But in opposition to our hypothesis it has been argued that in these books there are traces of several documents, which have been clumsily and inconsiderately put together, not only by a late but a blundering compiler. The elaborate theory of Eichhorn (Hinkel. p, 476), is similar to that which he has developed in his remarks on Chron icles—viz. that the basis of the second book of Samuel was a short life of David, which was aug mented by interpolated additions. The first book of Samuel is referred by him to old written sources, but in most parts to tmdition, both in the life of Samuel and Saul. I3ertholdt (Einleit. p. 894) modifies this opinion by affirming that in the first book of Samuel there are three independent docu ments, chaps. ; viii.-xvi. ; xvii.-xxx. ; contain ing respectively SamuePs history, Saul's life, and David's early biography ; while in reference to the second book of Samuel, he generally admits the conjecture of Eichhorn. Gramberg (Die Chronik, vol. ii. p. So) is in favour of two narratives, named by him A and B, but his theory wants even plausibility. Nor is the view of Thenius more satisfactory, though it be simpler. Such theories have little else to recommend them but the in genious industry which framed them. It is said, however, that there are evident vestiges of two dif ferent sources being used and intermingled in Samuel ; that the narrative is not continuous ; especially, that it is made up of duplicate and con tradictory statements. Such vestiges are alleged to be the following : In I Sam. x. 1, Samuel is said to have anointed Saul, whereas in x. 2o-25 the prophet is described as having chosen him by lot. The reason of this twofold act we have already given in our remarks on Samuel in tbe preceding article. The former was God's secret election, the latter his public theocratic designation. Ag,ain, it is affirmed. that two different accounts are given of the cause why the people demanded a king ; the one (r Sam. viii. 5) being the profligacy of Samnel's sons, and the other (xii. 12, 13) a menaced invasion of the Ammonites. Both accounts per fectly harmonise. The nation feared the inroads of the children of Ammon, and they felt that Samuers sons could not command the respect and obedience of the various tribes. It was necessary to tell the old judge that his sons could not succeed him ; for he might have pointed to them as future advisers and governors in the dreaded juncture.
The accounts of Saul's death are also said to dif fer from each other (I Sam. xxxi. 2-6, and Sam.
2.t2). We admit the difference, the first ac count being the correct one, and the second being merely the invention of the cunning Amalekite, who fmmed the lie to gain the favour of Saurs great rival David. It is recorded that twice did David spare Sau life (I Sam. xxiv. and xxvi.) The fact of the repetition of a similar deed of gene rosity can never surely give the narrative a legen daiy character. The miracle which multiplied the loaves and the fishes was twice wrought by Jesus. The same remark may be made as to the supposed double origin of the proverb, ` Is Saul also among the prophets ?' In I Sam. x. II its real source is given, and in xix. 24 another reason and occasion are assigned for its national currency. Especially bas great stress been laid on what are supposed to be different records of David's introduction to Saul, contained in r Sam. xvi. 18-2z, and in the follow ing chapter. That there is difficulty here cannot be denied ; but to transpose the passages, on the supposition that David's encounter with Goliath was prior to his introduction to Saul as musician, will not remove the difficulty. For if Saul became
so jealous of David's popularity as he is epresented, no one of his domestics would have dated to recom mend David to him as one possessed of high en dowments, and able to charm away his melancholy. The Vatican MS. of the Sept. omits no less than twenty-five verses in these chapters. Yet the omis sion does not effect a reconciliation. Some critics— such as Houbigant, Michaelis, Dathe, and Kenni cott—regard the entire passage as an interpolation. In the chapters as they stand David is first intro duced to Saul as a minstrel, then as becoming a favourite of the sovereign, and being appointed one of his aides-de-camp. Now the fact of this previous introduction is alluded to in the very passage which creates the difficulty ; for after, in minute Oriental fashion (Ewald, A-on:position der Genes. p. 148), David and his genealogy are again brought before the reader, it is said, and David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.' The only meaning this verse can have is, that David's attendance at court was not constant, es pecially as Saul's evil spirit may have left him. The writer who describes the combat with Goliath thus distinctly notices that David had already been introduced to Saul ; nay, farther, specific alhision is again made to David's standing at court : And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house ; and David played with his hand, as at other times' (x Sam. xvifi. ro). The phrase, as at other times,' must refer to the notices of the former chapter. Yet, after the, battle, Saul is represented as being ignorant of the youth, and as inquiring after him ; while Abner the general declares that he does not know the youthful hero. Can we imagine any ordinary compiler so to stultify himself as this author is Supposed to have done, by intimating that David had been with Saul, and yet that Saul did not know him ? It is there fore very probable that David had left Saul for some time before his engagement with Goliath ; that the king's fits of gloomy insanity prevented him from obtaining correct impressions of David's form and person—the period of David's life, when the youth passes into the man, being one which is accompanied with marked change of appear ance. The inquiry of Saul is also more about the young champion's parentage than about himself. Abner's vehement profession of ignorance is some what suspicious : As thy soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell ;'—a response too solemn for a question so simple. We cannot pursue the investigation farther. We would not in such a passage deny all difficulty, like Havernick (sec. 166), nor do we suppose that the difficulty is completely removed by any of these previous hints, yet no inconsis tency can have been apparent to the compiler. The one of the accounts, however, may have been inserted in the course of transmission, and it does not seem to have been in the Codex from which the Alexandrian versionists translated. Appeal has also been made to David's two visits to Achish, king of Gath ; but they happened in circumstances very dissimilar, and cannot by any means be re garded as a duplicate chronicle of the same event.