12 Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) seems to be part of a formula (cf. Exod. 3:14) meaning, “He who causes to be what comes into existence.” Cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 197-98.
13 A much larger body of literature goes back to the earliest period (tenth century and before) than was formerly thought. This includes poems—e.g., the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5); Josh. 10:12-13; the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49); the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33; cf. Cross and Freedman, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVII [1948], 191-210); the Balaam poems (Num. 23–24; cf. Albright, idem, LXIII [1944], 207-33); the Song of Moses (Exod. 15; cf. Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, H. H. Rowley, ed. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950], pp. 5-6); numerous psalms (e.g., 29, 67, 68). Besides these are the David biography (II Sam. 9–20; I Kings 1–2) and no doubt others of the Samuel-Saul-David cycles. Further, even if we were to grant that the stories of the Patriarchs, Exodus, and conquest (in their oldest recension commonly called J) received final form only in the ninth century (the writer prefers an earlier date), they must be assumed to contain material and to rest on a chain of tradition centuries older.
14 The covenant idea is so important that W. Eichrodt, op. cit., has reconstructed the entire Old Testament theology around it. The writer is in fundamental agreement. It is true that the word “covenant” is rarely used in the earliest sources, but the idea is larger than the word. It is linked with Israel’s whole notion of election and with the very structure of the tribal league. Cf. Wright, op. cit., pp. 54-68.
15 On the Old Testament idea of election cf. H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950); also Wright, op. cit., ch. ii. The patriarchal narratives are not to be viewed with the once-fashionable hypercriticism: cf. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 179-89; Rowley, “Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age” (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 32 [Sept., 1949]) with full bibliography.
16 Cf. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 189-96, for the evidence.
17 Perhaps somewhat as the traditions of early America have become normative for all Americans, even those but recently arrived. Thus the child of immigrant parents may speak—and with justice—of our Pilgrim Fathers.
18 The word ḥesed cannot be exactly translated. The usual rendition in the English Bible (“lovingkindness,” “mercy,” etc.) is most inadequate. The word is intimately related to the idea of the covenant. When it is used of God, it is very nearly the equivalent of “grace.” It refers to the favor of God which summoned Israel into covenant and the steadfast love which he shows them even in spite of unworthiness. When used of man, the word denotes that proper response to grace which is utter loyalty to the covenant God and obedience to his will. Cf. N. H. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1946), ch. v; and, more briefly, idem, in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, A. Richardson, ed. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951), pp. 136-37.
19 Cf. Eichrodt, op. cit., I, 8, et passim. This does not mean that we may read either the New Testament doctrine or later Old Testament concepts of the kingship of Yahweh back into this primitive theocracy.
20 In fairness to the reader it must be said that there is the widest divergence of opinion regarding the origins of Israelite eschatology. W. Eichrodt (op. cit., I, 240-57) has splendidly expressed what is essentially my own position, which has been briefly stated in an article, “Faith and Destiny” (Interpretation, V-1 [1951], 9-11). The effort of Gunkel, Gressmann, Breasted, and others (see references in above article) to explain Old Testament eschatology as a borrowing from Egypt or Babylon seems to me unsuccessful—so also that of Mowinckel and others to find its origin in an annual Enthronement Festival supposed to have taken place during the monarchy. Although Hebrew eschatology is superficially paralleled in pagan texts, and although a royal ideology and the frustration of national political hopes no doubt stimulated it and gave it shape, its origin must be sought in the very nature of Israel’s faith itself.
21 She was very like a Grecian amphictyony, such as the Delphic league, numerous examples of which are known, many of them with twelve members. The basic discussion is M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930); in English, W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), pp. 95-110.
22 See especially A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina (Leipzig: A. Edelmann, 1930). The term is originally Max Weber’s.
23 I find it impossible to agree with those commentators (e.g., G. F. Moore, Judges [International Critical Commentary; New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1895, 1923], p. 230) who regard the verse as the reflection of late, antimonarchical sentiment. It is part of an unimpeachably old narrative.
24 In I Sam. 8–13 the historian has woven together two parallel stories of the rise of Saul (see the commentaries), one of them tacitly favorable to the monarchy, the other bitterly hostile. Ch. 8 belongs to the latter. But it is not on that account to be regarded as a late, even exilic production (so, e.g., H. P. Smith, Samuel [International Critical Commentary; New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1899, 1909], p. 55) reflecting disillusionment with the state. On the contrary, the two stories accurately reflect the tension which was there from the beginning.
25 Cf. note 2 above. Perhaps a date some fifteen years later would be more correct.
26 It is interesting that the old narrative of I Sam. 9 refrains from using the word “king” (melek), preferring instead the word “leader” (nāgîd). Cf. Eichrodt, Israel in der Weissagung des Alten Testaments (Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1951), p. 22; cf. also II Sam. 5:2.
27 His service to the people of Jabesh-gilead won their undying devotion (cf. I Sam. 11; 31:11-13). Perhaps the campaign against Amalek (I Sam. 15) was designed partly to woo Judah. At any rate, there were those in the south who preferred Saul to their own David (I Sam. 23:19-23; 26:1-2).
28 David had been a Philistine vassal (I Sam. 27), and he could hardly have taken such a step without at least their tacit approval. No doubt the Philistines wished to keep Israel divided between David and the house of Saul. A unified Israel was the last thing they wanted (II Sam. 5:17).
29 Cherethites and Pelethites are mentioned on several occasions (II Sam. 8:18; 20:23; 15:18). These were, as the names indicate, contingents recruited from the Aegean peoples of the coastal plain. With them on one occasion (II Sam. 15:18) are mentioned six hundred Gittites (men of Gath, a Philistine city).
30 One of Solomon’s chariot cities, Megiddo (I Kings 9:15), has been excavated by archaeologists of the Oriental Institute. Large stables for horses were found. For a popular discussion cf. Robert M. Engberg, “Megiddo—Guardian of the Carmel Pass,” Part II, The Biblical Archaeologist, IV-1 (1941), 11-16; cf. G. E. Wright, “The Discoveries at Megiddo, 1935-39,” ibid., XIII-2 (1950), 28-46.
31 W. F. Albright has suggested that “Gezer” is a corruption of “Gerar” (in the Hebrew very similar in appearance), a town near the Egyptian frontier of Palestine (Gen. 26:1); Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 214, and references there.
32 Reading the Hebrew of I Kings 10:28, “And the source of the horses which Solomon had was . . . from Que [Cilicia]; the king’s merchant’s got them from Que at a [set] price.” Cf. most recently W. F. Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature,
