stems from a time not much later than the first half. Also Weiser (1967) attributes vv 1–15 and vv 16–18 to two different situations. Wolff (1977) suggests that each of the second half’s three units belonged to a different occasion (vv 15a and 16–17; 18; 21). 8. Some scholars assume an original disunity but consider the book in its final form to reflect a redactional unity or cohesion (Childs 1979; Snyman 1989; Dicou 1994). 9. Other scholars maintain the original unity of the book as containing the