The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-06-28
GENESIS OF SAMUEL-KINGS
By A. J. DICKINSON, D. D.

and the other through the Northern, or Ephraim, to the compiler in the days of the EXile. On the literature which was then growing up Is stamped the sectional differences which split the kingdom Tn twain. The Northern kingdom never did show that respect and admiration for the king which we find in the Southern; but magnified the office of the prophet over it. King after king is deposed and a new dynasty inaugurated in the Northern kingdom, but in the South the dynasty of David continued down to the Captiv- ity, and it's restoration was a cherished hope ever afterwards. In the South the prophet is always represented as an ad- wiser to the king in matters of state, as is patent in the case of Isaiah, in an en- tirely subsidiary and friendly relation; but in the North he was counted to be a superior and antagonistic, as is shown in the conduct of Elijah and Amos.
 But it is clear that our author had these two narratives before him in written form and after the usual Hebrew manner of historiography pieced them together as best suited his purpose in compiling. When were these narratives put on paper, or tablets, as the case may be? Consid- ering first the Saul narratives, and bear ing in mind that they are of a piece with the David narratives which form the body of the books of Samuel as well as the first two chapters of Kings, including the mar rative of the death of David. 1t Is very improbable that they were written before the reign of Solomon, about 959 B. C. But they also bear all the marks of be- ing very ancient writings with all the verishmiitude of history such as comes from evidence not yet old; and so we con- clude that 1t must have been written not long after the days of Solomon, if indeed h 5o of mt probable date would be 90O-s50 B. c. The Samuel narratives seem to have come out of the same nest as those concerning Elijah and Elisha, but to have proceeded the situation which we find in Amos and Hosea in 750 B. C.; and so must have been written about the year 800 B. c. The au- thor of one would be removed from the period about which he is writing by something like 50 years; and in the other by a stretch of time of about 150 years. These periods are sufficiently large to ask if they in turn had written sources To form a judgment as to whether an author received his data in oral or written form in the ancient East is very difficult. since even up to this day the people of that section are very expert in preserv
 ing oral tradition in it's purity and integ- rity, even when the tradition is an eX- tended narration Indeed, 1t was possi- DIG lHen to keep curreHl literature circulating from mouth to mouth. but since the days of written rec ords the memories of men have become less tenacious of the words of an oral communication. These incidents may therefore very well have gotten into cir culation by oral means and thus f1oated down to the authors of these two mar ratives. The majority of scholars would so hold, but it is by no means certain that this was their story. But the ques- ton Is one of little importance, since. as noted above, the difference between oral and written tradition was not great at that time. So the Higher Criticism proves that we have in this portion of Samuel-Kings not a writing dating from the Exile, one might infer from su- perficial study of the Scriptures, but ra- ther narratives which are very old and practically contemporary with the events they narrate.