{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02463605823068309, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02463605823068309, 'mean_word_length': 4.767741935483871, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Retribution and 1 Sam 12

The dynamics of retribution and divine characterisation in 2 Sam 11–20 are compared and contrasted with the formulation of divine violence in 1 Sam 12. In 1 Sam 12, retribution is threatened but not yet enacted. Thunder and rain on the people’s crops in 1 Sam 12:18 is educative violence, warning the people for future obedience. The king is sidelined throughout Samuel’s speech, and included in the consequences but not transgression in the formulations for obedience and disobedience, democratising divine retribution from the king to the people in the post-exilic period. God is again characterised as transcendent king and judge, using the language of ‘evil that you have done in the eyes of the LORD.’ God’s words are all mediated through the prophet, and whereas David intercedes on his own behalf in 2 Sam 12, the Israelites must rely on Samuel’s intercession.