[See page image]

Page 193

Samuel

Rims. near Tibne. Against the Ephraimitic origin of Samuel, I Chron. vi. 11 sqq., 18 aqq. speaks, where unmistakably the same family-tree is given as in I Sam. f., tracing the descent from the Levite Kohath. Many regard this as an arbitrary arrangement of the Chronicler, who desired to derive the priest Samuel from the Levites according to "Mosaic" law. The arguments for the non-Levitical origin of Samuel are not absolutely conclusive. Samuel's continual residence at the sanctuary as against the ordinary term of residence of Levites is explained by his mother's vow (I Sam. i. 11); while Rama was not a Levitical city, the Levites lived in other than Levitical cities. Yet Elkanah's yearly pilgrimage to the shrine might easily find other explanation than that of Levitical duty, and I Sam. i. l nowhere suggests Levitical origin. But Samuel's grandson Heman, the celebrated singer, was a Levite (I Chron. xxv. 4, cf. vi. 18-19); on the other hand the boundaries between Levites and others may not have been hard and fast at that period, and men may have become Levites through a vow. Such a vow Hannah registered in beseeching a son, promising his lifelong service to God, and also that he should be a Nazirite (q.v.). This vow she fulfilled after her request had been granted and she had weaned the child, and he became an attendant at Shiloh, "girded with a linen ephod" (I Sam. ii. 18; see EPHOD). There he was speedily distinguished by being made the recipient of divine revelations, the first being that which concerned the judgment of God on Eli and his house (I Sam. iii.). After the death of Eli Samuel became the leader in Israel and that people's judge, the reformer of its religion (I Sam. vii. 3 sqq.), and by his answered prayer its savior (verses 9 sqq.).

Concerning his later life little appears which is striking, apart from I Sam. vii., which is contested on critical grounds (see below). But if this portion of the history be given up, attested though it is by the stone Eben-ezer (verse 12), the title of father which Samuel bears in his old age

z. Later vouches for his thorough and comLife; prehensive activity. His journeys

Character. among the people and attendance at their gatherings at Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, where he acted as consecrator of the offerings and as judge, tended to build up Mosaic tradition and prophetic illumination and to prepare for a better ethical-religious situation in the land. To this end the prophetic schools were a part of the means. Through his worth and eminence he contributed to the unifying of the people; and if the Philistine yoke was not altogether broken, the lot of Israelites was at least bearable. In his old age sorrow assailed him through his sons' departure from his upright course, and the people demanded a king, which he at first opposed, and then, at a higher bidding, granted (see SAUL). His work, however, was not at an end, his duty being to announce Saul's supersession and to anoint David (q.v.). While David was being persecuted by Saul, Samuel died, and Saul followed not long after. Since Moses, alongside whom he is placed (Ps. xcix. 6; Jer. xv. 1), no one had been endowed with so rich a spirit. and entrusted with so high and comprehenX.-13

sive tasks as Samuel who gathered in himself all the theocratic offices, officiating as priest, prophet, and judge, and becoming the founder of the kingdom. His office of priest came to him not by birth but by an inner call and the external needs of the times; the external organization of the cultus is ascribed to him (I Chron. ix. 22), and his prophetic activity was thorough and comprehensive, he being possibly the founder of the prophetic schools. His ethical deliverance in I Sam. xv. 22-23 became the keynote of subsequent prophecy, while his work had bearing upon the building up of the "Torah" and upon prophetic writing. He appears as a true servant of God, who subjected his own will to that of the deity, and endeavored to lead the people to realize its higher call over against the striving for national greatness and worldly might.

II. The Books of Samuel: In the Hebrew these books were originally one (cf. Origen, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xxv~), in the Septuagint they were divided and called I an&. II Kings; this division into two books appeared in the Hebrew text of D.

Bomberg's edition (Venice, 1517), but

and Con- inal unity, showing I Sam. xxviii. 24 tents. to be the middle verse of the book.

It bears the name of Samuel because in the first part he is the principal character, not because he is the author, as later Baba Bathra (14b) mistakenly declared. The contents of the books connect closely with the contents of the Book of Judges, showing how out of the confusion of those times the Hebrew kingdom arose and soon reached its highest point. They divide into three main parts: (1) history of Samu-1, the last judge and the prophetic founder of the xingdom (I., i.-xii.); (2) history of Saul (I., x1ii.-xxxi.); (3) history of David (Il., f.-xxiv.), though the latter part is not complete, the closing days and death of David being described in I Kings. But the author surely wrote after the death of David (II Sam. v. 5), and certain signs indicate that he wrote also the history of Solomon; moreover, it is clear that he used various written sources.

The form of the text of the book requires special consideration, the Hebrew text being very often

defective and not seldom susceptible of

in places this version follows a variant recension. Sometimes the Hebrew text is the more detailed, sometimes the Greek; the former is fullest in the story of the youth and persecution of David by Saul, and this raises the question whether the Greek translators (or the writer of their Hebrew exemplar) had in mind to simplify and harmonize the text or whether the longer Hebrew text contains insertions later than the Greek version. In the latter case, the source of the additions is sought either in a later midrash or in earlier books which threw light upon the situation. In the reconstruction of the text Klostermann is too subjective, while Thenius, Wellhausen, and Petri stress too much the Septuagint. While in many passages the Septuagint helps to the correct text, in others the Masoretic points to the better reading, the Septuagint leaning on a variant text or not being exact.