
is being asserted rather than admission of shortcoming. See: K. Galling,
"Der
Beichtspiegel: eine gattungsgeschlichtliche Studie," ZAW 47 (1929) 125-
130;
and G. von Rad, "The Early History of the Form-Category of I Cor.
13:4-7,"
The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: 1966) 301-317. To
support
his view of the origin of the literary type represented in the questions
which
Samuel asks, von Rad postulates an original list-form underlying the clauses
(I
have taken no man's ox, I have taken no man's ass, etc.). He then suggests that
such
professions were used outside the cultus in legal contexts or that perhaps it
was
the work of a late writer to place this procedure in a secular setting. The
absence
of firm evidence greatly weakens von Rad's thesis.
17. The jlmh
Fpwm
(manner of the king) of I Sam. 8:9, 11 is not to be
understood
as descriptive of what the king of
descriptive
of what a king such as "of all the nations" (I Sam. 8:5) would be
like.
See
further: Koolhaas, Theocratie en Monarchie, 59-61.
18. Driver (Notes, 88) comments,
"qwf
is to oppress, in particular by
defrauding
a labourer or dependent of his due." See also BDB, s.v., where qwf is
defined
as, "oppress, wrong (oft. by extortion, || lzg); c. acc. pers. I S
12:3,
4.
. . ."
Translations and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 17
or
a hired servant that was poor and needy (Deut. 24:14) was
also
prohibited in the Pentateuch. Although Nycr does not
occur
in any specific legal prohibition in the Pentateuch,
oppression
was clearly contrary to the spirit of covenantal
law
particularly as it is summarized in the expression, "love
your
neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). This question then,
just
as the previous one, points to a particular category of
political
abuse. The practice of fraud (qwf), often in the
form
of extortion, as well as oppression (Nycr), by national
leaders
was frequent in ancient as well as modern times.19
Samuel next asks from whom he has
taken a bribe to
pervert
justice (literally, to hide his eyes with it).20 In Exodus
23:821 the taking of bribes
was specifically forbidden because
it,
"blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the
just."
This prohibition is repeated in Deuteronomy in the
context
of regulations for local judges and officers through-
out
the land. "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be
partial,
and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the
eyes
of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous"
(Deut.
16:19).
Samuel's purpose is thus to
establish publicly his adher-
ence
to the requirements of the covenantal law in the exer-
cise
of his leadership over the nation. Because he has been
faithful
to the covenant in the performance of his duties he
has
not used his position of leadership for his own enrich-
ment,
nor has he engaged in oppression, fraud or the obstruc-
tion
or perversion of justice.
19. qwf and Ccr occur together in
Amos's denunciation of the people of
They
are also used together in Deut. 28:33 to describe the actualization of the
covenant
curse in the harsh treatment of
20. See n. 11 and 12 above.
21. In Ex. 23:8 and also Deut. 16:19
dHw is
used rather than rpk, see on
dHw n. 11 above.
18 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:4. And they said,
"You have not defrauded us nor oppressed
us
nor taken anything from the hand of any man."
Samuel receives complete exoneration
by the people in
response
to his request.
I Sam. 12:5. And he said unto them,
"Yahweh is witness overagainst22
you
and his anointed is witness this day that you have not found
anything
in my hand." And they said,23 (They are)24 "witness."
Samuel transposes the people's
positive response into
legal
terminology to which the people respond again by
asserting
that Yahweh and the newly appointed king are
witness
to his innocence.
One might ask why Samuel was so
interested in establish-
ing
his own covenant faithfulness at a public ceremony con-
nected
with the inauguration of Saul. It has often been
suggested
on the basis of his request for exoneration com-
bined
with his presentation of the king to the people, and the
statement
which he makes about his own age (v. 2), that he is
here
giving a "farewell address" before transferring his
"office"
to
Saul and retiring from public life.25
A. Weiser has challenged this
interpretation, and said that
I
Samuel 12:1-5 can hardly be understood as, "eine Art
Indemnitätsverklärung,
die er benötigt, urn ordnungsgemäss
von
einem Amt (etwa wie meist angenommen als Richter)
22. As C. J. Goslinga (Het Eerste Boek Samuel [COT; Kampen:
1968] 245)
notes,
Yahweh and Saul are earwitnesses of the response of the people and
therefore
Mkb
is best taken as "overagainst" rather than "against."
23. The MT (with the exception of 18
MSS) reads, rmxyv. The LXXBA,
Syriac,
Vulgate and Targum, however, all give a plural reading. Driver (Notes, 90,
91)
discusses this variant reading at length because it is also suggested in the
Masoretic
note rybs.
Driver (ibid., 91) points out that, "the rybs must be
carefully
distinguished from the yrq: in no case does it direct the suggested
alternative
to be substituted in reading for that which is written in the text."
Perhaps
the explanation of the MT is to be found in the idea that the people (cf.
v.
6) responded as "one man."
24. For the suppression of the
subject in an exclamatory statement see, GK
§
147c.
25. For a more complete discussion
of this interpretation of I Samuel 12 see
further
the exegesis of v. 23, and also Chapter IV, Section 2,B, 1,a.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 19
zurückzutreten."26 He says further that the things for which
Samuel
asks vindication are not simply typical of the moral-
ity
of a judge, but those things which were incumbent on
every
Israelite. Thus Samuel was simply seeking to establish,
"die Tatsache einer einwandfreien, bundesgemässen
Lebens-
fühning."27 The 'confirmation of
this by the king and the
people
would mean that, "Samuel auch unter den neuen
Verhältnissen als Repräsentant des Jahwebundes
aufzutreten
berechtigt
und ermächtigt zu sein wünscht."28 Weiser con-
cludes
that Samuel is not retiring or resigning, but that his
action
is to be understood as, "ein kluger Schritt vorwärts,
der
die Vertrauensbasis schafft für die durch die Einführung
des
Königtums notwendig gewordene Neuordnung. . . "29
Weiser is certainly correct in his
opposition to the "fare-
well
address" approach to this section of I Samuel 12, and in
his
emphasis on the continuing function of Samuel; for
Samuel
does not retire after the Gilgal ceremony, but con-
tinues
to function as intercessor, as prophet, as priest, as the
one
who brings the message of Yahweh's rejection of Saul,
and
perhaps also even as judge (cf. I Sam. 7:15).
Yet at the same time there is an
element of truth—
although
not more than that—in the farewell hypothesis.
Samuel
is transferring important elements of his former func-
tions
to the king, and precisely those functions in which
offenses
such as those mentioned in verse three could be
committed.
It is thus understandable that he desires an hon-
orable
discharge from these functions. In addition it is clear
from
Samuel's advanced age (I Sam. 8:5; 12:2) that the time
is
short in which he will continue as a leader in the nation,
and
that here in the ceremony at Gilgal the matter of provid-
ing
for an orderly transition in leadership is one of the major
26. A. Weiser, Samuel. Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiöse Bedeu-
tung (FRLANT, 81; Göttingen:
1962).
27. Ibid., 83.
28. Ibid., 83.
29. Ibid., 84.
20 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
concerns.
It is clear then that there remains a significant
distinction
between Weiser's position on this point and my
own,
even though Weiser has provided a valuable corrective
to
the usual "farewell address" interpretation. Against
Weiser's
view it can also be noted that it seems clear that
Samuel
is doing more than merely seeking. confirmation that
he
has lived as an ordinary Israelite in conformity to the
covenant
law. While it is true that all of the things which he
mentions
would be applicable to any citizen, in the context
of
the Gilgal assembly and his presentation of the newly
inaugurated
king to the people, they seem to have more
specific
reference to Samuel's role as a national leader.
Thus neither Weiser's suggestion nor
the traditional view
of
the chapter as a "farewell address" does justice to the total
picture.
Samuel is not retiring, yet his advanced age is very
real.
He is not simply transferring his office to Saul, yet he is
implementing
a transition in national leadership and a reor-
ganization
of the theocracy. There must then, be some other
over-arching
explanation for this procedure of Samuel in the
Gilgal
assembly in which each of these aspects of his concern
receives
its due recognition. Further discussion of this matter
must
await examination of the remainder of the chapter, and
lour
discussion of the "covenant form" and its implications
for
the interpretation of I Samuel 11:14-12:25.30
I Sam. 12:6. And Samuel said unto
the people, "It is Yahweh31 who
30. See below, Chapter IV, Section
2,B.
31. The LXX reading (le<gwn
Ma<rtuj ku<rioj)
is preferred by many because
the
sentence is not complete in the MT and because it is felt that df could easily
have
dropped out by scribal error before or after hvhy. Among those favoring
the
LXX
reading are:
Göttingen:
1902) 53; Driver, Notes, 92; K. A.
Leimbach, Die Bücher Samuel
(HSchAT
III/I; Bonn: 1936) 56; and P. R. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel
(CNEB;
Cambridge: 1971) 98. This insertion of df is in our opinion
correctly
opposed
by, among others: A. Schulz, Die Bücher
Samuel (EH 8/1; Munchen in
Westfalen:
I, 1919) 168; H. W. Hertzberg, I and II
Samuel (
95,
98; Weiser, FRLANT, Samuel, 84; and Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël,
COT,
245. For further discussion see exegesis below.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 21
gave
you32 Moses and Aaron, and who brought your fathers
up out of
the
This verse introduces a new section
of the chapter in
which
Samuel turns from the matter of the character of his
previous
leadership over the people to the matter of the
people's
request for a king, which he views as a covenant-
breaking
act and a serious apostasy.
Samuel begins by turning the
attention of the people
back
to their deliverance out of the
himself.
This was the foundation-event in the history of
as
a nation.
gracious
and mighty act of Yahweh performed in fulfillment
of
his promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:13-16) and Jacob (Gen.
46:3,
4). Yet in connection with this, Samuel emphasizes
that
Yahweh gave the people the necessary leaders, Moses
and
Aaron, to guide the nation through the critical period of
her
birth. In this way Samuel draws attention to Yahweh's
past
provision of leadership for the nation, which was one of
the
important issues to be considered at the Gilgal assembly.
Because of the somewhat awkward
construction of the
beginning
of verse 6 in the MT where hvhy stands by itself
followed
by two relative clauses,33 the LXX reading has often
been
preferred.34 The acceptance of the LXX reading re-
quires
the insertion of df before or after hvhy in the MT,
with
the resulting translation: "Yahweh is witness, who gave
you
Moses and Aaron, . . ." It should, however, be noted that
there
is no need for a repetition of the assertion that Yahweh
is
witness to the establishment of Samuel's innocence since
this
has already been explicitly stated by both Samuel and
the
people in verse 5. Furthermore, the acceptance of the
LXX
reading is, as might be expected, sometimes advocated
32. Literally: "who made (hWf) Moses and Aaron."
See further in exegesis
below.
33. Schulz (Samuel, EH, 168)
suggests that xvh has dropped from the MT
after
hvhy
and before rwx which is certainly a possibility, particularly
since xvh
begins
with the last letter of hvhy and ends with the first letter of rwx.
34. See n. 31 above.
22 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
in
connection with viewing verse 6 as the concluding verse to
the
first section of the chapter.35 In my opinion, however,
one
in this way arrives at a wrong dividing point between two
important
sections in the chapter. It should be noted that in
verse
6, as contrasted with verse 5, nearly the entire address
formula,
"And Samuel said unto the people," is utilized as it
was
in verse 1. There is thus good reason to view verse 6 as a
new
beginning, and the introduction to what follows in
verses
7-15, for which view the insertion of df is not at all
necessary.36
D. J. McCarthy also views the
reading, "Yahweh is wit-
ness
who . . ." as the most likely.37 Nevertheless, he is of the
opinion
that a new section begins with verse 6. His rationale
is
that Samuel is here invoking Yahweh as witness to what
comes
next in the narrative, and that the two relative clauses
following
the statement that Yahweh is witness function,
"less
as history than as a solemn designation of Yah-
weh.
. ."38
While this suggestion is much more
attractive than the
approach
to the insertion of df which ties verse 6 to the
preceding
section of chapter 12, it is in my opinion still not
35. See, e.g., S. Goldman (Samuel [SBB; London: 1962] 64) who says,
"It
is
better to follow Kimchi and treat this verse as the conclusion of Samuel's
self-justification.
The sense is 'the Lord is witness, Who made Moses,' etc." See
also
J. Muilenburg, "The Form and Structure of the Covenantal
Formulations,"
VT 9 (1959) 362.
Muilenburg does not advocate the insertion of df, but does
view
v. 6 as the "climactic" conclusion to the first section of the
chapter.
36. There is not sufficient basis
for the "garbled doxology" suggestion of K.
Baltzer
in his book, The Covenant Formulary (
finds
v. 6 difficult to explain since it comes in between two clearly defined
sections
in the chapter; vv. 1-5, the exoneration of Samuel, and vv. 7-13, contain-
ing
the "antecedent history." Baltzer suggests that the verse may be the,
"garbled
remnant
of a doxology." He finds his primary support for this suggestion in 1QS
i.
18-19 where such a doxology occurs before the list of tvqdc. In addition he
refers
to the beginning of the doxology in Neh. 9:6; Ps. 115:15; 121:2; 134:3 and
passim.
A glance at these texts, however, shows that they have little resemblance
to
I Sam. 12:6 and in addition the
rather
than a statement as is I Sam. 12:6.
37. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21; Rome:
1963) 141,
n.
1.
38. Ibid.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 23
acceptable.
In McCarthy's rendering, the stress is on Yah-
weh-as-witness
to the legal argument of Samuel which fol-
lows.
However, the emphasis in verse 7 is not on Yahweh as
witness,
but on Yahweh as judge, before whom a case is
argued.
It would thus seem best to retain the reading of the
MT.
Before Samuel gives a short summary of
(v.
8 ff.) he places as a sort of heading over this summary a
statement
of the fundamental redemptive fact, the deliver-
ance
out of
that
Yahweh had given leaders for this deliverance. As we
already
saw (p. 21) this is not strange: the provision of
leaders
was the important issue at the Gilgal assembly.39
It is in this connection that the
unusual usage of hWf is
perhaps
best explained. It was Yahweh who had made Moses
and
Aaron what they were, and had enabled them to accom-
plish
what they did in connection with
from
Egypt.40
39. M. Noth views the mentioning of
Moses and Aaron in both I Sam. 12:6
and
8 as later additions taken from the parallel expression of Josh. 24:5. See: M.
Noth,
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien
(
however,
that this makes the, as it is, unusual use of hWf in v. 6 even stranger,
since
Hlw
is used in Josh. 24:5, and in the similar phrase of v. 8. Has the redactor
replaced
Hlw
by hWf
in v. 6 for a particular purpose or just out of carelessness?
In
spite of this, Noth's suggestion is viewed as quite probable by H. J. Boecker,
Die
Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums in den deuteronomistischen Ab-
schnitten
des I. Samuelbuches (WMANT 31;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1969) 71.
Boecker
remarks, "Alle text-kritischen Eingriffe in den Text, die an dieser Stelle
erwogen
worden rind, werden dann überflüssig. Der ursprüngliche Text lautet: 'Es
ist
Jahwe, der eure Väter aus dem Lande Ägypten herausgefuhrt hat.'" Stoebe
(Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 237) says
that, "V 6 ist, wie das Fehlen einer
Fortsetzung
zeigt, Einschub, der einen Gedanken von V. 7 ff. vorausnimmt." All
that
Stoebe lets stand from verse 6 is: "And Samuel said to the people:".
All these proposed eliminations are
quite arbitrary, lack textual support, and
detract
significantly from the force of the line of argumentation which Samuel is
here
beginning.
40. See: C. F. Keil, The Books of Samuel (
original,
historical
sense, i.e. to make a person what he is to be...." While this seems to be
the
best understanding of Hlw in this context, it is also at least possible
that it is
used
here as a word-play-tie to v. 7 where hWf; occurs in connection
with the
righteous
acts of Yahweh. Elsewhere in the OT hWf is used rather
frequently in
connection
with the "great things" which Yahweh did (hWf) for his people (see,
e.g.,:
Deut. 11:7; Josh. 24:31; Judg. 2:7, 10). The emphasis in v. 6, then, is that
24 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
Samuel here echoes the Old Testament
historical narra-
tives
of the exodus where Yahweh is consistently depicted as
the
deliverer of his people (see, e.g.: Ex. 14:13, 14, 25, 30,
31;
15:1b, 3, 6, 17). The statements of these verses indicate
that
from the very beginning of
Yahweh
was recognized as her deliverer and the provider for
her
well being. Included in his provision for the nation was
the
sending of the leaders which were appropriate and neces-
sary
to care for specific needs. But these leaders were clearly
designated
as instruments of the rule of Yahweh, who re-
mained
the nation's sovereign. The authority of these human
leaders
is not autonomous, but delegated, and their selection
was
the prerogative of Yahweh himself.
I Sam. 12:7. Now then, present
yourselves41 that I may enter into legal
proceedings42 with you before Yahweh43 concerning all the
righteous
acts
of Yahweh which He did with you and with your fathers.
The transition from Samuel's
assertion of Yahweh's pri-
Moses
and Aaron are not to be regarded merely as great national leaders, but
rather
as gifts of Yahweh to his people. Their capacity for leadership was to be
viewed
as attributable to Yahweh's doing.
41. For the use of bcrth in the sense of
assembling before Yahweh for the
purpose
of witnessing what He is about to do either for or against his people, see:
W.
Harrelson, "Worship in Early
42. a) For the pointing of the
Niphal cohortative form of Fpw see: GK,
§51p.
b) For the Niphal use of Fpw
as meaning,
"to go to law with someone,"
see:
GK §51d. Cf. also Driver (Notes, 92,
93), who comments that the Niphal
sometimes
acquires, "a reciprocal force, as Fpwn to judge one another, i.e., to
plead or dispute
together in judgment...."
The sense here is thus of pleading a
case
as is done in a judicial procedure before a judge, who in this case is Yahweh
himself.
c) For the use of waw with the
cohortative, see: GK § 108d.
43. The LXX has kai>
a]paggelw? u[mi?n
following hvhy.
On this basis the
insertion
of Mkl hdygxv in the MT has often been advocated. See, e.g.: Nowack,
HK
1/4, Richter, Ruth and Bücher Samuelis,
53; Driver, Notes, 93; and Ackroyd,
The First Book of
Samuel,
CNEB, 94. It is, in our opinion, rightly opposed by:
Smith,
Samuel, ICC, 86; Schulz, Samuel, EH,
168; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek
Samuël, COT, 246; and Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 233. The
con-
struction
in the MT is admittedly somewhat awkward ( Fpw Niphal, and tx
tvqdc-lk), but it is not impossible, cf. e.g.,
Ezek. 17:20. For further discussion
see
below in exegesis.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 25
macy
in the establishment of the nation to the initiation of
the
second legal proceeding of the Gilgal assembly is made by
the
use of htfv.44
The legal character of what follows
is indicated by the
combination
of the Hithpael imperative form of bcy with
the
subsequent Niphal form of Fpw. H. J. Boecker has
pointed
out that in legal cases it was customary for the judge
to
sit, and for the parties to the case under consideration to
stand,
and since there is no specific term in Hebrew meaning
to
stand for trial, either dmf or bcy is normally utilized.45
While
dmf
and bcy
are both used in a variety of different
ways,
the sacral-legal sense of bcy in this verse is made
clear
by
the following phrase, hvhy ynpl Mktx hFpwxv. The
scene
is thus that of a legal proceeding, as in verses 2-5, but
now
the relationship of the parties is reversed.46 This time
Samuel
is the accuser, the people are the defendants, and
Yahweh
is the judge before whom the proceeding is held.
Contrary to what one might expect,
Samuel does not
make
the people's behavior the immediate and direct focus of
attention.
Instead, he utilizes the judicial scrutiny of the
"righteous
acts of Yahweh" as a foil for the people's con-
duct,
and thereby an instrument for their indictment.
It
has often been suggested (see already above) that the
sequence
hvhy tvqdc-lk tx following hFpwv requires the
insertion
of Mkl hdygxv, or the changing of Mktx hFpwxv
to
Mkl hrpsxv.47 Budde,48 cites Ezekiel 17:20 as
evidence
that
one must insert Mkl hdygxv or regard Mktx
hFpwxv as
a
corruption or later insertion because the accusative in
Ezekiel
17:20 introduces the misdemeanour which is being
44. See above, n. 5.
45. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament, 85; and
Die
Beurteilung der Anfdnge des Königtums, 72, n. 2. For the use of dmf in this
sense
see: Ex. 18:13; Deut. 25:8; I Kings 3:16. For bcayA see: Ex. 18:14.
46. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The First Book of Samuel (CambB;
1880)
119.
47. See above, n.43, where we have
appealed to Ezek. 17:20 for retaining
the
MT.
48. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 79.
26 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
litigated.
Boecker, however, has pointed out that, "In I Sam
12,7
wird ebenso wie in Ez 17:20b in akkusativischer For-
mulierung
der Verhandlungsgegenstand der Rechtsausein-
andersetzung
genannt. Ein derartiger Verhandlungsgegen-
stand
muss keineswegs immer ein Vergehen oder etwas
Anliches sein. Das hängt ab vom Charakter der Recht-
sauseinandersetzung.
In unserem Fall liegt—in moderner
Terminologie
gesprochen—nicht so etwas wie ein Strafprozess
vor;
dazu würde eine Verhandlung über Vergehen oder Ver-
brechen
passen; vielmehr wird hier ein Prozess anvisiert, den
man
als 'Feststellungsverfahren' bezeichnen könnte."49 Sam-
uel's
purpose is to establish formally the covenant fidelity of
Yahweh,
which then itself indicts the people because they
have
turned away from Yahweh, in spite of his constant
faithfulness,
to seek deliverance from the internal and exter-
nal
difficulties which faced the nation by establishing an alien
form
of kingship.
In verses 8-11 Samuel summarizes the
"righteous acts" of
Yahweh
in
from
subsequently
in the cycles of oppression and deliverance
during
the time of the judges (vv. 9-11). His purpose is to
emphasize
that Yahweh was at work in all of these historical
experiences
because it was Yahweh who sold
hand
of Sisera, and into the hands of the Philistines and
Moabites
when
Astartes.
It was also Yahweh who sent Jerubbaal, Bedan,
Jephthah,
and Samuel when the people cried out to him for
deliverance
and confessed their sin. These acts of Yahweh in
Yahweh's
qdc
and thus termed hvhy
tvqdc.
The expression hvhy
tvqdc
occurs in the OT only in
Judges
5:11; I Samuel 12:7; and Micah 6:5. In Psalm 103:6
one
finds the expression hvhy tvqdc tWf and in Daniel
9:16,
jtqdc-lkk yndx.
49. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums, 73, 74.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 27
There are few words in the OT which
have been the
object
of more extensive investigation than that represented
by
the root qdc
in its various forms.50 In his recent very
useful
and comprehensive study of this root,51 J. A. Ziesler
concludes
that righteousness is "behaviour proper to some
relationship.
. . . In the OT the relationship above all others
within
which behaviour occurs which may be called 'right-
eous'
is the covenant.”52 He comments further: "Righteous-
ness
is neither a virtue nor the sum of the virtues, it is activity
which
befits the covenant. Similarly, on God's side it is not
an
attribute but divine covenant activity. If we must speak of
50. Cf., the nouns qd,c, and hqAdAci, the adjective qydica, and the verb qdAcA. For
discussion
of these terms see: G. Quell, "The Concept of Law in the OT," TDNT,
II,
174-178; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive
Ideas of the Old Testament (
1944)
51-78; L. Kohler, Theologie des Alten
Testaments (
W.
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament
(2 vols.;
239-249;
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2
vols.;
370-383;
A. Jepsen, "qdc und hqdc im Alten
Testament," in the Hertzberg
Festschrift,
Gottes Wort und
1965)
78-89; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God
in Ancient
1968)
165-172; H. H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als
Weltordnung (BZHT 40; Tu-
bingen:
1968); E. Berkovits, Man and God: Studies
in Biblical Theology (
1969)
292-348. For a more complete literature listing, see H. H. Schmid, ibid., 1,
n.
1, and the additional citations below.
51. J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (
Although
Ziesler's study is directed to elucidation of the meaning of the concept
of
righteousness in the writings of Paul, he considers it important to examine all
the
usages of the word which are likely to have some bearing on Pauline usage.
This
inevitably involves a study of the root qdc in the OT and
elsewhere. Ziesler
(ibid.,
14) notes that: "As far as possible the analysis has been exhaustive, all
cases
being examined, but in one or two instances this has proved impracticable;
in
the Rabbinic writings because of the sheer volume of the material; and in
Josephus,
partly because of the relatively minor importance of the material." In
general
one can say that Ziesler's view is the view which has been dominant in
recent
decades with respect to qdc. In my opinion his view at least in its major
emphases
is correct (see, however, my critical remark in n. 53). There are,
however,
also other viewpoints, see especially that of H. H. Schmid (cf. above,
n.
50) which are also influential.
52. Ibid., 38. Cf. the definition of
K. Dronkert, "Liefde en gerechtigheid in
het
Oude Testament," in Schrift en
Uitleg (jubileum-bundel W. H. Gispen;
Kampen:
1970) 51. Dronkert says, "De kernbetekenis van het woord is ‘handelen
naar
de mispat.' Moeilijk is het om
precies to zeggen wat onder die mispat
verstaan
wordt,
omdat zij immers (zie boven) zo'n typisch karakter heeft. Het is een
rechtswaarde
in de meest uitgebreide zin van het woord. Die rechtswaarde nu
moet
in de praktijk worden gebracht door de seddqa(h).
Doet men dat en handelt
men
naar de mispat dan is men saddiq en staat men in de kring van sedaqa(h)."
28 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
norms,
then the norm is the covenant and whatever is appro-
priate
to it. . . . We must recognize that on this view God's
righteousness
may take many forms. Sometimes it may take
the
form of gracious, merciful, saving action, but it is too
simple
to say that it is always this and that severity is never
meant
by the term.... So God's righteousness means mercy
in
one situation, triumph in another, judgment in another,
the
establishment of good government and good justice in
another."53 As can be inferred from
these comments, the
specific
meanings which the various forms of the root qdc
assume
may vary considerably according to the context, yet
these
meanings can all be subsumed under Zeisler's above
definition.54
A prayer of Daniel (Dan. 9:3-19) is
particularly instruc-
tive
in this regard. The prayer begins with confession of the
nation's
rebellion against the commandments of Yahweh
(vv.
5, 11) and then links the disastrous situation in
the
actualization of the covenant curse poured out upon the
people
because of their sin (v. 11). For Daniel this judgment
is
demonstrative of Yahweh's hqdc (v. 7). He says further
(v.
14): "Therefore Yahweh has kept the calamity in store
and
brought it upon us: for Yahweh our God is righteous
(
qydc
) with respect to all His deeds which He has done: but
we
have not obeyed his voice." The calamity which has come
53. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 40, 41. While this last
statement
of Ziesler is certainly born out by an examination of the use of the
various
forms of qdc,
it is at the same time clear that the emphasis is again and
again
on salvation, although not to the exclusion of punishment because of
unfaithfulness.
Dronkert ("Liefde en gerechtigheid in het OT," in Schrift en
Uitleg, 53) comments: "De
mens
Zijn
doel of en concreet naar Zijn mispat
is Zijn sedaqii(h), Zijn
gerechtig-
heid,
die in al Zijn werken tot uitdrukking komt. Hij is rechtvaardig en Hij handelt
rechtvaardig....
Opmerkelijk is, dat de gerechtigheid Gods in het O.T. in hoofd-
zaak betrokken wordt op de gunst van God jegens de mens
en dat Zijn recht en
gerechtigheid
in hoofdzaak een reddend karakter dragen."
54. In Ziesler's vocabulary analysis
of the forms of the root qdc used in
relation
to God's activity (cf. ibid., 28-32) he includes the following categories:
a)
Legal activity; b) Gracious, saving activity; c) Vindication, giving victory or
prosperity;
d) Acting reliably, trustworthily, faithfully; e) Right speaking;
f)
God's forensic or relational righteousness.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 29
upon
failure
to take their covenant obligations seriously, as well as
their
persistence in turning a deaf ear to warnings of judg-
ment.55 In verse 15 the prayer
turns from confession to
supplication,
and Daniel addresses Yahweh as the one who
has
delivered his people from
Yahweh's
fury be turned away from
dance
with all your righteousness."56 This is a striking
state-
ment
when it is placed in connection with the use of qydc in
verse
14. There, Daniel says Yahweh is righteous in bringing
judgment.
Here, he appeals to Yahweh's righteousness as the
basis
for deliverance. He is explicit in stating that the appeal
is
not made on the basis of the people's tvqdc, but on the
basis
of Yahweh's MymHr (Dan. 9:18),57 and in accordance
with
his tvqdc
(Dan. 9:16). As John Calvin pointed out so
well
in commenting on Daniel 9:16: "Those who take this
word
'righteousness' to mean 'judgment' are in error and
inexperienced
in interpreting the Scriptures; for they suppose
God's
justice to be opposed to his pity. But we are familiar
with
God's righteousness as made manifest, especially in the
benefits
he confers on us. It is just as if Daniel had said that
the
single hope of the people consisted in God's having regard
to
himself alone, and by no means to their conduct. Hence he
takes
the righteousness of God for his liberality, gratuitous
55. As G. Kennedy (IB, VI, 489) comments: "God is not
to be mocked.
Since
men were perverse he executed his judgment, and in doing so he acted
rightly."
G. Ch. Aalders (Daniel [COT; Kampen:
19621 206) says, "Daniel erkent
ten
voile de rechtvaardigheid van het oordeel dat God over
nooit
tueert
dat nog eens door de herhaling: ‘wij hebben geen gehoor gegeven aan zijn
stem'
(vgl. vs. 10.11)." See also Neh. 9:33 where after a lengthy recapitulation
of
because
of her apostasy, it is stated that Yahweh has been, "just ( qydc) in all that
has
come upon us, for Thou hast dealt faithfully (tyWf tmx-yk) but we have
acted
wickedly."
56. Cf. GK § 124e (pl. intensivus).
57. MymHr has reference to
Yahweh's compassion exhibited in his covenant
fidelity.
It is used in parallelism with dsH in Jer. 16:5; Hos.
2:21; Ps. 40:12 and
103:4.
Note also the use of a verbal form of the root: MHr in Deut. 30:3 with
reference
to Yahweh's promise to turn
30 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
favour,
consistent fidelity, and protection, which he prom-
ised
his servants . . . ."58 It is this latter use of tvqdc which is
of
particular significance in connection with I Samuel 12:7.
In Judges 5:11 the expression hvhy
tvqdc
occurs in the
Song
of Deborah which celebrates the victory which Yahweh
had
given the Israelites over the forces of Jabin of Hazor. B.
Holwerda
has commented that this song is, "de profetische
vertolking
van het gebeurde in cap. IV, en is vooral hierom
van
belang, dat het aanwijst waar het eigenlijk om ging: het
toont dat het niet zuiver menselijke en militaire
gebeurtenis-
sen
waren, maar dat het hierin om de VERLOSSING DES
HEREN
ging."59 The reference to singing of the hvhy
tvqdc
is
here to be understood as the singing of Yahweh's covenant
fidelity
as demonstrated in
werda
comments that tvqdc in verse 11, "is het zich houden
aan
verbondsafspraken, hier dus practisch ‘trouwbe-
wijzen.’"60
The use of the expression hvhy
tvqdc in Micah
6:5 is
nearly
identical to its use in I Samuel 12:7. The setting in
Micah
as in I Samuel is that of a legal proceeding in which a
recapitulation
of Yahweh's righteous acts is utilized to indict
an
apostate nation.
Samuel's use of the term hvhy
tvqdc thus
emphasizes
the
constancy of Yahweh's covenant faithfulness toward his
people
as demonstrated in their past history. As we noted
above,
the question in I Samuel 12:7 is not that of judging or
vindicating
God's righteous acts, but that of calling
the
bar in view of all God's righteous acts on her behalf. The
emphasis
here is on Yahweh's acts of deliverance although
58. J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, II (Grand
Rapids:
1948 [ET of the 1561 Latin original] 177. Aalders (Daniel, COT, 206)
says
in speaking of tvqdc "Hieronder moeten gerekend worden
al de daden ter
verlossing
van zijn yolk, in de eerste plaats het in het vorige vers genoemde voeren
van
Israel uit Egypte, maar verder ook alle andere heilsdaden waarin God zich
tegenover
zijn yolk als de trouwe Verbondsgod geopenbaard heeft."
59. B. Holwerda, Seminarie-Dictaat, Richteren I (Kampen:
n.d.) 21.
60. Ibid., 24.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 31
the
expression need not be taken as referring exclusively and
only
to salvific actions.61
I Sam. 12:8. When Jacob went into
Egypt62 and your fathers cried
unto
Yahweh, then Yahweh sent Moses and Aaron, and they brought
your
fathers out of
Samuel begins his recapitulation of
the hvhy tvqdc with
a
statement of the exodus (cf. already verse 6) and the
conquest.
Yahweh had heard the cry of the children of
in
Deut.
26:7), and, "God remembered His covenant with Abra-
61. The RSV translates MT hvhy
tvqdc in I
Sam. 12:7 as "the saving deeds of
the
LORD." This translation is supported by, among others, Caird (IB, II, 942,
943)
who says, "the righteous acts of the Lord (lit. ‘righteousnesses’) are
those
acts
in which he has appeared as the deliverer of his people, and so has manifested
that
righteousness which consists in the vindication of the helpless (cf. 2:8). The
word
is therefore well translated saving deeds
(RSV)." This translation, however,
places
too much of a one-sided emphasis on the term. Goslinga (Het Eerste Boek
Samuël, COT, 247) comments:
"Ook deze pijnlijke kastijdingen van Gods hand
kunnen
gerekend worden bij zijn tvqdc (vs. 7), daar zij ten doel hadden
weer
in de rechte verhouding tot Hem to brengen."
62. The LXX adds kai>
e]tapei<nwsen au]tou>j Ai@guptoj after
basis
Driver (Notes, 93) adds. Myrcm
Mvnfyv to
the MT saying, "The words are
needed
on account of the following vqfzyv: a copyist's eye passed
from the first
Myrcm to the second." While this
explanation is certainly possible, it seems
preferable
to leave the verse as it stands in the MT because adopting the LXX
reading
raises the additional problem of the singular "Jacob," and the plural
suffix
of the verb "oppressed them." This in turn necessitates another
addition to
the
verse, which in fact is also included in the LXX (kai>
oi[ ui[oi> au]tou?
), so
that
the verse reads, "When Jacob and his sons went to
however,
has the problem of a plural subject and a singular verb ( 8: ), and the
absence
of vynbv
is not so easily explained as could be the absence of the
previous
phrase.
63. The MT gives a plural reading (MUbwy.av), while the LXXBL
(kat&<kisen
au]tou>j), TargumB,
Syriac, and Vulgate presuppose a singular form (MBeywiy.av).
Driver
(Notes, 93) comments, " Mvbywyv expresses just what
Moses and Aaron did
not
do." He then advocates reading the singular form with Yahweh as the subject
and
says, "The unpointed has been filled in wrongly in the MT." It would
seem
more likely, however, from the flow of the sentence that the plural form is
original
and that Samuel is speaking in broad general terms. Goslinga (Het Eerste
Boek Samuël, COT, 246) says,
"De oude vertalingen hebben hier een oneffenheid
willen
gladstrijken. Over het tijdperk der richteren is Samuel breder, dat is
betrekkelijk
nog recent, vss. 9-11." In this connection it should be noted, that
several
versions (LXXA, Targum, Vulgate) also have a singular form (with
Yahweh
as
subject) for vxycyv. Cf. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 233.
32 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
ham,
Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex. 2:24; cf., Gen. 46:1-4). It was in
response
to this cry, and in keeping with his promises to
Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob that Yahweh appeared to Moses
and
commissioned him to lead his people out of
Moses
was to say to the people, "I AM has sent (Hlw) me to
you"
(Ex. 3:14). And he was to tell the people that Yahweh
had
said, "I will bring you up out of the affliction of
to
the land of the Canaanite, ... to a land flowing with milk
and
honey" (Ex. 3:17). The exodus and conquest remained
throughout
weh's
gracious and righteous acts on her behalf, and are
frequently
cited in the OT literature as that which obligates
24:4-8;
Judg. 2:1-2; 6:8-10; 10:11-13; Amos 2:10; Ps. 105;
Neh.
9:9-25).
I Sam. 12:9-11. But they forgot Yahweh
their God and he sold them
into
the hand—of Sisera, chieftain of the army of64 Hazor, and into the
hand
of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of
fought
against them.
And they cried unto Yahweh, and they
said,65 "We have sinned,
because
we have forsaken Yahweh, and served the Baals and the
Astartes;
but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we will
serve
you."
And Yahweh sent Jerubbaal and Bedan,66 and Jephthah, and
64. The LXXL (Iabin
basile<wj)
presupposes a Hebrew text reading 17)
rvch (j`lm Nyby) xbc. Driver (Notes, 93) says that this is more in
accord with
Hebrew
usage. Schulz, (Samuel, EH, 169),
however, points out that the addition
is
not necessary and that, "die Ausdrucksweise 'Heerführer von Hasor' ist
gestützt
durch
I Kn 2,32 ('Heerführer von Israel' and 'H. von Juda')...." It seems likely
that
the LXX is expanded with data from Judg. 4:2.
65. The Ketib is
singular. It is not impossible that this is correct: elsewhere
in
the Old Testament one finds sudden alternations of singular and plural.
66. Bedan is an otherwise unknown
judge (the name Bedan occurs elsewhere
in
the OT only in I Chron. 7:17 where it designates another person). For this
reason
most commentators give preference to the reading of the LXX (barak) and
Syriac.
Keil (The Books of Samuel, 118) after
considering and rejecting several
possibilities
such as rendering Bedan as an appellative, i.e., the Danite (ben-Dan),
and
thus connecting the name to Samson, concludes, "there is no other course
left,
therefore, than to regard Bedan as an
old copyist's error for Barak (Judg. iv.),
as
the LXX, Syriac, and Arabic have done,—a conclusion which is favored by the
circumstance
that Barak was one of the most celebrated of the judges, and is
Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25 33
Samue1,67 and he delivered you
from the hand of your enemies on
every
side, and you dwelt securely.
In these verses Samuel gives a brief
summary of the
period
of the judges in which he clearly portrays the cycle of:
a) apostasy;
b) oppression;
c) repentance and confession
accompanied by a request
for
deliverance;
d) deliverance through the
instrumentality of leaders sent
by
Yahweh.
The ideas which Samuel incorporates
in this survey of the
history
of the period of the judges are found elsewhere also.
The
terminology by which he frames the cyclical character of
the
course of events is similar to that found in the book of
Judges,
and some of it is rooted originally in Deuteronomy.
Similar
expressions are subsequently to be found in the
Psalms
and prophetical books as well. The cycle is formulated
with
the phrases:
placed
by the side of Gideon and Jephthah in Heb. xi. 32." Similar views are
advocated
by: Smith, Samuel, ICC, 86; Schultz, Samuel, EH, 170; and Leimbach,
Samuel, HSchAT, 57. Goslinga,
(Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 247),
with
hesitation,
also adopts this view saying, "de lezing Barak staat toch wel het
sterkst
te meer omdat door hem het leger van Sisera (vs. 9) verslagen is." This
represents
a change in position from Goslinga's earlier commentary (C. J. Gos-
linga, I Samuel [KV; Kampen: 1948] 151) where
he said, " 't is moeilijk denk-
baar
dat een afschrijver Bedan zou schrijven, indien er geen richter van die naam
was
opgetreden. Maar ook is moeilijk aan te nemen, dat Samuel wel de ver-
drukking
van Sisera zou noemen (vs. 9) en niet de held, die Sisera overwon.
Daarom
lijkt de beste oplossing, dat Bedan een andere naam (bijnaam?) voor
Barak
is en dat deze aan Samuels hoorders evengoed bekend was als wij b.v.
Gideons
bijnaam Jerubbaal kennen." This suggestion of Goslinga seems to be
more
plausible than to assume a scribal error since the name of Barak was so well
known
as to make that highly unlikely. It also seems preferable to seeing here the
name
of a judge not mentioned in the book of Judges at all as do a number of
commentators,
including: J. de Groot, I Samuel
(TeU; Groningen: 1934) 123;
Goldman,
Samuel, SBB, 65; and Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 233
Nevertheless,
Stoebe is, in my opinion, perhaps correct when he suggests that the
occurrence
of this name here is indicative of an independent tradition.
67. The LXXL and the
Syriac read Samson instead of Samuel. This is most
likely
a correction due to the feeling that Samuel is speaking and he would no'
place
his own name on the list of judges he mentions. See further the discussion
below
in the exegesis.
34 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
apostasy:
"forgot Yahweh" (hvhy
tx Hkwyv,
verse 9);68
oppression:
"he sold them into the hand
of" ( dyb Mtx rkmyv,
verse
9);69
repentance and
confession, accompanied by request for de-
liverance:
"they cried unto Yahweh" (hvhy-lx
vqfzyv,
verse 10);70
"we have sinned" (vnxFH, Verse 10);71
"we have forsaken Yahweh"
( hvhy tx vnbzf, verse
10);72
"we have served the Baals and
Astartes" (Mylfbh-tx dbfnv
tvrtWfh txv);73
"deliver us from the hand of
our enemies" (dym vnlycH
vnykyx, verse 10);74
deliverance through the
instrumentality of leaders sent by
Yahweh:
"Yahweh sent . . ." (hvhy
Hlwyv,
verse 11);75
"and Yahweh delivered you from
the hand of your ene-
mies"
(Mkybyx dym Mktx lcyv, verse 11).76
The cumulative effect of the
phraseology is to focus on
Yahweh's
works of judgment and deliverance. It was Yahweh
who
gave
68. Deut. 6:12; 8:11, 14, 19; Judg.
3:7; Isa. 17:10; 51:13; Hos. 2:15 (13);
13:6;
Jer. 2:32; 3:21; 13:25; 18:15; 23:27; Ezek. 22:12; 23:35.
69. Deut. 32:30 (Mrkm
Mrvc-yk xl-Mx
); Judg. 2:14; 3:8; 4:2; 10:7.
70. Judg. 3:9, 15; 6:6-7; 10:10; I
Sam. 7:8-9; 8:18; Hos. 7:14; 8:2; Joel
1:14;
Mic. 3:4; Ps. 22:6 (5); 107:13, 19; Neh. 9:28.
71. Num. 14:40; 21:7; Deut. 1:41;
Judg. 10:10, 15; I Sam. 7:6; I Kings
8:47;
Jer. 3:25; 8:14; 14:7, 20; Ps. 106:6; Lam. 5:16; Dan. 9:5, 8, 11, 15; Neh.
1:6;
I Chron. 6:37.
72. Deut. 28:20; Josh. 24:16; 24:20;
Judg. 2:12; 2:13; 10:6; 10:10; 10:13;
I
Sam. 8:8; I Kings 9:9; 11:33; II Kings 22:17; Isa. 1:4; 1:28; Jer. 1:16; 2:13;
5:19;
16:11; 19:4; Hos. 4:10; II Chron. 7:22.
73. Judg. 2:11 (only Baals); 2:13;
3:7; 10:6; 10:10 (only Baals).
74. Judg. 10:15 (the exact wording
of this phrase is not paralleled in the
10T).
75. Ex. 3:15; 7:16; Num. 16:28-29;
Josh. 24:5; Judg. 6:8; I Sam. 12:8; Isa.
19:20;
Jer. 23:21; Mic. 6:4; Ps. 105:26.
76. Ex. 18:9-10; Josh. 24:10; Judg.
6:9; 8:34; I Sam. 7:3; 10:18.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 35
and
forsook him. But it was also Yahweh who sent deliverers
when
reality
Yahweh's victories, and it was therefore accurate for
Samuel
to conclude that Yahweh had delivered them out of
the
hand of their enemies, so that they could live securely. It
was
this repeated provision for
enemies
which was of particular importance for Samuel's
demonstration
of the people's apostasy in desiring a king (cf.
verse
12). Although it is true that the judges themselves were
sometimes
referred to as
this
is to be understood only in a secondary sense, as instru-
ments
of Yahweh's deliverance (Judg. 2:18). It was Yahweh
who
sent them (Judg. 6:14; I Sam. 2:11) to be the agents of
his
deliverance.78
This is made particularly clear, for
example, in the case of
Gideon.
When the Israelites forsook Yahweh in the time of
Gideon
they were delivered into the hands of the Midianites
who
oppressed them for seven years (Judg. 6:1-5). When they
cried
( qfz, verses 6-7) unto
Yahweh, a prophet was sent,
who
(much like Samuel at the Gilgal assembly) utilized a
brief
recapitulation of
reason
for her present distress (Judg. 6:8-10). The emphasis
in
this historical recapitulation is that Yahweh had delivered
Canaan,
but
Yahweh,
however, had now heard the cry of the Israelites for
deliverance,
and Gideon is to become Yahweh's instrument
to
achieve this end.
Gideon asked for a sign, and said
that by the sign he
77. Judg. 3:9, 15, 31; 6:14; 10:1;
13:5.
78. When the root fwy is used with reference
to the activity of a human
leader,
some indication that he was sent by Yahweh is normally made explicitly
clear
in the context. See, e.g.: Judg. 2:16; 3:9, 15; 6:14; 13:5. Sam, 9:16;
II
Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27. The only exceptions I have noticed are iudg 3:31;
10:1.
In Judg. 8:22 one finds an
expression of the apostate idea that Gideon was
the
deliverer. A similar idea (although expressed negatively) with reference to
Saul
is
found in I Sam. 10:27 and perhaps 11:3.
36 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
would,
"know that Thou [Yahweh] wilt deliver (fywvt )
receiving
the sign and proceeding to organize his military
force,
Gideon was told to reduce the number of men in the
force
so that
"My
own power has delivered (hfywvh ydy) me" (Judg. 7:2).
Yahweh
told Gideon that, "I will deliver ( fywvx) you with
the
three hundred men who lapped and will give ( yttnv) the
Midianites
into your hands . . ." (Judg. 7:7). After surveying
the
host of the Midianites, and after hearing the dream of one
of
the Midianites which depicted a victory for the Israelites
over
the Midianites, Gideon called his force to advance on the
camp
and said, "Arise for Yahweh has given (Ntn) the camp
of
Midian into your hand" (Judg. 7:15).
After the victory the men of
asked
him to establish dynastic rule over
over
us, both you and your son, also your son's son, for you
have delivered us (vntfwvh ) from the hand of
Midian" (Judg.
8:22).
Gideon rejected their request,79 however, because it
betrayed
the apostate idea that the human leader was the real
deliverer
rather than the instrument of Yahweh's deliverance,
and
it sought to exchange the rule of Yahweh for the rule of
a
man (Judg. 8:23).
Because Samuel's purpose was to
demonstrate Yahweh's
constant
fidelity to the covenant throughout the period of
the
judges (cf. hvhy tvqdc, verse 7), and
contrastingly the
people's
repeated apostasy, he stresses the cycle of oppres-
sions
and deliverances rather than historical details of the
period.
Accordingly, he mentions only three oppressors and
79. The interpretation of this
passage has provoked a great deal of discus-
sion.
J. Bright (A History of Israel [
the
offer of kingship to Gideon that, "he is said flatly to have refused—and
in
language
thoroughly expressive of the spirit of early
(ibid.,
173, n. 84): "It is frequently asserted (e.g., G. Henton Davies, VT, XIII
[1963],
pp. 151-157) that Gideon actually accepted the kingship. But the lan-
guage
of ch. 9: 1 ff. certainly does not require this conclusion; cf. J. L. McKenzie,
The World of the Judges (Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1966), pp. 137-144." See also below,
p.
77, n. 51.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 37
four
deliverers, and neither the oppressors nor the deliverers
are
cited in the order in which they appear in the book of
Judges.80
It is, however, significant that
Samuel places his own
name
last in the list of deliverers, and thereby brings the
historical
recapitulation right up to the time in which the
matter
of kingship had become an issue. There is no need to
regard
the appearance of Samuel's name as a scribal error for
Samson,81 nor to view it as
either a later insertion82 or an
indication
of the authorship of Samuel's speech by a ‘deuter-
onomic
editor.'83 In fact, it was quite necessary for Samuel
to
make very clear that Yahweh had continued to provide for
the
national defense and leadership even during his own
lifetime
(cf., I Samuel 7; esp. vv. 3, 8, 10, 12), in order to
make
his case relevant to the current situation, and the
request
for a king. In addition as Goldman has pointed out,
"if
it be remembered that the figure of a trial is being
employed,
the third person is not strange. Samuel the ac-
cuser,
dissociates himself from Samuel, the saviour, who is
cited
as evidence against his people."'
80. The oppressors to which Samuel
refers are: Sisera, the Philistines, and
the
king of
recorded
in the books of Judges and I Samuel in which the order is: Eglon, king
of
perhaps
subsequent Philistine threats (Judg. 10:7; 13:1 ff.; I Sam. 4-7). The
deliverers
which Samuel mentions are Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah, and Samuel, in
that
order. The activities of these deliverers are described in Judges and I Samuel
in
the following order: Bedan (if this is another name for Barak, cf. above, n.
66,
Judges
4, 5); Jerubbaal (Judg. 6-8); Jephthah (Judg. 11:1-12:7); Samuel (I Sam-
uel
7). Here also (see the end of n. 66) one must consider the possibility that
Samuel
had access to traditions not contained in the book of Judges; see also,
Judg.
10:11 f.
81. Gressmann, SAT II/1, Die älteste Geschichtschreibung, 45;
cf., for
instance,
above, n. 67.
82. Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 247.
83. Caird, IB, II, 943. Caird views the introduction of the name of Samuel
in
this summary of the period of the judges as a "frank admission" that
this is a
"Thucydidean
speech" and the product of a deuteronomic editor. A similar view
is
expressed by Ackroyd, The First Book of
Samuel, CNEB, 99. See further
Chapter
IV, Section 2,A,1 and Section 2,B,2,b; Chapter V, Section 2,C.
84. Goldmann, Samuel, SBB, 65.
38 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
I Sam. 12:12. But when you saw that
Nahash the king of the Ammon-
ites
came against you, you said to me, No! but a king shall reign over
us,
whereas85 Yahweh your God was your king.
Samuel now comes to the climax of
his historical recapit-
ulation
in which the people's desire for a king to safeguard
themselves
from the threat of Nahash, is represented as a
rejection
of the kingship of Yahweh, and thus as the last of
the
long series of apostasies.
The mentioning of Nahash in
connection with the request
for
a king is often viewed as contradictory to chapters 8 and
11,
since in chapter 8 internal problems are mentioned as the
motivation
for the request, and in chapter 11, according to
the
opinion of many, the desire for a king arose after rather
than
before the threat from Nahash. For this reason it has
often
been suggested that I Samuel 12:12a is best explained
as
a later insertion.86 Others have suggested that this verse as
well
as the rest of I Samuel 12 is to be viewed as the free
formulation
of the deuteronomistic history writer.87 Still
others
see here evidence of an independent tradition which is
in
conflict with chapters 8 and 11, and lays stress on the
importance
of the Ammonite threat for the rise of the desire
of
the people for a king.88
While it certainly is to be admitted
that from a reading of
85. See GK (§141e, § 156a) for a
discussion of the syntax of a noun-clause
connected
by a waw to a verbal clause.
86. See, e.g.: Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, KHC, 80; and Schulz, Samuel, EH,
170.
87. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 60. More recently, Boecker
(Die Beurteilung der Anfänge des Königtums,
75, 76) says, "In I Sam 12 werden
die
Berichte über die Entstehung des Königtums zusammengefasst and das
Ereignis
abschliessend gewertet. V. 12 ist als das Ergebnis solch abschliessender
Zusammenfassung
verschiedener Berichte anzusehen, wobei sich einmal mehr
zeigt,
wie wenig die Deuteronomisten Geschichtsschreiber in modernen Sinne
waren.
Sie verbinden in diesem Vers den von ihnen in ihr Werk übernommenen
Bericht von der Nachaschgeschichte mit der von ihnen
selbst konzipierten
lung
von dem an Samuel herangetragenen Königswunsch des Volkes, wobei die
dadurch
entstehende sachliche Spannung sie offenbar weniger belastet als den
modernen
Leser."
88. Weiser, Samuel, FRLANT, 72-74, 86; Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis,
KAT,
237.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 39
chapters
8, 10:17 ff., and 11 one could not conclude that the
desire
for a king was specifically tied to the Ammonite
threat;
it must also be admitted that there is nothing in
chapters
8, 10:17 ff., and 11 which contradicts this idea.
Goslinga
comments that here is "een van de oneffenheden die
in
ons boek meer aangetroffen worden, zonder dat een be-
paalde
tegenspraak valt to constateren."89 Even though
Nahash
is not mentioned in chapter 8, there is reference to
the
desire for a king to lead
it
is not at all impossible that the threat of attack from
Nahash
was already a matter of concern at that time.90 It
should
also be noticed, that when Samuel spoke to the
people
gathered at Mizpah for the public selection of Saul to
be
king, he placed the matter of desiring a king in the context
of
seeking a savior ( lcn ), and said that in desiring a king
hand
of the Egyptians, and all the other kingdoms which had
oppressed
them (I Sam. 10:18, cf. also v. 19, fwy). In addi-
tion,
after Saul's selection, there were those who objected to
him
by asking, "how is this man going to save ( fwy ) us?"
(I
Sam. 10:27), betraying their fear that he was not adequate
to
the task of delivering
of
expression "No! but . . ." indicates the people's response
to
a preceding rejection of the kingship by Samuel. Samuel
and
the elders must have repeatedly negotiated this matter
(cf.
I Sam. 8:19; 10:19).
Samuel's statement in I Samuel 12:12
is thus compatible
with
chapters 8, 10, and 11, but more important is that it
reveals
his own analysis of the motivation behind the initial
request
of the elders for a king. In the face of the combined
pressures
of the Philistines in the west (I Sam. 9:16) and the
89. Goslinga, Het Eerste Both Samuël, COT, 248.
90. See: J. Schelhaas, "De
instelling van het koningschap en de troon-
bestijging
van
"De
boeken 1 en 2 Samuel," Bijbel Met
Kanttekeningen, eds. J. H. Bavinck and
A.
H. Edelkoort (Baarn: n.d.) II, 237; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT,
248.
40 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25
Ammonites
from the east, the Israelites desired a human
king,
a national hero, and a symbol of national power and
unity
in whom they thought they could find a guarantee of
security
and rest. They were seeking their deliverance in the
person
of a human king.91 This, however, constituted a
rejection
of the kingship of Yahweh, and betrayed a loss of
confidence
in his care for the welfare of the nation. For
Yahweh
was the deliverer of
fwy). He had promised to fight for them against
their ene-
mies
and to deliver them. He had remained faithful to this
promise
throughout the periods of the exodus, the conquest
and
the judges.92
I Sam. 12:13. And now behold the
king whom you have given prefer-
ence
to,93 whom you have requested,94 and behold, Yahweh has
given a
king
over you.
91. Koolhaas, Theocratie en Monarchie, 53-57. Koolhaas (ibid., 57) sums up
his
discussion of
Testament
als achtergrond van de vraag naar een koning gezien: wantrouwen
jegens
de koningsheerschappij van Jahwe, vrees voor de vijanden en een eigen-
rnachtig
streven naar veiligheid en eenheid."
92. See, e.g.: (fwy) Ex. 14:30; Num. 10:9;
Judg. 2:18; 10:13; 12:3; I Sam.
7:8;
10:19; (lcn)
Ex. 3:8; 6:6; 18:8, 9, 10; Josh. 24:10; Judg. 6:9; 8:34; I Sam.
7:3;
10:18; 12:11. Yahweh continued to be
period.
Cf. (fwy)
I Sam. 14:6, 23, 39; 17:47; II Sam. 3:18; I Kings 14:27;
II
Kings 19:34; I Chron. 11:14; II Chron. 10:9; 32:30; (lcn) I Sam. 17:37;
II
Kings 17:39; 20:6.
93. The suggestion of Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT, 234)
follow-
ing,
among others, M. Buber ("Die Erzahlung von Sauls Konigswahl," VT 6
[1956]
160) to retain Mtlxw rwx (see n. 94b below) but to delete MtrHb
rwx
has
no textual evidence in its support. According to Keil (The Books of Samuel,
19)
the use of rHb. is best understood as referring to the choice
of Saul by lot in
I
Sam. 10:17-25. There, however, the emphasis is not on the people's choice but
rather
on the fact that Saul is the one whom Yahweh
has chosen (cf. v. 24). In
view
of this it seems that rHb both here and in I Sam. 8:18 may be best
translated
in the sense of "give preference to" (i.e., over Yahweh). See KBL
s.v.
94. a) see GK 44d and 64f for the
pointing of Mtlxw) The LXXB omits
Mtlxw rwx, and the phrase is therefore regarded by
many commentators as a
gloss.
See, e.g.: 0. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels
(KeH IV;
Smith,
Samuel, ICC, 88; and Driver, Notes, 94. The textual evidence for
deletion,
however,
is not strong and Goslinga (Het Eerste
Boek Samuël, COT, 249) is right
in
saying that the phrase in question is, "zonder twijfel oorspronkelijk, en
juist in
Samuels mond zeer begrijpelijk, omdat hij in dit vragen
en zelfs eisen van een
koning
een zondige daad zag, zie vs. 17."
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 41
Samuel now draws the attention of
the people to the
king,
and stresses that it is Yahweh who has given them this
king.
In spite of the sinfulness of the people's request, Yah-
weh
has chosen to incorporate kingship into the structure of
the
theocratic government of his people.95 Kingship has been
given
by Yahweh to his people, and from this time forward is
to
function as an instrument of his rule over them.
I Sam. 12:14. If you will fear
Yahweh, and serve him, and listen to his
voice,
and not rebel against the commandment of Yahweh; then both
you
and the king who reigns over you shall follow Yahweh your God.
It has long been the general
consensus of interpreters that
this
verse contains only a protasis and ends with an aposio-
pesis.96 The translation
normally adopted is similar to that of
the
RSV: "If you will fear the LORD and serve him and
hearken
to his voice and not rebel against the commandment
of
the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over
you
will follow the LORD your God, it will be
well" (italics
mine).
The last phrase does not occur in the MT and must be
added
to complete the sentence. As Smith, however, has
pointed
out, "to begin the apodosis with Mtyhv is gram-
matically
the correct thing to do.. . "97 Yet Smith feels that
to
do so produces a redundancy because, "it makes an
identical
proposition: if you fear Yahweh . . .
then you will
follow
Yahweh.”98
A comparison of verse 14 with verse
15, however, con-
95. I Sam. 12:13 with its
juxtaposition of the people's request and Yah-
weh's
response points to the resolution of the kingship issue which has been the
focal
point of the narratives of I Sam. 8-12 (see further the exegesis of I Sam.
12:14).
This verse cannot be reconciled with the assignment of I Sam. 12 to an
"anti-monarchial"
source as often has been done. See further below: Chapter IV,
Section
2,A,2 and Chapter V, Section 1 and 2,A.
96. See, e.g.: Smith, Samuel, ICC, 88 (see further below in
the exegesis);
Nowack,
HK 1/4, Richter, Ruth and Bücher
Samuelis, 54; Schultz, Samuel,
EH,
171;
Driver, Notes, 94; Goslinga, Het Eerste Boek Samuël, COT, 249; J.
Mauch-
line,
I and II Samuel (NCB; London: 1971)
109; and Stoebe, Das erste Buch
Samuelis, KAT, 234.
97. Smith, Samuel, ICC, 88.
98. Ibid.
42 Translation and Exegesis of I
Samuel 12:1-25
firms
Smith's observation that as a matter of fact the apodo-
sis
does begin with MtyHv,
protasis a vlvqb
Mtfmwv . . .
hvhy tx vxryt-Mx
(verse 14)
protasis a ... hvhy lvqb
vfmwt xl-Mxv
(verse 15)
protasis b hvhy yp-tx vrmt
xlv
(verse 14)
protasis b hvhy yp-tx Mtyrmv
(verse 15)
apodosis Mtyhv
(verse 14)
apodosis htyhv
(verse 15)
The
two verses display a remarkably close parallelism in
wording
and structure, and because the apodosis is intro-
duced
in verse 15 with htyhv, the parallelism strongly sup-
ports
beginning the apodosis of verse 14 with Mtyhv.99
The objection which Smith makes to
beginning the
apodosis
of verse 14 with Mtyhv, while understandable, is not
conclusive,
since it turns on his understanding of the phrase
(hvhy) rHx . . . . Mtyhv. This phrase (rHx
hyh or yrHx
hyh)
is
found in several other places in the OT (II Sam. 2:10;
15:13;
I Kings 12:20; 16:21), in all of which it is used to
indicate
that the people of
people,
have chosen to follow a particular king in a situation
where
there was another possible alternative.
II Samuel 2:10 relates the decision
of
David
while Isbosheth reigned over the remainder of the
99. It is noteworthy that in both
verses "Athnah" stands under [yp-tx]
hvhy, indicating that in the opinion of the Masoretes
the principal division
within
the verse is to be made at that point. Cf. GK
§ 15b,c.
Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25 43
nation.
I Kings 12:20 relates that
of
David at the time of the division of the kingdom. I Kings
16:21
relates the people's divided loyalties between Tibni
and
Omri after the death of Zimri. Particularly instructive,
however,
is II Samuel 15:13. At the height of the rebellion of
Absalom,
David is told that, "the hearts of the men of
are
after Absalom" (Mvlwbx yrHx lxrWy wyxbl hyh). The
clear
meaning of the phrase here is that the men of
chosen
to give their allegiance to Absalom and to recognize
him
as king rather than David. Boecker, in his discussion of
these
passages comments as follows: "Es handelt sich an all
diesen
Stellen urn eine inhaltlich gepragte and in bestimmter
Richtung qualifizierte Ausdrucksweise. Die Aufnahme
dieses
Ausdrucks
dürfte in I Samuel 12, 14 im Sinn, der genannten
Parallelstellen
erfolgt sein. Ist dort die Anerkennung eines
menschlichen
Königs das Thema, so hier die Bestätigung der
Königswürde
Jahwes. Paraphrasiert lautet V. 14b—wiederum
ausserhalb des syntaktischen Zusammenhanges—‘sowohl ihr
als
auch der König, der uber euch regiert, werdet Jahwe,
euren
Gott, als König anerkennen.’”100 When nen . . . Mtyhv
hvhy rHx in I Samuel 12:14 is understood in this,
way then there
is
no need to postulate an aposiopesis, because there is a
meaningful
apodosis to the sentence.101
100. Boecker, Die Beurteilung der Anfeinge des Königtums, 80.
101. This also makes unnecessary the
various suggestions for emendation
which
have frequently been made in an effort to avoid what is felt to be either an
identical
proposition or incompleteness in the verse. LXXL has added kai>
e]celei?tai u[ma?j in an attempt to
complete the verse. J. Wellhausen (Der
Text der
Bücher Samuelis [
Hebrew
MSS in place of Mtyhv , but points out that this does not fit
with
hvhy rhx. Smith (Samuel, ICC, 88), while noting Welihausen's objection, and
also
noting that De Rossi "denies the manuscript authority" nevertheless
con-
cludes:
"As a conjecture the reading recommends itself, even without any ex-
ternal
authority. I have therefore adopted it, omitting the clause hvhy
rhx
Mkyhlx, which was probably added after the
corruption to Mtyhv had taken
place."
Others have read the verse in a way that does not require an apodosis
either
stated or unstated. Budde (Die Bücher
Samuel, KHC, 80) advocates reading
vxry j`x in the place of vxryt
Mx by
analogy with v. 24 and Josh. 24:14. He
explains
that the corruption is due to v. 15. There is, however, no textual basis for
his
suggestion. Keil (The Books of Samuel,
119) and others come to a similar
44 Translation and Exegesis of I Samuel
12:1-25