Critical notes on Old Testament history; the traditions of Saul and David

Cook Stanley Arthur 1873-

Sujets

• Old Testament

Informations

• Publié par: les_archives_du_savoir
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 10 Mo

Extrait

CNJ
?CNJ
o
CD
00Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2007 witii funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
littp://www.arcliive.org/details/criticalnotesonoOOcookuoftv^
CRITICAL NOTES ON
HISTORYOLD TESTAMENT
DAVIDTHE TRADITIONS OF SAUL AND
STANLEY Ay COOK, M.A
FELLOW AND LECTURER IN HEBREW AND SYRIAC
COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGEGONVILLE AND CAIUS
MEMBER OF THE EDITORIAL STAFF OF
'
'THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA
Houlion
AND CO., LuiitedMACMILLAN
YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANYNKW
190THORACE HARTOXFOTID:
PRINTEK TO THE UNIVERSITY—
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction v
Additions and Corrections xvii
DavidSection I. The Life op i
Criticism of 2 Sam. ix-xx—its bearing upon traditions of
earlier days—David and Bethlehem, Levites andDavid's
Kadesh—historical difficulties in 2 Samuel—criticism of
David's reign.
II. SaulSection 19
character—his defeat of PhilistinesGeneral views of his the
—criticism of i Sam. xiii sq.—the prelude to the Philistine
—relation to Judges x. 6-xii. 7—features in tradi-oppression
tions of Saul—subordination to those of David—Saul in
Benjamin, David in Bethlehem—cpality and quantity of
literary material.
6—1Section III. Judges x. Sam. viii 33
Interrelation and general character of the contents—nar-
—Eli and the ark—problems of Shilohratives of Samuel
and the ark—relations between ark and southern clans
migration—Benjamin and non-Israelite districtsDanite
rise of the Philistines.
Section IV. Saul and Benjamin 46
historical material—the evidence for Ben-Development of
andjamite origin of Saul—for relations between Samuel
Saul trend Benjamite tradition points of contact— of —
Joshua, the patriarchsbetween traditions of Saul, and
Saul originally not Benjamite—general considerations for
and David.history of Saul
Meribath-KadeshSection V. 63
inTraditions of the Exodus—narratives Exod. xv. 22-xviii,
and in Num. x. 29-xxi—their interrelation—early promi-
nence of Kadesh—its traditions of selection and rejection
journey from Kadesh northwards—fusion of divergent views.—
IV CONTENTS
PAGE
Section VI. The Calebite Tradition .... 84
—Relation between Kadesh-traditions and southern clans
Moses and Caleb - —Korah and Levites Reuben, Simeon,
and Dan—contact with Davidic traditions genealogy of—
"Hezron"--other traditions of southern origin—fusion with
" " —Israelite traditions—historicity of divergent traditions
bearing of southern group upon Judaean history.
Section VII. Literary and Historical Criticism . loi
.
Origin of "Israel"—historicity of tradition—free use of
older material—methods ofcompilers—methods ofhistorical
criticism—value of literary criticism growth, dates, and—
relative age of traditions post-Deuteronomic insertions—
bearing upon history—history and its bearing upon litemry
criticism.
Section VIII. Saul and David 122
""Kadesh traditions independent of Israelite —lack of
"continuity between old narratives of Joshua, the Judges,"
and Saul—oldest traditions of Saul independent of those
of David—difficulties involved in the fusion—David's cap-
ture of Jerusalem—connexion with Kadesh and Caleb
group—absence of continuity in traditions of David and
Solomon—bearing upon later history.
Section IX. Conclusion 142
Israelite traditions Saul—twofold view of origin ofof
" Israel"— Saul and northern origin, David and southern
group—fusion in Judges i and patriarchal narratives
obscure character of southern group—possible connexion
with history of Levites—bearing upon history of monarchy
—traditions of Palestine fused with southern group(Israel)
and taken over by Judah.
Select Index of Biblical Passages 155
General Index 158INTRODUCTION.
The publication of the present studies is due to the liberal-
minded editors of Jewish Quarterlythe Keview in whose
hospitable pages, always open to biblical research, they first ap-
peared. They began with the attempt to make an independent
investigation of early Hebrew history to the time of David,
and, taking their rise in an examination of a number of detailed
points thesome years ago when Encyclopaedia Biblica was in
course of preparation, form the continuation of the preliminary
article on the Composition of 2 Samuel, published in the
American Journal Semitic Languages, April, 1900.of
After a discussion of certain historical questions in 2 Samuel
(section July, Ii, J. Q. E., have dealt independently with1905),
Saul and the narratives which lead up to his rise. The evidence
appeared to show that many of the older narratives which have
gathered around the king of Israel werefirst not trustworthy,
and that in their present form they are the result of certain
processes of redaction, the character and relative age of
usually be determined (sections ii-iv, J.which can Q. E.,
October, January, April, The oldest of the tradi-1905, 1906).
tions had points of contact with the old stories of Joshua and
patriarchal narratives.with certain features in the Next,
although several writers have recognized the importance of
Kadesh in early traditions, and admit the possibility ofa distinct
independent seemedmovement into Judah, an study to show
traditions question belonged to a specific groupthat the in
which pointed to a movement into both Israel and Judah
(sections v-vi, J.Q.E., July, October, 1906). By this time
reached where the reconciliation of the evidencethe stage was
modern critical views of early Israelite history becamewith
impossible. It seemed probable that there were two main
traditions pointing to a twofold view of the Oi-igin ofgroups of
these were inextricably bound up with theIsrael, and thatINTRODUCTIONVi
the con-biblical history. Consequently, inentire course of
January, afterInstalment (sections vii-ix, 1907),cluding
ofwith general principles and methodsdealing very briefly
for the period underI summarized the evidencecriticism,
myself with indicating rather thanreview, and contented
unavoidablydeeper questions which werediscussing the
raised.
of Saulconclusion regarding the traditionsThe irresistible
modern historicalstrikes at the root ofand David (p. 140)
theirthe rise of the Hebrew kingdom atcriticism. Although
surroundingentirely justified by the inactivity of theage is
writers may have had access to somepowers, and although
thethe period (e.g. conflicts with Philistines),traditions of
consecutive history wasseemed inevitable that noconclusion
impossible to avoid the feeling that one waspreserved. It was
background had to benarratives whose historicaldealing with
there were historical situationsin later periods, whensought
Itrecords are unaccountably scanty.upon which our present
great conflicts withsuffice to refer merely to Israel'smay
dynasty, or to Judah's varying relationsDamascus in Jehu's
of the eighth cen-Philistine cities in the latter halfwith the
i). literary criticism has recognized(see n. Sincetury p. 151,
at variousfor the earlier periods originatedthat the sources
of history were being handled,ages when other periodslater
indispensable.treatment seemed ultimatelya more synthetic
the traditions of earlythe attempt to investigate afreshThat
have compelled a reconsideration of theHebrew history should
surprising when onehistorical theories is not whollyprevailing
criticism elsewhere. Baentsch'sobserves the trend of recent
ofMonotlieismiis (Tubingen, 1906) is an indicationplea in his
the development ofgrowing feeling that the theory ofthe
Wincklex-, too, has frequently ex-Israel is unsatisfactory.
have thehimself strongly to the same effect. Bothpressed
neither appear to allowstrongest claims to a hearing, but
the character of the biblical records.sufficiently for
cannot longThere are three aspects of biblical study which
other. In the first place, the vastbe disassociated from each
the monu-additions to our knowledge from excavation and
traditional views, andments have compelled a modification of