FOOTNOTES:

Gideon had gained a brilliant victory; no more is heard of the raids of the Midianites. Out of the booty he set up a gilded image (ephod) at Ophra.[201]He overthrew the altar of Baal and the image of Astarte in his city; and this, as is expressly stated, in the night (from which we must conclude that the inhabitants of Ophra were attached to this worship); and in the place of it he set up an altar to Jehovah on the height, and in the city another altar, which he called "Jehovah, peace." "Unto this day it is still in Ophra."

After the liberation of the land, which was owing to him, Gideon held the first place in Israel. We are told that the crown had been offered to him and that he refused it.[202]But if Gideon left 70 sons of his body by many wives, if we find that his influence descended to his sons, he must have held an almost royal position, in which a harem was not wanting. He died, as itseems, in a good old age, and was buried in the grave of his fathers (after 1150B.C.[203]).

The same need of protection which preserved Gideon in power till his death had induced some cities to form a league, after the pattern of the cities of the Philistines, for mutual support and security. Shechem, the old metropolis of the tribe of Ephraim, was the chief city of this league. Here on the citadel at Shechem the united cities had built a temple to Baal Berith,i. e.to Baal of the league, and established a fund for the league in the treasury of this temple. One of the 70 sons of Gideon, the child of a woman of Shechem, by name Abimelech, conceived the plan of establishing a monarchy in Israel by availing himself of Gideon's name and memory, the desire for order and protection from which the league had arisen, and the resources of the cities. At first he sought to induce the cities to make him their chief. Supported by them, he sought to remove his brothers and to take the monarchy into his own hands as the only heir of Gideon. A skilful warrior like Abimelech, who carried with him the fame and influence of a great father, must have been welcome to the cities as a leader and chief in such wild times. Abimelech spoke to the men of Shechem: "Consider that I am your bone and your flesh; which is better, that 70 men rule over you or I only?" Then the citizens of Shechem and the inhabitants of the citadel assembled under the oak of Shechem and made Abimelech their king, and gave him 70 shekels of silver from the temple of Baal Berith, "that he might be able to pay people to serve him." With these and the men of Shechem who followedhim he marched and slew all his brethren at Ophra in his father's house (one only, Jotham, escaped him), and Israel obeyed him. Abimelech seemed to have reached his object. Perhaps he might have maintained the throne thus won by blood had he not, three years afterwards, quarrelled with the cities which helped him to power. The cities rose against him. Abimelech with his forces went against the chief city, Shechem. The city was taken and destroyed, the inhabitants massacred. About 1000 men and women fled for refuge into the temple of Baal Berith in the citadel; Abimelech caused them to be burned along with the temple. Then he turned from Shechem to Thebez, some miles to the north. When he stormed the city the inhabitants fled into the strong tower, closed it, and went up on the roof of the tower. Abimelech pressed on to the door of the tower to set it on fire, when a woman threw a stone down from above which fell on Abimelech and broke his skull. Then the king called to his armour-bearer, "Draw thy sword and slay me, that it may not be said, A woman slew him." The youthful monarchy was wrecked on this quarrel of the citizens with the new king.

After this time Eli the priest at the sacred tabernacle, a descendant of Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron,[204]is said to have been in honour among the Israelites. Not only was he the priest of the national shrine, but counsel and judgment were also sought from him. But Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas; did evil, and lay with the women who came to the sacred tabernacle to offer prayer and sacrifice.[205]

FOOTNOTES:[181]Judges v. 10, 14; x. 4.[182]Judges x. 1-5; xii. 8-15.[183]e. g.Judges ix. 27.[184]Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. i. 3; ii. 13.[185]Judges xx. 1; vol. i. 410.[186]1 Sam. x. 3; vol. i. 390, 411.[187]Judges xvii. 5, 10; xviii. 30; 1 Sam. vii. 1; 2, vi. 3.[188]Judges xvii. ff.[189]1 Sam. xix. 13-16; xxi. 9; Gen. xxxi. 34; Judges xvii. 5; xviii. 14, 17; 2 Kings xxiii. 24.[190]e. g.Judges vi. 36-40; xviii. 5; xx. 18 ff. The priests wore a pocket with lots (apparently small stones) on the breast. The Urim and Thummim of the High Priest was originally nothing but these lots.[191]On the composition of the Book of Judges, cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," 325 ff.[192]In David's time only 270,000 are given: below, chap. 7.[193]Judges xx. 8; xxi. 7-18.[194]Gen. xlix. 27; Judges xx. 16; 1 Chron. viii. 39; xii. 2; 2 Chron. xiv. 7.[195]These events belong, according to Judges xx. 27 ff., to the period immediately after the conquest: as a fact, the war against Benjamin is not to be placed long after this,i. e.about 1200B.C.Cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," S. 326.[196]Judges iii. 12 ff.[197]Judges iv., v.[198]Judges vi. 2-5.[199]Judges viii. 19.[200]The observation that Gideon was the least in the house of his father, and his family the weakest in Manasseh (Judges vi. 15), is due no doubt to the tendency of the Ephraimitic text to show how strong Jehovah is even in the weak. From similar motives it is said that Gideon himself reduced his army to 300 men (Judges vii. 2-6). In the presence of the Ephraimites Gideon speaks only of the family of Abiezer.[201]What is meant in Judges viii. 27 by an ephod is not clear. The words which follow in the verse—that all Israel went whoring after Gideon—are obviously an addition of the prophetic revision.[202]Judges viii. 22.[203]Gideon's date can only be fixed very indefinitely. He and the generations after him must have belonged to the second half of the twelfth centuryB.C.[204]Joseph. "Antiq." 5, 11, 5.[205]1 Sam. ii. 22-25.

[181]Judges v. 10, 14; x. 4.

[182]Judges x. 1-5; xii. 8-15.

[183]e. g.Judges ix. 27.

[184]Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. i. 3; ii. 13.

[185]Judges xx. 1; vol. i. 410.

[186]1 Sam. x. 3; vol. i. 390, 411.

[187]Judges xvii. 5, 10; xviii. 30; 1 Sam. vii. 1; 2, vi. 3.

[188]Judges xvii. ff.

[189]1 Sam. xix. 13-16; xxi. 9; Gen. xxxi. 34; Judges xvii. 5; xviii. 14, 17; 2 Kings xxiii. 24.

[190]e. g.Judges vi. 36-40; xviii. 5; xx. 18 ff. The priests wore a pocket with lots (apparently small stones) on the breast. The Urim and Thummim of the High Priest was originally nothing but these lots.

[191]On the composition of the Book of Judges, cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," 325 ff.

[192]In David's time only 270,000 are given: below, chap. 7.

[193]Judges xx. 8; xxi. 7-18.

[194]Gen. xlix. 27; Judges xx. 16; 1 Chron. viii. 39; xii. 2; 2 Chron. xiv. 7.

[195]These events belong, according to Judges xx. 27 ff., to the period immediately after the conquest: as a fact, the war against Benjamin is not to be placed long after this,i. e.about 1200B.C.Cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," S. 326.

[196]Judges iii. 12 ff.

[197]Judges iv., v.

[198]Judges vi. 2-5.

[199]Judges viii. 19.

[200]The observation that Gideon was the least in the house of his father, and his family the weakest in Manasseh (Judges vi. 15), is due no doubt to the tendency of the Ephraimitic text to show how strong Jehovah is even in the weak. From similar motives it is said that Gideon himself reduced his army to 300 men (Judges vii. 2-6). In the presence of the Ephraimites Gideon speaks only of the family of Abiezer.

[201]What is meant in Judges viii. 27 by an ephod is not clear. The words which follow in the verse—that all Israel went whoring after Gideon—are obviously an addition of the prophetic revision.

[202]Judges viii. 22.

[203]Gideon's date can only be fixed very indefinitely. He and the generations after him must have belonged to the second half of the twelfth centuryB.C.

[204]Joseph. "Antiq." 5, 11, 5.

[205]1 Sam. ii. 22-25.

More than a century and a half had passed since the Israelites had won their land in Canaan. The greater part of the tribes, beside the breeding of cattle, were occupied with the cultivation of vines and figs, and regular agriculture; the minority had become accustomed to life in settled cities, and the earliest stages of industry; but the unity of the nation was lost, and in the place of the religious fervour which once accompanied the exodus from Egypt, the rites of the Syrian deities had forced their way in alongside of the worship of Jehovah. The division and disorganisation of the nation had exposed the Israelites to the attacks of their neighbours; the attempt of Abimelech to establish a monarchy in connection with the cities had failed; the anarchy still continued. Worse dangers still might be expected in the future. The forces of the Moabites, Midianites, and Ammonites were not superior to that of the Israelites, the attacks of the tribes of the desert were of a transitory nature; but what if the cities of the coast, superior in civilisation, art, and combined power, should find it convenient when the affairs of Israel were in this position to extend their borders to the interior, and Israel should be gradually subjugated from the coast? From the Phenicians there was nothing to fear: navigation and trade entirely occupied them;from the beginning of the eleventh century their ships devoted their attention to discoveries in the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the straits of Gibraltar (p. 83). The case was different with the warlike cities of the Philistines. If the Philistines were behind the Israelites in the extent of their territory and dominion, their forces were held together and well organised by means of the confederation of the cities. Bounded to the west by the sea, and to the south by the desert, the only path open to them for extending their power was in the direction of the Hebrews. For a long time they had been content to put a limit upon the extension of the tribes of Judah and Dan, but in the first half of the eleventh centuryB.C.the condition of Israel appeared to the federation of the Philistines sufficiently inviting to induce them to pass from defence to attack. Their blows fell first on Judah, Simeon, and the part of Dan which had remained in the south on the borders of the Philistines; tribes which had hitherto been exempted from attack, whose territory had been protected by the deserts on the south, and the Dead Sea on the east. But now they were attacked from the direction of the sea. The struggle with the Philistines was not a matter of rapine and plunder, but of freedom and independence. The aim of the five princes of the Philistines (I. 348) was directed towards the extension of their own borders and their own dominion, and the war against the Israelites was soon carried on with vigour. The tribes of Judah and Dan were reduced to submission.[206]If the Israelites did not succeed in uniting their forces, if they could not repair what was neglected at the conquest, and had since been attempted in vain, the suppression of their independence, their religious and national life, appeared certain. Thequestion was whether the nation of Israel, accustomed to an independent and defiant life in small communities, and corrupted by it, possessed sufficient wisdom and devotion to solve the difficult task now laid upon it.

It was a melancholy time for Israel when the Philistines ruled over the south of the land. Later generations found some comfort for this national disgrace in the narratives of the strong and courageous Samson, the son of Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, whose deeds were placed by tradition in this period. He had done the Philistines much mischief, and slain many of them; even when his foolish love for a Philistine maiden finally brought him to ruin, he slew more Philistines at his death than in his life—"about 3000 men and women."[207]Whatever be the truth about these deeds, no individual effort could avail to save Israel when the Philistines seriously set themselves to conquer the northern tribes, unless the nation roused itself and combined all its forces under one definite head.

The Philistines invaded the land of Ephraim with a mighty army, and forced their way beyond it northwards as far as Aphek, two leagues to the south of Tabor. At Tabor the Israelites assembled and attempted to check the Philistines, but they failed; 4000 Israelites were slain. Then the elders of Israel, in order to encourage the people, caused the ark of Jehovah to be brought from Shiloh into the camp. Eli, the priest at the sacred tabernacle, was of the age of 98 years. Hophni and Phinehas, his sons, accompanied the sacred ark, which was welcomed by the army with shouts of joy. In painful expectation Eli sat at the gate of Shiloh and awaited the result. Then a man of the tribe of Benjamin came in haste, with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head, and said, "Israel is fled before the Philistines, thy sons are dead, and the ark of God is lost." Eli fell backwards from his seat, broke his neck, and died. About 30,000 men are said to have fallen in the battle (about 1070B.C.).[208]

At the sacred tabernacle at Shiloh Samuel the son of Elkanah had served under Eli. Elkanah was anEphraimite; he dwelt at Ramah (Ramathaim, andhence among the Greeks Arimathia[209]). Samuel was born to him late in life, and, in gratitude that at last a son was given to her, his mother had dedicated him to Jehovah, and given him to Eli to serve in the sanctuary. Thus even as a boy Samuel waited at the sacrifices in a linen tunic, and performed the sacred rites. He grew up in the fear of Jehovah and became a seer, who saw what was hidden, a soothsayer, whom the people consulted in distress of any kind, and at the same time he announced the will of Jehovah, for Jehovah had called him, and permitted him to see visions, "so that he knew how to speak the word of God, which was rare in those days," and "Jehovah was with him and let none of Samuel's words fall to the ground."[210]After the crushing defeat at Aphek it devolved on Samuel to perform the duties of high priest. He summoned the people to Mizpeh in the tribe of Benjamin and prayed for Israel. Large libations of water were poured to Jehovah. When the Philistines advanced Samuelsacrificed a sucking lamb (no doubt as a sin-offering), and burned it. "Then on that day Jehovah thundered mightily out of heaven over the Philistines, and confounded them so that they were defeated."

This victory remained without lasting results. On the contrary, the slavery of the Israelites to the Philistines became more extensive and more severe. In order to bring the northern tribes into the same subjection as the tribes of Dan, Judah, and Simeon, the Philistines established fortified camps at Michmash and Geba (Gibeah) in the tribe of Benjamin, as a centre from which to hold this and the northern tribes in check. The men of the tribes of Judah and Simeon had to take the field against their own countrymen. These arrangements soon obtained their object. All Israel on this side of the Jordan was reduced to subjection. In order to make a rebellion impossible, the Israelites were deprived of their arms; indeed, the Philistines were not content that they should give up the arms in their possession, they even removed the smiths from the land, that no one might provide a sword or javelin for the Hebrews. The oppression of this dominion pressed so heavily and with such shame on the Israelites that the books of Samuel themselves tell us, if the plough-shares, bills, and mattocks became dull, or the forks were bent, the children of Israel had to go down into the cities of the Philistines in order to have their implements mended and sharpened.[211]

At this period Samuel's activity must have been limited to leading back the hearts of the Israelites to the God who brought them out of Egypt; he must have striven to fill them with the faith with which he was himself penetrated, and the distress of the time would contribute to gain acceptance for his teachingand his prescripts. The people sought his word and decision; he is said to have given judgment at Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh. He gathered scholars and disciples round him, who praised Jehovah to the sound of harp and lute, flute and drum, who in violent agitation and divine excitement awaited his visions, and "were changed into other men."[212]From the position which tradition allots to Samuel, there can be no doubt that he brought the belief in and worship of the old god into renewed life, and caused them to sink deeper into the hearts of the Israelites. The oppression of his people by the Philistines he could not turn away, though he cherished a lively hope in the help of Jehovah.

The tribes on the east of the Jordan remained free from the dominion of the Philistines; yet for them also servitude and destruction was near at hand. The Ammonites were not inclined to let slip so favourable an opportunity. As the land on the west of the Jordan was subject to the Philistines, the tribes on the east would prove an easy prey. The Ammonites encamped before Jabesh in Gilead, and the inhabitants were ready to submit. But Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, as we are told, would only accept their submission on condition that every man in Jabesh put out his right eye. Then the elders of Jabesh sent messengers across the Jordan and earnestly besought their countrymen for help.

The tribe of Benjamin had to feel most heavily, no doubt, the oppression of the Philistines. In their territory lay the fortified camps of the enemy. Here, at Gibeah, dwelt a man of the race of Matri, Saul the son of Kish, the grandson of Abiel. Kish was a man of substance and influence; his son Saul was a courageousman, of remarkable stature, "higher by a head than the rest of the nation." He was in the full strength of his years, and surrounded by valiant sons: Jonathan, Melchishua, Abinadab, and Ishbosheth. One day, "just as he was returning home from the field behind his oxen," he heard the announcement which the messengers of Jabesh brought. Himself under the enemy's yoke, he felt the more deeply what threatened them. His heart was fired at the shame and ruin of his people. Regardless of the Philistines, he formed a bold resolution; assistance must be given to those most in need. He cut two oxen in pieces, sent the pieces round the tribes,[213]and raised the cry, "Whoso comes not after Saul, so shall it be done to his oxen." The troop which gathered round him out of compassion for the besieged in Jabesh, and in obedience to his summons, Saul divided into three companies. With these he succeeded in surprising the camp of the Ammonites about the morning watch; he dispersed the hostile army and set Jabesh free.

Whatever violence and cruelty had been exercised since the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, however many the feuds and severe the vengeance taken, however great the distress and the oppression, the nation, amid all the anarchy and freedom so helpless against an enemy, still preserved a healthy and simple feeling and vigorous power. And at this crisis the Israelites were not found wanting; Saul's bold resolution, the success in setting free the city in her sore distress, the victory thus won, the first joy and hope after so long a period of shame, gave the people the expectation of having found in him the man who was able to set them free from the dominion of the Philistines also, and restore independence, and law,and peace. When the thank-offering for the unexpected victory, for the liberation of the land of Gilgal, was offered at Gilgal on the Jordan, as far as possible from the camp of the Philistines, "all the people went to Gilgal, and there made Saul king before Jehovah, and Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly" (1055B.C.).

The heavy misfortunes which the land had experienced for a long time, the severe oppression of the dominion of the Philistines, had at length taught the majority that rescue could only come by a close connection and union of the powers of the tribes, and an established authority supreme over all. To check anarchy from within and oppression from without required a vigorous hand, a ruling will, and a recognised power. What the people could do to put an end to the disorganisation was now done, they had placed a man at the head whom they might expect to be a brave leader and resolute guide. The Israelites had used their sovereignty to give themselves a master, and might hope with confidence that by this step they had laid the foundations of a happier future which they might certainly greet with joy.[214]

Immediately after his election on the Jordan, Saul was firmly resolved to take up arms against thePhilistines for the liberation of the land. He turned upon their camp in the district of his own tribe. While he lay opposite the fortifications at Michmash, and thus held the garrison fast, his son Jonathan succeeded in conquering the detachment of the Philistines stationed at Geba. But the princes of the Philistines had no mind to look on at the union of Israel. They assembled, as we are told, an army of 3000 chariots, 6000 cavalry, and foot soldiers beyond number; with these the tribes of Judah and Simeon were compelled to take the field against their brethren.[215]Whether the numbers are correct or incorrect, the armament of the Philistines was sufficient to cause the courage of the Israelites to sink. Saul summoned the Israelites to the Jordan, to Gilgal, where he had been raised to be their chief. But in vain he caused the trumpets to be blown and the people to be summoned. The Israelites crept into the caves and clefts of the rock, and thorn-bushes, into the towers and the cisterns, and fled beyond Jordan to find refuge in the land of Gilead. Only the king and his brave son Jonathan did not quail before the numbers or gallantry of the enemies, though only a small troop—it is said about 600 men—gathered round Saul. The great army of the Philistines had first marched to the fortified camp at Michmash, and from this point, after leaving a garrison behind, in which were the Israelites of Judah and Simeon, it separated into three divisions, in order to march through Israel in all directions and hold the country in subjection. One column marched to the west in the direction of Beth-horon, the second to the north towards Ophra, the third to the east towards the valley of Zeboim.[216]This division made it possible for Saul to attack. He turned upon that part of the army which was weakest and most insecure, the garrison at Michmash, and made an unexpected attack on the fortification. Jonathan ascended an eminence in the rear, while Saul attacked in the van. In the tumult of the attack the Hebrews in the camp of the Philistines joined the side of their countrymen, and Saul gained the fortification. The Philistines fled. The king knew what was at stake and strove to push the victory thus gained to the utmost.[217]Without resting, he urged his men to the pursuit of the fugitives. That none of his troop might halt or stray in order to take food, he said, "Cursed is the man who eats bread till the evening, till I have taken vengeance on mine enemies." Jonathan had not heard the command of his father, and as the pursuers passed through a wood in which wild honey lay scattered he ate a little of the honeycomb. For this he should have been put to death, because he was dedicated to Jehovah (I. 499).But the warriors were milder than their customs. "Shall Jonathan die," cried the soldiers, "who has won this great victory in Israel? that be far from us: as Jehovah liveth, not a hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has wrought with God this day;" "and the people rescued Jonathan that he died not."[218]

This success encouraged the Israelites to come forth from their hiding-places and gather round their king. But only a part of the hostile army was defeated, and the Philistines were not so easily to be deprived of the sovereignty over Israel. "And the strife was hot against the Philistines so long as Saul lived," and "king Saul was brave and delivered Israel from the hand of the robbers," is the older of the two statements preserved in the Books of Samuel.

Saul had rendered the service which was expected by the Israelites when they elevated him: he had saved his nation from the deepest distress, from the brink of the most certain destruction. Without him the tribes beyond the Jordan would have succumbed to the Ammonites and Moabites, and those on this side of the river would at length have become obedient subjects of the Philistines. He found on his accession a disarmed, discouraged nation. By his own example he knew how to restore to them courage and self-confidence, and educate them into a nation familiar with war and skilled in it. The old military virtues of the tribe of Benjamin (p. 96) found in Saul their full expression and had a most beneficial result for Israel. The close community in which from old time the small tribe of Benjamin had been with the large tribe of Ephraim, by the side of which it had settled, was an advantage to Saul.[219]The strong position which he gainedby the recognition of these two tribes could not but have an effect on the others, and contribute with the importance of his achievements and the splendour of their results to gain firmness and respect for the young monarchy, and win obedience for his commands. In the ceaseless battles which he had to carry on he was mainly supported by his eldest son Jonathan, who stood beside him as a faithful brother in arms, and his cousin Abner, the son of Ner his father's brother, whom he made his chief captain. "And wherever Saul saw a mighty man and a brave he took him to himself."[220]Thus he formed around him a school of brave warriors. He appears to have kept 3000 warriors under arms in the district of Benjamin, and this formed the centre for the levy of the people.[221]

But the Israelites had not merely to thank the king they had set up for the recovery and vigorous defence of their independence and their territory; he was also a zealous servant of Jehovah. He offered sacrifice to Him, built altars, and inquired of Him by His priests, who accompanied him even on his campaigns.[222]He observed strictly the sacred customs; even after the battle the exhausted soldiers were not allowed to eat meat with blood in it. He was prepared to allow even his dearest son, whose life he had unconsciously devoted, to be put to death. He removed all magicians and wizards out of the land with great severity.[223]How earnestly he took up the national and religious opposition to the Canaanites is clear from his conduct to the Hivites of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, andKirjath-jearim, who had once made a league with Joshua, and in consequence had been allowed to remain among the Israelites (I. 494). "Saul sought to slay them in his zeal for Israel," and the Gibeonites afterwards maintained that Saul had sought to annihilate them, and his purpose was that they should be destroyed and exist no more in all the land of Israel.[224]The ark of the covenant, which had fallen into the hands of the Philistines at the battle of Aphek, was brought back to Israel in his reign. The possession of it, so the Hebrews said, had brought no good to the Philistines. They had set it up as a trophy of victory in the temple of Dagon at Ashdod. But the image of the god had fallen to pieces, and only the fish-tail was left standing (I. 272); the people of Ashdod had been attacked with boils, and their crops destroyed by mice. The same occurred at Gath, when the ark was brought there, and, in consequence, the city of Ekron had refused to accept it. Then the Philistines had placed the ark upon a wagon, and allowed the cows before it to draw it whither they would. They drew it to Beth-shemesh in the tribe of Judah. But when the people of Beth-shemesh looked on the ark a grievous mortality began among them, till the men of Kirjath-jearim (not far from Beth-shemesh) took away the ark, and Abinadab set it up in a house on a hill in his field, and established his own son Eleazar as guardian and priest (about 1045B.C.[225]). The Books of the Chroniclesmention the gifts which Saul dedicated to the national sanctuary.[226]

As king of Israel, Saul remained true to the simplicity of his earlier life. Of splendour, courts, ceremonial, dignitaries, and harem we hear nothing. If not in the field he remained on his farm at Gibeah, with his wife Ahinoam,[227]his four sons, and his two daughters. Abner and other approved comrades in arms ate at his table. His elder daughter Merab he married to Adriel the son of Barzillai. Michal, the younger, he gave to a youthful warrior, David the son of Jesse, who had distinguished himself in the war against the Philistines, whom he had made his armour-bearer and companion of his table, entrusting him at the same time with the command of 1000 men of the standing army.[228]"What am I, what is the life and the house of my father in Israel, that I should become the son-in-law of the king? I am but a poor and lowly man." So David said, but Saul remained firm in his purpose.

Of Saul's later battles against the Philistines tradition has preserved only a few fragments, from which it is clear that the war was carried on upon the borders by plundering incursions, which were interrupted from time to time by greater campaigns.[229]But the preponderance of the Philistine power was broken. And Saul had not only to fight against these. "He fought on all sides," we are told, "against all the enemies of Israel, against Moab, and against the sons of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah,and whithersoever he turned he was victorious."[230]When the Amalekites from their deserts on the peninsula of Sinai invaded the south of Israel, and forced their way as far as Hebron, he defeated them there at Maon-Carmel,[231]and pursued them over the borders of Israel into their own land as far as the desert of Sur, "which lies before Egypt," and took Agag their king prisoner. It was a severe defeat which he inflicted on them.[232]"Saul's sword came not back empty," and "the daughters of Israel clothed themselves in purple," and "adorned their garments with gold" from the spoil of his victories.[233]The Israelites felt what they owed to the monarchy and to Saul.[234]

FOOTNOTES:[206]Judges xiii. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 11; 1 Sam. iv. 9.[207]In Samson, who overcomes the lion, and sends out the foxes with firebrands, who overthrows the pillars of the temple, and buries himself under it, Steinthal ("Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie," 2, 21) recognises the sun-god of the Syrians. The name Samson means as a fact "the sunny one." The long hair in which Samson's strength lay may symbolise the growth of nature in the summer, and the cutting off of it the decay of creative power in the winter: so too the binding of Samson may signify the imprisoned power of the sun in winter. As Melkarth in the winter went to rest at his pillars in the far west, at the end of his wanderings, so Samson goes to his rest between the two pillars in the city on the shore of the western sea. If, finally, Samson becomes the servant of a mistress Dalilah—i. e."the tender"—this also is a trait which belongs to the myth of Melkarth; cf. I. 371. It is not to be denied that traits of this myth have forced their way into the form and legend of Samson, although the long hair belongs not to Samson only, but to Samuel and all the Nazarites; yet we must not from these traits draw the conclusion that the son of Manoah is no more than a mythical figure, and even those traits must have gone through many stages among the Israelites before they could assume a form of such vigorous liveliness, such broad reality, as we find pourtrayed in the narrative of Samson.[208]The simplest method of obtaining a fixed starting-point for the date of the foundation of the monarchy in Israel is to reckon backwards from the capture of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in the year 604B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were burned down in the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer. lii. 12),i. e.in the year 586B.C.From this year the Hebrews reckoned 430 years to the commencement of the building of the temple (430 = 37 years of Solomon since the beginning of the building + 261 years from the death of Solomon to the taking of Samaria + 132 years from the taking of Samaria to the destruction of the temple). Hence the building of the temple was commenced in the year 1015B.C.Since the commencement of the building is placed in the fourth year of Solomon, his accession would fall in the year 1018B.C.; and as 40 years are allotted to David, his accession at Hebron falls in 1058B.C., and Saul's election about 1080B.C.In the present text only the number two is left of the amount of the years of his reign (1 Sam. xiii. 1), the years of his life also are lost; we may perhaps assume 22 years for his reign, since Eupolemus gives him 21 years (Alex. Polyh. Frag. 18, ed. Müller), and Josephus 20 ("Antiq." 6, 14, 9, 10, 8, 4). His contemporary, Nahash of Ammon, is on the throne before the election of Saul, and continues beyond the death of Saul and Ishbosheth, and even 10 years into the reign of David. Nahash must have had an uncommonly long reign if Saul reigned more than 22 years. It makes against the dates 1080B.C.for Saul, 1058B.C.for David, 1018B.C.for Solomon, that they rest upon the succession of kings of Judah, from the division of the kingdom down to the fall of Samaria, which is reckoned at 261 years, while the succession of kings of Israel during the same period only fills 241 years. Movers ("Phœniz." 2, 1, 140 ff.) has attempted to remove this difficulty by assuming as a starting-point the statements of Menander of Ephesus, on the succession of kings in Tyre, preserved in Josephus ("c. Apion," 1, 18). Josephus says that from the building of the temple, which took place in the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre, down to the founding of Carthage, which took place in the seventh year of Pygmalion king of Tyre, 143 years 8 months elapsed. From the date given by Justin (18, 7) for the founding of Carthage (72 years before the founding of Rome; 72 + 754),i. e.from 826B.C., Movers reckons back 143 years, and so fixes the building of the temple at the year 969B.C., on which reckoning Solomon's accession would fall in the year 972B.C., David's in the year 1012B.C., and Saul's election in 1034B.C.But since the more trustworthy dates for the year of the founding of Carthage, 846, 826, and 816, have an equal claim to acceptance, we are equally justified in reckoning back from 846 and 816 to Saul's accession.According to the canon of the Assyrians, the epochs in which were fixed by the observation of the solar eclipse of July 15 in the year 763B.C., Samaria was taken in the year 722B.C.If from this we reckon backwards 261 years for Judah, Solomon's death would fall in the year 983B.C., his accession in 1023B.C., David's accession in 1063B.C., Saul's election in 1085B.C.If we keep to the amount given for Israel (241 years + 722), Solomon's death falls in 963, his accession in 1003, the building of the temple in 1000B.C., David's accession in 1043B.C., Saul's accession in 1065B.C.But neither by retaining the whole sum of 430 years, according to which the building of the temple begins 1015B.C.(430 + 586), and Solomon dies in 978B.C., nor by putting the death of Solomon in the year 983 or 963B.C., do we bring the Assyrian monuments into agreement with the chronological statements of the Hebrews. If we place the date of the division of the kingdom at the year 978B.C., Ahab's reign, according to the numbers given by the Hebrews for the kingdom of Israel, extends from 916 to 894B.C.; if we place the division at 963B.C., it extends, according to the same calculation, from 901 to 879B.C.On the other hand, the Assyrian monuments prove that Ahab fought at Karkar against Shalmanesar II. in the year 854B.C.(below, chap. 10). Since Ahab after this carried on a war against Damascus, in which war he died, he must in any case have been alive in 853B.C.Hence even the lower date taken for Ahab's reign from the Hebrew statements (901-879B.C.) would have to be brought down 26 years, and as a necessary consequence the death of Solomon would fall, not in the year 963B.C., but in the year 937B.C.If we could conclude from this statement in the Assyrian monuments that the reigns of the kings of Israel were extended by the Hebrews beyond the truth, it follows from another monument, the inscription of Mesha, that abbreviations also took place. According to the Second Book of Kings (iii. 5), Mesha of Moab revolted from Israel when Ahab died. The stone of Mesha says: "Omri took Medaba, and Israel dwelt therein in his and his son's days for 40 years; in my days Camus restored it;" Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa." Hence Omri, the father of Ahab, took Medaba 40 years before the death of Ahab. Ahab, according to the Hebrews, reigned 22 years, Omri 12. According to the stone of Mesha the two reigns must have together amounted to more than 40 years. Since Omri obtained the throne by force, and had at first to carry on a long civil war, and establish himself on the throne (1 Kings xvi. 21, 22), he could not make war upon the Moabites at the very beginning of his reign. Here, therefore, there is an abbreviation of the reign of Omri and Ahab by at least 10 years.Hence the contradiction between the monuments of the Assyrians and the numbers of the Hebrews is not to be removed by merely bringing down the division of the kingdom to the year 937B.C.In order to obtain a chronological arrangement at all, we are placed in the awkward necessity of making an attempt to bring the canon of the Assyrians into agreement with the statements of the Hebrews by assumptions more or less arbitrary. Jehu slew Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the same time. From this date upwards to the death of Solomon the Hebrew Scriptures reckon 98 years for Israel, and 95 for Judah. Jehu ascended the throne of Israel in the year 843B.C.at the latest, since, according to the Assyrian monuments, he paid tribute to Shalmanesar II. in the year 842B.C.If we reckon the 98 years for Israel upwards from 843B.C., we arrive at 941B.C.for the division of the kingdom; and if to this we add, as the time which has doubtlessly fallen out in the reigns of Omri and Ahab, 12 years, 953B.C.would be the year of the death of Solomon, the year in which the ten tribes separated from the house of David. If we keep the year 953 for the division, the year 993 comes out for the accession of Solomon, the year 990 for the beginning of the building of the temple, the year 1033 for the accession of David at Hebron, and the year 1055 for the election of Saul. Fifteen years may be taken for the continuance of the heavy oppression before Saul. For the changes which we must in consequence of this assumption establish in the data of the reigns from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Athaliah and Jehu,i. e.in the period from 953B.C.to 843B.C., see below. Omri's reign occupies the period from 899-875B.C.(24 years instead of 12),i. e.a period which agrees with the importance of this reign among the Moabites and the Assyrians; Ahab reigned from 875-853B.C.According to 1 Kings xvi. 31, Ahab took Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal the king of the Sidonians to wife. If this Ethbaal of Sidon is identical with the Ithobal of Tyre in Josephus, the chronology deduced from our assumptions would not be impossible. Granted the assertion of Josephus that the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre is the fourth year of Solomon (990B.C.), Hiram's accession would fall in the year 1001B.C.; according to Josephus, Ithobal ascended the throne of Tyre 85 years after Hiram's accession, when he had slain Pheles. He lived according to the same authority 68 years and reigned 32 years,i. e.from 916-884B.C.Ahab, either before or after the year of his accession (875), might very well have taken the daughter of this prince to wife. And if we assume that the statement of Appian, that Carthage was in existence 700 years before her destruction by the Romans,i. e.was founded in the year 846B.C., the 143⅔ or 144 years of Josephus between the building of the temple and the foundation of Carthage, reckoned backwards from 846B.C., lead us to the year 990B.C.for the building of the temple.[209]Now Beit-Rima, north-east of the later Lydda.[210]1 Sam. iii. 1, 19.[211]1 Sam. xiii. 19-23, from the older account.[212]1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 20-24.[213]Compare the division of the corpse by the Levite, above, p. 96.[214]Owing to the later conceptions that the king needed to be consecrated by the prophets, that Jehovah is himself the King of Israel, an almost inexplicable confusion has come into the narrative of Saul's elevation. Not only have we an older and later account existing side by side in the books of Samuel, not only has there been even a third hand at work, but the attempts to bring the contradictory accounts into harmony have increased the evil. In 1 Sam. viii. we are told: The elders of Israel and the people required from Samuel a king at Ramah, because he was old and his sons walked not in his ways. Jehovah says to Samuel: They have not rejected thee, but me; yet Samuel accedes to the request of the Israelites. Samuel gives the elders a terrifying description of the oppression which the monarchy would exercise upon them, a description which evidently predates the experiences made under David, Solomon, and later kings, whereas at the time spoken of the nation had suffered only too long from wild anarchy. The reasons, moreover, given by the elders, why they desired a king, do not agree with the situation, but rather with the time of Eli, who also had foolish sons. In spite of Samuel's warning the people persist in their wish to have a king. Further we are told in chap. ix. 1-x. 16, how Saul at his father's bidding sets out in quest of lost she-asses, and goes to inquire of Samuel, for the fourth part of a silver shekel, whither they had strayed. At Jehovah's command Samuel anoints the son of Kish to be king, when he comes to him; he tells him where he will find his asses, and imparts to him two other prophecies on the way. Then we are told in chap. x. 17-27 that Samuel summons an assembly of the people to Mizpeh, repeats his warning against the monarchy, but then causes lots to be cast who shall be king over the tribes, and families, and individuals. The lot falls upon Saul, who makes no mention to any one of the anointing, but has hidden himself among the stuff. Finally, in chap. xi. we find the account given in the text, to which, in order to bring it into harmony with what has been already related, these words are prefixed in ver. 14: "And Samuel said to the people, Come, let us go to Gilgal to renew the kingdom;" but in xi. 15 we find: "Then went all the people to Gilgal, and made Saul king before Jehovah in Gilgal." The contradictions are striking. The elders require a king from Samuel, whom they could choose themselves (2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3; 1 Kings xii. 1, 20; 2 Kings xiv. 21), and whom, according to 1 Sam. xi. 15, the people actually choose. Jehovah will not have a king, but then permits it. Nor is this permission all; he himself points out to Samuel the man whom he is to anoint. Anointed to be king, Saul goes, as if nothing had taken place, to his home. He comes to the assembly at Mizpeh, and again says nothing to any one of his new dignity. Already king by anointment, he is now again made king by the casting of lots. He returns home to till his field, when the messengers from Jabesh were sent not to the king of Israel, but to the people of Israel, to ask for help. In Gibeah also they do not apply to the king; not till he sees the people weeping in Gibeah, does Saul learn the message. Yet he does not summon the people to follow him as king; he requests the following just as in earlier times individuals in extraordinary cases sought to rouse the people to take up arms. It is impossible that a king should be chosen by lot at a time when the bravest warrior was needed at the head, and simple boys, who hid themselves among the stuff, were not suited to lead the army at such a dangerous time. At the time of Saul's very first achievements his son Jonathan stands at his side as a warrior; at his death his youngest son Ishbosheth was 40 years of age (2 Sam. ii. 10). Saul must therefore have been between 40 and 50 years old when he became king. The request of the elders for a king, and Samuel's resistance, belong on the other hand to the prophetic narrator of the books of Samuel, in whose account it was followed by the assembly at Mizpeh and the casting of lots. The same narrator attempts to bring the achievement at Jabesh, and the recognition of Saul as ruler and king which followed it, into harmony with his narrative by the addition of the restoration of the kingdom and some other interpolations. The Philistines would hardly have permitted minute preparations and prescribed assemblies for the election of king. The simple elevation and recognition of Saul as king after his first successful exploit in war corresponds to the situation of affairs (cf. I xii. 12). And I am the more decided in holding this account to be historically correct, because it does not presuppose the other accounts, and because the men of Jabesh, according to the older account, fetched the bodies of Saul and his sons to Jabesh from Beth-shan and burned them there, 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, 13. The older account in the books of Samuel knows nothing of the request of the elders for a king. After the defeat which caused Eli's death, it narrates the carrying back of the ark by the Philistines, and the setting up of it at Beth-shemesh and Kirjath-jearim. Then follows Saul's anointing by Samuel (ix. 1-10, 16); then the lost statement about the age of Saul when he became king, and the length of the reign; then the great exploits of Saul against the Philistines (xiii. 1-14, 46); xiii. 8-13 stands in precise relation to x. 8. That the achievement of Jabesh cannot have been wanting in the older account follows from the express reference to it at the death of Saul.[215]1 Sam. xiii. 3-7; xiv. 22.[216]1 Sam. xiii. 16-18.[217]1 Sam. xiv. 1-23.[218]So the older account, 1 Sam. xiv. 24-45.[219]Numbers ii. 18-24; Joshua xviii. 12-20; Judges v. 14. That Ephraim remained true to Saul follows from the recognition of Ishbosheth after Saul's death, 2 Sam. ii. 9, 10.[220]1 Sam. xiv. 52.[221]1 Sam. xiii. 2.[222]1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18, 37; xxviii. 6.[223]1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9.[224]2 Sam. xxi. 2, 5.[225]The ark was brought by David from Kirjath-jearim to Zion. That could not take place before the year 1025B.C.Saul's death falls, as was assumed above, in the year 1033B.C.But the ark is said to have been at Kirjath-jearim 20 years (1 Sam. vii. 2; vi. 21), it must therefore have been carried thither 1045B.C., or a few years later. The stay among the Philistines must have been more than seven months, as stated in 1 Sam. vi. 61; the stay at Beth-shemesh was apparently only a short one. The battle at Tabor and Eli's death cannot, as shown above, be placed much later than 1070B.C.According to 1 Sam. xiv. 3; xviii. 19, the ark was in Saul's army at the battle of Michmash, and Ahijah (Ahimelech), the great-grandson of Eli, was its keeper.[226]1 Chron. xxvi. 28.[227]Only one concubine is mentioned, by whom Saul had two sons.[228]1 Sam. xviii. 3, 17-20, 28; xxii. 4.[229]1 Sam. xvii., xviii., xxiii. 28.[230]1 Sam. xiv. 47, 48.[231]1 Sam. xv. 12. The place near Hebron still bears the name Carmel.[232]Nöldeke, "Die Amalekiter," s. 14, 15.[233]2 Sam. i. 21-24.[234]This follows from the fact that the monarchy remains even after Saul's death, from the lamentation of the Israelites for Saul, and their allegiance to his son Ishbosheth.

[206]Judges xiii. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 11; 1 Sam. iv. 9.

[207]In Samson, who overcomes the lion, and sends out the foxes with firebrands, who overthrows the pillars of the temple, and buries himself under it, Steinthal ("Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie," 2, 21) recognises the sun-god of the Syrians. The name Samson means as a fact "the sunny one." The long hair in which Samson's strength lay may symbolise the growth of nature in the summer, and the cutting off of it the decay of creative power in the winter: so too the binding of Samson may signify the imprisoned power of the sun in winter. As Melkarth in the winter went to rest at his pillars in the far west, at the end of his wanderings, so Samson goes to his rest between the two pillars in the city on the shore of the western sea. If, finally, Samson becomes the servant of a mistress Dalilah—i. e."the tender"—this also is a trait which belongs to the myth of Melkarth; cf. I. 371. It is not to be denied that traits of this myth have forced their way into the form and legend of Samson, although the long hair belongs not to Samson only, but to Samuel and all the Nazarites; yet we must not from these traits draw the conclusion that the son of Manoah is no more than a mythical figure, and even those traits must have gone through many stages among the Israelites before they could assume a form of such vigorous liveliness, such broad reality, as we find pourtrayed in the narrative of Samson.

[208]The simplest method of obtaining a fixed starting-point for the date of the foundation of the monarchy in Israel is to reckon backwards from the capture of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in the year 604B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were burned down in the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer. lii. 12),i. e.in the year 586B.C.From this year the Hebrews reckoned 430 years to the commencement of the building of the temple (430 = 37 years of Solomon since the beginning of the building + 261 years from the death of Solomon to the taking of Samaria + 132 years from the taking of Samaria to the destruction of the temple). Hence the building of the temple was commenced in the year 1015B.C.Since the commencement of the building is placed in the fourth year of Solomon, his accession would fall in the year 1018B.C.; and as 40 years are allotted to David, his accession at Hebron falls in 1058B.C., and Saul's election about 1080B.C.In the present text only the number two is left of the amount of the years of his reign (1 Sam. xiii. 1), the years of his life also are lost; we may perhaps assume 22 years for his reign, since Eupolemus gives him 21 years (Alex. Polyh. Frag. 18, ed. Müller), and Josephus 20 ("Antiq." 6, 14, 9, 10, 8, 4). His contemporary, Nahash of Ammon, is on the throne before the election of Saul, and continues beyond the death of Saul and Ishbosheth, and even 10 years into the reign of David. Nahash must have had an uncommonly long reign if Saul reigned more than 22 years. It makes against the dates 1080B.C.for Saul, 1058B.C.for David, 1018B.C.for Solomon, that they rest upon the succession of kings of Judah, from the division of the kingdom down to the fall of Samaria, which is reckoned at 261 years, while the succession of kings of Israel during the same period only fills 241 years. Movers ("Phœniz." 2, 1, 140 ff.) has attempted to remove this difficulty by assuming as a starting-point the statements of Menander of Ephesus, on the succession of kings in Tyre, preserved in Josephus ("c. Apion," 1, 18). Josephus says that from the building of the temple, which took place in the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre, down to the founding of Carthage, which took place in the seventh year of Pygmalion king of Tyre, 143 years 8 months elapsed. From the date given by Justin (18, 7) for the founding of Carthage (72 years before the founding of Rome; 72 + 754),i. e.from 826B.C., Movers reckons back 143 years, and so fixes the building of the temple at the year 969B.C., on which reckoning Solomon's accession would fall in the year 972B.C., David's in the year 1012B.C., and Saul's election in 1034B.C.But since the more trustworthy dates for the year of the founding of Carthage, 846, 826, and 816, have an equal claim to acceptance, we are equally justified in reckoning back from 846 and 816 to Saul's accession.According to the canon of the Assyrians, the epochs in which were fixed by the observation of the solar eclipse of July 15 in the year 763B.C., Samaria was taken in the year 722B.C.If from this we reckon backwards 261 years for Judah, Solomon's death would fall in the year 983B.C., his accession in 1023B.C., David's accession in 1063B.C., Saul's election in 1085B.C.If we keep to the amount given for Israel (241 years + 722), Solomon's death falls in 963, his accession in 1003, the building of the temple in 1000B.C., David's accession in 1043B.C., Saul's accession in 1065B.C.But neither by retaining the whole sum of 430 years, according to which the building of the temple begins 1015B.C.(430 + 586), and Solomon dies in 978B.C., nor by putting the death of Solomon in the year 983 or 963B.C., do we bring the Assyrian monuments into agreement with the chronological statements of the Hebrews. If we place the date of the division of the kingdom at the year 978B.C., Ahab's reign, according to the numbers given by the Hebrews for the kingdom of Israel, extends from 916 to 894B.C.; if we place the division at 963B.C., it extends, according to the same calculation, from 901 to 879B.C.On the other hand, the Assyrian monuments prove that Ahab fought at Karkar against Shalmanesar II. in the year 854B.C.(below, chap. 10). Since Ahab after this carried on a war against Damascus, in which war he died, he must in any case have been alive in 853B.C.Hence even the lower date taken for Ahab's reign from the Hebrew statements (901-879B.C.) would have to be brought down 26 years, and as a necessary consequence the death of Solomon would fall, not in the year 963B.C., but in the year 937B.C.If we could conclude from this statement in the Assyrian monuments that the reigns of the kings of Israel were extended by the Hebrews beyond the truth, it follows from another monument, the inscription of Mesha, that abbreviations also took place. According to the Second Book of Kings (iii. 5), Mesha of Moab revolted from Israel when Ahab died. The stone of Mesha says: "Omri took Medaba, and Israel dwelt therein in his and his son's days for 40 years; in my days Camus restored it;" Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa." Hence Omri, the father of Ahab, took Medaba 40 years before the death of Ahab. Ahab, according to the Hebrews, reigned 22 years, Omri 12. According to the stone of Mesha the two reigns must have together amounted to more than 40 years. Since Omri obtained the throne by force, and had at first to carry on a long civil war, and establish himself on the throne (1 Kings xvi. 21, 22), he could not make war upon the Moabites at the very beginning of his reign. Here, therefore, there is an abbreviation of the reign of Omri and Ahab by at least 10 years.Hence the contradiction between the monuments of the Assyrians and the numbers of the Hebrews is not to be removed by merely bringing down the division of the kingdom to the year 937B.C.In order to obtain a chronological arrangement at all, we are placed in the awkward necessity of making an attempt to bring the canon of the Assyrians into agreement with the statements of the Hebrews by assumptions more or less arbitrary. Jehu slew Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the same time. From this date upwards to the death of Solomon the Hebrew Scriptures reckon 98 years for Israel, and 95 for Judah. Jehu ascended the throne of Israel in the year 843B.C.at the latest, since, according to the Assyrian monuments, he paid tribute to Shalmanesar II. in the year 842B.C.If we reckon the 98 years for Israel upwards from 843B.C., we arrive at 941B.C.for the division of the kingdom; and if to this we add, as the time which has doubtlessly fallen out in the reigns of Omri and Ahab, 12 years, 953B.C.would be the year of the death of Solomon, the year in which the ten tribes separated from the house of David. If we keep the year 953 for the division, the year 993 comes out for the accession of Solomon, the year 990 for the beginning of the building of the temple, the year 1033 for the accession of David at Hebron, and the year 1055 for the election of Saul. Fifteen years may be taken for the continuance of the heavy oppression before Saul. For the changes which we must in consequence of this assumption establish in the data of the reigns from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Athaliah and Jehu,i. e.in the period from 953B.C.to 843B.C., see below. Omri's reign occupies the period from 899-875B.C.(24 years instead of 12),i. e.a period which agrees with the importance of this reign among the Moabites and the Assyrians; Ahab reigned from 875-853B.C.According to 1 Kings xvi. 31, Ahab took Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal the king of the Sidonians to wife. If this Ethbaal of Sidon is identical with the Ithobal of Tyre in Josephus, the chronology deduced from our assumptions would not be impossible. Granted the assertion of Josephus that the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre is the fourth year of Solomon (990B.C.), Hiram's accession would fall in the year 1001B.C.; according to Josephus, Ithobal ascended the throne of Tyre 85 years after Hiram's accession, when he had slain Pheles. He lived according to the same authority 68 years and reigned 32 years,i. e.from 916-884B.C.Ahab, either before or after the year of his accession (875), might very well have taken the daughter of this prince to wife. And if we assume that the statement of Appian, that Carthage was in existence 700 years before her destruction by the Romans,i. e.was founded in the year 846B.C., the 143⅔ or 144 years of Josephus between the building of the temple and the foundation of Carthage, reckoned backwards from 846B.C., lead us to the year 990B.C.for the building of the temple.

According to the canon of the Assyrians, the epochs in which were fixed by the observation of the solar eclipse of July 15 in the year 763B.C., Samaria was taken in the year 722B.C.If from this we reckon backwards 261 years for Judah, Solomon's death would fall in the year 983B.C., his accession in 1023B.C., David's accession in 1063B.C., Saul's election in 1085B.C.If we keep to the amount given for Israel (241 years + 722), Solomon's death falls in 963, his accession in 1003, the building of the temple in 1000B.C., David's accession in 1043B.C., Saul's accession in 1065B.C.But neither by retaining the whole sum of 430 years, according to which the building of the temple begins 1015B.C.(430 + 586), and Solomon dies in 978B.C., nor by putting the death of Solomon in the year 983 or 963B.C., do we bring the Assyrian monuments into agreement with the chronological statements of the Hebrews. If we place the date of the division of the kingdom at the year 978B.C., Ahab's reign, according to the numbers given by the Hebrews for the kingdom of Israel, extends from 916 to 894B.C.; if we place the division at 963B.C., it extends, according to the same calculation, from 901 to 879B.C.On the other hand, the Assyrian monuments prove that Ahab fought at Karkar against Shalmanesar II. in the year 854B.C.(below, chap. 10). Since Ahab after this carried on a war against Damascus, in which war he died, he must in any case have been alive in 853B.C.Hence even the lower date taken for Ahab's reign from the Hebrew statements (901-879B.C.) would have to be brought down 26 years, and as a necessary consequence the death of Solomon would fall, not in the year 963B.C., but in the year 937B.C.

If we could conclude from this statement in the Assyrian monuments that the reigns of the kings of Israel were extended by the Hebrews beyond the truth, it follows from another monument, the inscription of Mesha, that abbreviations also took place. According to the Second Book of Kings (iii. 5), Mesha of Moab revolted from Israel when Ahab died. The stone of Mesha says: "Omri took Medaba, and Israel dwelt therein in his and his son's days for 40 years; in my days Camus restored it;" Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa." Hence Omri, the father of Ahab, took Medaba 40 years before the death of Ahab. Ahab, according to the Hebrews, reigned 22 years, Omri 12. According to the stone of Mesha the two reigns must have together amounted to more than 40 years. Since Omri obtained the throne by force, and had at first to carry on a long civil war, and establish himself on the throne (1 Kings xvi. 21, 22), he could not make war upon the Moabites at the very beginning of his reign. Here, therefore, there is an abbreviation of the reign of Omri and Ahab by at least 10 years.

Hence the contradiction between the monuments of the Assyrians and the numbers of the Hebrews is not to be removed by merely bringing down the division of the kingdom to the year 937B.C.In order to obtain a chronological arrangement at all, we are placed in the awkward necessity of making an attempt to bring the canon of the Assyrians into agreement with the statements of the Hebrews by assumptions more or less arbitrary. Jehu slew Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the same time. From this date upwards to the death of Solomon the Hebrew Scriptures reckon 98 years for Israel, and 95 for Judah. Jehu ascended the throne of Israel in the year 843B.C.at the latest, since, according to the Assyrian monuments, he paid tribute to Shalmanesar II. in the year 842B.C.If we reckon the 98 years for Israel upwards from 843B.C., we arrive at 941B.C.for the division of the kingdom; and if to this we add, as the time which has doubtlessly fallen out in the reigns of Omri and Ahab, 12 years, 953B.C.would be the year of the death of Solomon, the year in which the ten tribes separated from the house of David. If we keep the year 953 for the division, the year 993 comes out for the accession of Solomon, the year 990 for the beginning of the building of the temple, the year 1033 for the accession of David at Hebron, and the year 1055 for the election of Saul. Fifteen years may be taken for the continuance of the heavy oppression before Saul. For the changes which we must in consequence of this assumption establish in the data of the reigns from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Athaliah and Jehu,i. e.in the period from 953B.C.to 843B.C., see below. Omri's reign occupies the period from 899-875B.C.(24 years instead of 12),i. e.a period which agrees with the importance of this reign among the Moabites and the Assyrians; Ahab reigned from 875-853B.C.According to 1 Kings xvi. 31, Ahab took Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal the king of the Sidonians to wife. If this Ethbaal of Sidon is identical with the Ithobal of Tyre in Josephus, the chronology deduced from our assumptions would not be impossible. Granted the assertion of Josephus that the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre is the fourth year of Solomon (990B.C.), Hiram's accession would fall in the year 1001B.C.; according to Josephus, Ithobal ascended the throne of Tyre 85 years after Hiram's accession, when he had slain Pheles. He lived according to the same authority 68 years and reigned 32 years,i. e.from 916-884B.C.Ahab, either before or after the year of his accession (875), might very well have taken the daughter of this prince to wife. And if we assume that the statement of Appian, that Carthage was in existence 700 years before her destruction by the Romans,i. e.was founded in the year 846B.C., the 143⅔ or 144 years of Josephus between the building of the temple and the foundation of Carthage, reckoned backwards from 846B.C., lead us to the year 990B.C.for the building of the temple.

[209]Now Beit-Rima, north-east of the later Lydda.

[210]1 Sam. iii. 1, 19.

[211]1 Sam. xiii. 19-23, from the older account.

[212]1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 20-24.

[213]Compare the division of the corpse by the Levite, above, p. 96.

[214]Owing to the later conceptions that the king needed to be consecrated by the prophets, that Jehovah is himself the King of Israel, an almost inexplicable confusion has come into the narrative of Saul's elevation. Not only have we an older and later account existing side by side in the books of Samuel, not only has there been even a third hand at work, but the attempts to bring the contradictory accounts into harmony have increased the evil. In 1 Sam. viii. we are told: The elders of Israel and the people required from Samuel a king at Ramah, because he was old and his sons walked not in his ways. Jehovah says to Samuel: They have not rejected thee, but me; yet Samuel accedes to the request of the Israelites. Samuel gives the elders a terrifying description of the oppression which the monarchy would exercise upon them, a description which evidently predates the experiences made under David, Solomon, and later kings, whereas at the time spoken of the nation had suffered only too long from wild anarchy. The reasons, moreover, given by the elders, why they desired a king, do not agree with the situation, but rather with the time of Eli, who also had foolish sons. In spite of Samuel's warning the people persist in their wish to have a king. Further we are told in chap. ix. 1-x. 16, how Saul at his father's bidding sets out in quest of lost she-asses, and goes to inquire of Samuel, for the fourth part of a silver shekel, whither they had strayed. At Jehovah's command Samuel anoints the son of Kish to be king, when he comes to him; he tells him where he will find his asses, and imparts to him two other prophecies on the way. Then we are told in chap. x. 17-27 that Samuel summons an assembly of the people to Mizpeh, repeats his warning against the monarchy, but then causes lots to be cast who shall be king over the tribes, and families, and individuals. The lot falls upon Saul, who makes no mention to any one of the anointing, but has hidden himself among the stuff. Finally, in chap. xi. we find the account given in the text, to which, in order to bring it into harmony with what has been already related, these words are prefixed in ver. 14: "And Samuel said to the people, Come, let us go to Gilgal to renew the kingdom;" but in xi. 15 we find: "Then went all the people to Gilgal, and made Saul king before Jehovah in Gilgal." The contradictions are striking. The elders require a king from Samuel, whom they could choose themselves (2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3; 1 Kings xii. 1, 20; 2 Kings xiv. 21), and whom, according to 1 Sam. xi. 15, the people actually choose. Jehovah will not have a king, but then permits it. Nor is this permission all; he himself points out to Samuel the man whom he is to anoint. Anointed to be king, Saul goes, as if nothing had taken place, to his home. He comes to the assembly at Mizpeh, and again says nothing to any one of his new dignity. Already king by anointment, he is now again made king by the casting of lots. He returns home to till his field, when the messengers from Jabesh were sent not to the king of Israel, but to the people of Israel, to ask for help. In Gibeah also they do not apply to the king; not till he sees the people weeping in Gibeah, does Saul learn the message. Yet he does not summon the people to follow him as king; he requests the following just as in earlier times individuals in extraordinary cases sought to rouse the people to take up arms. It is impossible that a king should be chosen by lot at a time when the bravest warrior was needed at the head, and simple boys, who hid themselves among the stuff, were not suited to lead the army at such a dangerous time. At the time of Saul's very first achievements his son Jonathan stands at his side as a warrior; at his death his youngest son Ishbosheth was 40 years of age (2 Sam. ii. 10). Saul must therefore have been between 40 and 50 years old when he became king. The request of the elders for a king, and Samuel's resistance, belong on the other hand to the prophetic narrator of the books of Samuel, in whose account it was followed by the assembly at Mizpeh and the casting of lots. The same narrator attempts to bring the achievement at Jabesh, and the recognition of Saul as ruler and king which followed it, into harmony with his narrative by the addition of the restoration of the kingdom and some other interpolations. The Philistines would hardly have permitted minute preparations and prescribed assemblies for the election of king. The simple elevation and recognition of Saul as king after his first successful exploit in war corresponds to the situation of affairs (cf. I xii. 12). And I am the more decided in holding this account to be historically correct, because it does not presuppose the other accounts, and because the men of Jabesh, according to the older account, fetched the bodies of Saul and his sons to Jabesh from Beth-shan and burned them there, 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, 13. The older account in the books of Samuel knows nothing of the request of the elders for a king. After the defeat which caused Eli's death, it narrates the carrying back of the ark by the Philistines, and the setting up of it at Beth-shemesh and Kirjath-jearim. Then follows Saul's anointing by Samuel (ix. 1-10, 16); then the lost statement about the age of Saul when he became king, and the length of the reign; then the great exploits of Saul against the Philistines (xiii. 1-14, 46); xiii. 8-13 stands in precise relation to x. 8. That the achievement of Jabesh cannot have been wanting in the older account follows from the express reference to it at the death of Saul.

[215]1 Sam. xiii. 3-7; xiv. 22.

[216]1 Sam. xiii. 16-18.

[217]1 Sam. xiv. 1-23.

[218]So the older account, 1 Sam. xiv. 24-45.

[219]Numbers ii. 18-24; Joshua xviii. 12-20; Judges v. 14. That Ephraim remained true to Saul follows from the recognition of Ishbosheth after Saul's death, 2 Sam. ii. 9, 10.

[220]1 Sam. xiv. 52.

[221]1 Sam. xiii. 2.

[222]1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18, 37; xxviii. 6.

[223]1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9.

[224]2 Sam. xxi. 2, 5.

[225]The ark was brought by David from Kirjath-jearim to Zion. That could not take place before the year 1025B.C.Saul's death falls, as was assumed above, in the year 1033B.C.But the ark is said to have been at Kirjath-jearim 20 years (1 Sam. vii. 2; vi. 21), it must therefore have been carried thither 1045B.C., or a few years later. The stay among the Philistines must have been more than seven months, as stated in 1 Sam. vi. 61; the stay at Beth-shemesh was apparently only a short one. The battle at Tabor and Eli's death cannot, as shown above, be placed much later than 1070B.C.According to 1 Sam. xiv. 3; xviii. 19, the ark was in Saul's army at the battle of Michmash, and Ahijah (Ahimelech), the great-grandson of Eli, was its keeper.

[226]1 Chron. xxvi. 28.

[227]Only one concubine is mentioned, by whom Saul had two sons.

[228]1 Sam. xviii. 3, 17-20, 28; xxii. 4.

[229]1 Sam. xvii., xviii., xxiii. 28.

[230]1 Sam. xiv. 47, 48.

[231]1 Sam. xv. 12. The place near Hebron still bears the name Carmel.

[232]Nöldeke, "Die Amalekiter," s. 14, 15.

[233]2 Sam. i. 21-24.

[234]This follows from the fact that the monarchy remains even after Saul's death, from the lamentation of the Israelites for Saul, and their allegiance to his son Ishbosheth.

The position which Samuel gained as a priest, seer, and judge after the death of Eli and his sons, and continued to hold under the sway of the Philistines must have undergone a marked change, owing to the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, though in the later text of the Books of Samuel it is maintained that "Samuel judged Israel till his death."[235]We know that Samuel had set up an altar to Jehovah at Ramathaim, his home and dwelling-place (p. 115), but it is not handed down that he had again set up there the sacred tabernacle and the worship at the sacred ark, though this may very well have been the case after the Philistines sent back the ark. Both the older and the later text of the two Books of Samuel represent him as in opposition to the monarchy. According to the later text, written from a prophetic point of view, Samuel had from the first opposed the establishment of the monarchy; and both the older and the more recent account know of a contention between Saul and Samuel. The former tells us: When Saul immediately after his election took up arms against the Philistines, and these marched out with their whole fighting power, and Saul gathered the Israelites at Gilgal, Samuel bade the king wait seven days till he came down to offer burnt-offering andthank-offering. "And Saul waited seven days, but Samuel came not; the people were scattered. Then Saul said: Bring me the burnt-offering and the thank-offering. He offered the burnt-sacrifice, and when he had made an end Samuel came, and Saul went to greet him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? Saul answered, When I saw that the people were scattered from me, and thou didst not come at the time appointed, and the Philistines were encamped at Michmash, I said, The Philistines will come down upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to Jehovah, so I forced myself and offered the burnt-sacrifice. Then Samuel said, Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not observed the command of thy God which he commanded thee. Jehovah would have established thy kingdom over Israel for ever, but now thy kingdom shall not endure."[236]The more recent account puts the contention at a far later date. When Saul marched against the Amalekites Samuel bade him "curse" everything that belonged to Amalek, man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. After the return of the victorious army Samuel came to Gilgal, and said, What meaneth this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in my ears? Saul answered, I have obeyed the voice of Jehovah and have gone the way which Jehovah sent me, and I have brought with me Agag the king of Amalek, and have "cursed" Amalek. But from the spoil the people have taken the best of what was "cursed," in order to sacrifice to Jehovah, thy God, at Gilgal. Samuel answered in the tone of Isaiah, Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifice? To obey is better than sacrifice. Saul confesses that he has sinned and transgressed the command of Jehovah and the word of Samuel, "for Ifeared the people, and obeyed their voice. And now forgive me my sin, and turn with me, that I may entreat Jehovah. But Samuel said, I will not turn back with thee; because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah he will reject thee from being king over Israel. Samuel turned to go, but Saul caught the hem of his garment and said, I have sinned, yet honour me before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and return with me, that I may offer prayer before Jehovah. Then Samuel turned behind Saul, and Saul offered prayer before Jehovah. And Samuel bade them bring Agag the king of Amalek before him, and said, As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women; and he hewed Agag in pieces before Jehovah at Gilgal. And Samuel went up to Ramathaim and saw Saul no more."[237]In the narrative of the first text Saul appears to be thoroughly justified by the most urgent necessity; in the narrative of the second text he acknowledges openly and completely that he has sinned. It may have been the case that Saul did not appear to Samuel sufficiently submissive to his utterances, which for him were the utterances of God; that he wished to see the rights and power of a king exercised in a different manner and in a different feeling from that in which Saul discharged his office.

More dangerous for Saul than any reproach or coldness on the part of Samuel was the contention which he had in the latter years of his reign with another man, whom he had himself raised to eminence—a strife which cost Saul the reward of his laborious and brave reign, and his house the throne; while Israel lost the fruits of great efforts, and the fortunes of the people were again put to the hazard.

Of the family of Perez[238]of the tribe of Judah, David was the youngest (eighth) son of a man of some possessions, Jesse of Bethlehem. He was entrusted with the care and keeping of the sheep and goats of his father in the desert pastures on the Dead Sea, and his shepherd life had caused him to grow up in a rough school. It had made him hardy, it had given strength and suppleness to his body; he had gained a delight in adventure and unshaken courage in danger. In defence of the flocks he had withstood bears and ventured into conflict even with a lion. In the loneliness and silence which surrounded him he practised singing and playing; the severe and solemn nature of that region was adapted to impress great thoughts on his mind, to give force and elevation to his spirit. From such a school he came into the ranks of the warriors of Saul; the bold deeds which even in his youth he had performed against the Philistines induced Saul to make David one of "the brave," whom he took into his house (about 1040B.C.).[239]He also made him one of his captains,[240]and frequently sent him out against the Philistines; in these inroads he fought with more success than other chieftains.[241]Thus David was a favourite in the eyesof the people and the servants of the king, and Jonathan, Saul's eldest son, made a covenant with David, because "he loved him as his own soul."[242]In the house of Saul David was trusted and honoured before the other warriors; he was his armour-bearer and the chief of a troop of 1000 men. After Jonathan and Abner, David was nearest the king; he had the complete confidence of Saul, and at length became his son-in-law.[243]

Some years afterwards (about 1036B.C.[244]), Saul conceived a suspicion of the man whom he had elevated to such a height. He imagined that his son-in-law intended to seize the throne from himself, or contest the succession with his son Jonathan. According to the older account it was jealousy of the military renown of David, which threatened to obscure hisown, that roused Saul against David;[245]according to the later, Saul feared the partiality which the people displayed towards David. He says to Jonathan, "So long as the son of Jesse lives, thou and thy kingdom will not continue."[246]According to the same account an evil spirit came over Saul, he was beside himself in the house and threw a spear at David, who played the harp.[247]David avoided the cast: he fled to Samuel at Ramathaim into the dwellings of the seers,[248]and from thence escaped to Achish, the prince of the Philistines of Gath.[249]In the older account also it is an evil spirit of Jehovah which comes over Saul, and causes him to thrust with his spear at David while he is playing the harp. David escapes into his house. At Saul's command the house is surrounded; and David is to be slain the next morning. But Michal, the daughter of Saul, David's wife, let him down from a window, and in his place she put the teraphim,i. e.the image of the deity, into the bed, covered it with a coverlet, laid the net of goat's hair on the face, and gave out that David was sick. David meanwhile flies to Nob (in the land of Benjamin), where was set up a gilded image of Jehovah, before which a company of priests served, and at their head Ahimelech, a great-grandson of Eli,[250]who had previously inquired of Jehovah for David.[251]Ahimelech gave David the sacred loaves, and a sword which was consecrated there, and from hence, according to this account, David escaped to Achish. Saul reproached his daughter for aiding David, and said,"Why hast thou allowed my enemy to escape?" Then he gave her to wife to Phalti of Gallim.

We are not in a position to decide whether David really pursued ambitious designs; whether, as a matter of fact, he conspired with the priests against Saul and his house, as Saul assumed; whether Saul saw through his designs and plots, or suspected him without reason.[252]David was not content with escaping the anger and pursuit of Saul, with placing himself and his family in security. He repaired to the enemies of his land,the Philistines, who would not have accepted at once an opponent who had done them grievous injury, if he had not openly broken with Saul and given them to suppose that henceforth he would support their struggle against Saul and Israel. Yet David did not bring his father and mother, on whom Saul could have taken vengeance, out of the land to Gath, where they might have been a pledge of his fidelity to the Philistines; he put them in the hands of the king of Moab, and also entered into relations with the king of the Ammonites.[253]It was probably with the consent of the Philistines that David returned from Gath into the land of Judah, and there threw himself into the wild regions by the Dead Sea, where he had previously pastured his father's sheep and goats, in order to bring his own tribe of Judah into arms against the king sprung from the small tribe of Benjamin.[254]The cave of Adullam was the place of gathering. His brothers, the whole house of his father, came, and a prophet of the name of Gad, "and all oppressed persons, and any one who had a creditor and was of a discontented spirit," and "David was their chief, and had under him 400 men."[255]

Back to Index Next