[I]t is clear that Samuel and Kings have a
lot to do with each other, and a number of themes initiated in Samuel are
further developed in Kings. The transition between the books is relatively
smooth, and many writers hold that the division between Samuel and Kings is
largely artificial, and was determined only by scroll length. Complicating the
issue is that many scholars have recognized in 1 Kings 1 and 2 an intrinsic
component of one of the underlying compositional layers of the book of Samuel,
the so called ‘Succession Narrative’. The influence of this general thesis has
led some to link the opening chapters of Kings to Samuel at the expense of
their role in the opening of Kings. For De Vries, 1 Kings 1-2 is a ‘severed
trunk’ which was cut adrift from the rest of Samuel by the interpolation of 2
Samuel 21-24. This misalignment is to be resisted by the modern reader. A
number of scholars, more interested in the thematic and structural features of
this literature than its compositional history, link 1 Kings 1-2 to the role of
Solomon’s story in Kings, although in this they do disagree amongst themselves.
This situation, however, must be judged in the light of the fact that the Greek
text are not in unanimous agreement about where the break should be made
between 2 and 3 Kingdoms. The majority of them agree with the MT that the break
occurs after the notice that David built an altar and that the plague against
Israel was averted (MT: 2 Sam. 24.25). But a number of manuscripts, attributed
to the Lucianic recension (boc2e2), make the division
after the equivalent verse to 1 Kgs 2.11, thus including the whole of the story
of David’s life in the books of Samuel. Josephus begins the eighth book of his Antiquities at this point. For some,
Lucian offers the more logical break. Montgomery holds that there is evidence
of yet another division in the early Greek traditions after 1 Kgs 2.46a. This
evidence is the collection of what he considers supplementary material
collected at the end of a book. Based on the syntax, Montgomery thinks that the
next section represents a fresh beginning. I will leave it to others to argue
concerning the historical development of the divisions between the books. While
I maintain that Kings could have been at least substantially edited
independently of Samuel, and the varying portraits of David between the books
suggests this as well, the connections between the two books cannot be completely
ignored.
Duality within greater Israel, between Judah
and Israel, is a major feature of Samuel, even if it does not mark the initial
establishment of the monarchy itself. Yahweh’s answer to the people’s demand
for a king is the elevating of Saul to be nagid
(נגיד) over ‘my [Yahweh’s] people,
Israel’ (1 Sam. 9.16). This conception of ‘Israel’ as the deity’s people is
hardly to be taken as a general reference to the north. Later, in Kings, this
very phrase may be full of irony, and raises the question to what degree the davidic
rulers were the sole legitimate representatives of Yahweh in the political life
of Israel. At this place in Samuel, however, the נגיד over Yahweh’s people is for the benefit of all. The comprehensive
jurisdiction of Saul is reinforced in 1 Sam. 10.20-25, as he is made king
before all the tribes. When David is anointed in 1 Sam. 16.1-13, he is selected
as the future king. His kingdom can only be understood as greater Israel, for
Saul has already fallen out of favour with Yahweh, and David is destined to be
his replacement. Even so, separate mention of the people from Judah and Israel
in 1 Samuel is not hard to find. In some cases, it is the narrator who
recognizes the division. In 1 Sam. 11.8 and 15.4, the armed men of Judah and
Israel are numbered separately. Similarly, the army is divided on regional
lines in 17.52, and in 18.16 all Judah and Israel loved David. The imposition of
plurality by the narrator in these verses is not necessary to the plot itself,
although they are ominous signs of later events.
The complexity of the situation between Judah
and Israel in the books of Samuel really develops in 2 Samuel 2, in the ensuing
power-vacuum after the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. Rather than simply become
the king of greater Israel, David is anointed king over the ‘House of Judah’
(vv. 1-4) by the Judaeans. In vv. 8-9, Abner, Saul’s commander, makes Saul’s
son, Ishbosheth, king over ‘Israel in its entirety’ ישׂראל כלה (v. 9). The stage is when set
with all Israel opposed to David, king of the ‘House of Judah’ (vv. 4, 7, 10,
11). Here one may see the northern ‘majority’ being granted the name ‘Israel’.
Still, one could wonder if the change from ‘all Israel’, that is, Joab’s
intended constituency for Ishbosheth (v. 9), to simply ‘Israel’ in the narrator’s
summary of Ishboseth’s reign (v. 10), indicates that Abner sought to place Saul’s
heir as king of greater Israel, while the narrator accords him a reign only
over the north. (James Richard Linville, Israel
in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity [Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 272; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993], 114-16)
