Age and Autkorship.—The attempt to ascertain the authorship of this early history is attended with difficulty. Ancient opinion is in favour of the theory that the first twenty-four chapters were written by Samuel, and the rest by Nathan and Gad. Abarbanel, however, and Grotius, suppose Jeremiah to be the author (Grot. Pref. in L Sam.) Stahelin (Einleit. sec. 25, etc.) conjectures that a large portion of Samuel was written by the author of the Pentateuch, and of the books of Joshua and Judges. But continuity of history in the same form does not prove identity of authorship, nor are the similar phrases found in these books sufficient in number or characteristic idiom to support the theory. Nay, Samuel is free from the so-called Chaldaisms of Judges and the archaisms ,of the Pentateuch. The peculiar theory of Jahn, on the other hand, is that the four books of Samuel and Kings were written by the same person, and at a date so recent as the 3oth year of the Babylonish captivity. His arguments, however, as well as those of Eich horn (Einleit. sec. 468), and Herbst (Einleit. 1-139), who hold a similar view, are more in genious than solid (Introduction, sec. 46). The fact of all the four treatises being named 'Books of Kings' is insisted on as a proof that they were originally undivided and formed a single work—a mere hypothesis, since the similarity of their con tents might easily give rise to this general title, while the more ancient appellation for the first two was The Books of Samuel. ^Great stress is laid on the uniformity of method in all the books. But this uniformity by no means amounts to any proof of identity of authorship. It is nothing more than the same Hebrew historical style. The more minute and distinctive features, so far from being similar, are very different. Nay, the books of Samuel and Kings may be ,contrasted in many of those peculiarities which mark a different writer :— I. In Kings there occur not a few references to the laws of Moses, in Samuel not one of these is to be found.
2. The books of Kings repeatedly .cite authori ties, to which appeal is made, and the reader is directed to the Acts of Solomon," the book of the Chronicles of Kings of Israel,' or Judah.' But in the books of Samuel there is no formal allusion to any such sources of information.
3. The nature of the history in the two works is very different. The plan of the books of Samuel is not that of the books of Kings. The books of Samuel are more of a biographical character, and are more limited and personal in their view.
4. There are in the books of Kings many later forms of language. For a collection of some of these the reader is referred to De Wctte (Einleit. in das A. T. sec. 185, note e). Scarcely any of those more recent or Chaldaic forms occur in Samuel. Besides, some peculiarities of form are noted by De Wette (sec. I8o), but they are not so numerous or distinctive as to give a general charac ter to the treatise (Hirzel, De Chaldaismi Bibl. origine, i830). Many modes of expression, com mon in Kings, are absent from Samuel [KINGS, BOOKS OF]. Keil, Ein/eit. sec. 53.
5. The concluding chapters of the second book of Samuel are in the form of an appendix to the work—a proof of its completeness. The connec tion between Samuel arid Kings is thus inten-upted. It appears, then, that Samuel claims a distinct authorship from the books of Kings. Stahelin, indeed, supposes that the present division between the two treatises has not been correctly made, and that the two commencing chapters of I Kings really belong to 2 Samuel. This he argues un
philological grounds, because the terms '111n1 41-6Drn (i Kings i. 38), tht.; (i. 12), and min e!= (i. 29.), are found nowhere in Kings but in the first two chapters, while they occur once and again in Samuel. There is certainly something peculiar in this affinity, though it may be accounted for on the principle that the author of the pieces or sketches which form the basis of the initial portions of Kings not only composed those which form the conclusion of Samuel, but also supervised or published the whole work which is now called by the prophet's name.
Thus the books of Samuel have an authorship of their own—an authorship belonging to a very early period. While their tone and style are very different from the later records of Chronides, they are also dissimilar to the books of Kings. They bear the impress of a hoary age in their language, allusions, and mode of composition. The insertion of odes and snatches of poetry, to enliven and verify the narrative, is common to them with the Pentateuch. They abound in minute sketches and vivid touches. As if the chapters had been ex tracted from a diary, some portions are more fully detailed and warmly coloured than others, accord ing as the original observer was himself impressed. Many of the incidents, in their artless and striking delineation, would form a fine study for a painter.
Besides, it is certainly a striking circumstance that the books of Samuel do not record David's death, though they give his last words—his last inspired effusion (Havernick, Einleit. sec. 167). We should reckon it natural for an author, if he had lived long after David's time and were writing his life, to finish his history with an account of the sovereign's death. Had the books of Samuel and Kings sprung from the same source, then the abrupt conclusion of one portion of the work, con taining David's life down to his last days, and yet omitting all notice of his death, might be ascribed to some unknown capricious motive of the author. But we have seen that the two treatises exhibit many traces of a different authorship. If the writer of Samuel gives a full detail of David's life, actions, and government, and yet fails to re cord his decease ; a natural inference is, that the document must have been composed prior to the monarch's death, or at least about that period. If we should find a memoir of George the Third, entering fully into his private and family history, as well as describing his cabinets, councillors, and parliaments ; the revolutions, and wars, and state of feeling under his government ; and ending with an account of the appointment of a regent, and a reference to the king's lunacy, our conclusion would be that the history was composed before the year 182o. A history of David, down to the verge of his dissolution, yet not including that event, has the semblance of being written before that monarch 'slept with his fathers.' But it may be replied, as by Stahelin, that the division of Kings and Samuel is unfortunate, and that Samnel contained the first and second chapters of r Kings. We are inclined to think that the books, or rather the materials out of which they have been formed, were contemporaneous vvith the events recorded. The composition of a portion of Samuel, Stahelin places in the time of Samuel, and his arguments are not without some force. Nor should we be in clined to place the date later than the reign uf Rehoboam, or very soon after it, as is the view of Thenius and De Wette.