Samuel, First and Second Books of

Samuel, First and Second Books of

(Also know as the FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL.

For the First and Second Books of Kings in the Authorized Version see KINGS, THIRD AND FOURTH BOOKS OF.

In the Vulgate both titles are given (Liber Primus Samuelis, quem nos Primum Regum dicimus, etc.); in the Hebrew editions and the Protestant versions the second alone is recognized, the Third and Fourth Books of Kings being styled First and Second Books of Kings. To avoid confusion, the designation “First and Second Books of Samuel” is adopted by Catholic writers when referring to the Hebrew text, otherwise “First and Second Books of Kings” is commonly used. The testimony of Origen, St. Jerome, etc., confirmed by the Massoretic summary appended to the second book, as well as by the Hebrew MSS., shows that the two books originally formed but one, entitled “Samuel”. This title was chosen not only because Samuel is the principal figure in the first part, but probably also because, by having been instrumental in the establishment of the kingdom and in the selection of Saul and David as kings, he may be said to have been a determining factor in the history of the whole period comprised by the book. The division into two books was first introduced into the Septuagint, to conform to the shorter and more convenient size of scrolls in vogue among the Greeks. The Book of Kings was divided at the same time, and the four books, being considered as a consecutive history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda, were named “Books of the Kingdoms” (Basileiôn biblía). St. Jerome retained the division into four books, which from the Septuagint had passed into the Itala, or old Latin translation, but changed the name “Books of the Kingdoms” (Libri Regnorum) into “Books of the Kings” (Libri Regum). The Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel and of the Books of Kings was first divided in Bomberg’s edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-17), the individual books being distinguished as I B. of Samuel and II B. of Samuel, I B. of Kings and II B. of Kings. This nomenclature was adopted in the subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant translations, and thus became current among non­Catholics.

CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS

I-II Books of Kings comprise the history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the close of David’s public life, and cover a period of about a hundred years. The first book contains the history of Samuel and of the reign of Saul; the second, the history of the reign of David, the death of Saul marking the division between the two books. The contents may be divided into five main sections: (1) I, i-vii, history of Samuel; (2) viii-xiv or, better, xv, history of Saul’s government; (3) xvi-xxxi, Saul and David; (4) II, i-xx, history of the reign of David; (5) xxi-xxiv, appendix containing miscellaneous matter. The division between (3) and (4) is sufficiently indicated by the death of Saul and by David’s accession to power; the other sections are marked off by the summaries, vii, 15-17; xiv, 47-58; xx, 23-26; xv, however, which is an introduction to what follows, according to the subject­matter belongs to (2).

(1) History of Samuel

Samuel’s birth and consecration to the Lord, I, i-ii, 11. Misdeeds of the sons of Heli and prediction of the downfall of his house, ii, 12-36. Samuel’s call to the prophetic office; his first vision, in which the impending punishment of the house of Heli is revealed to him, iii. The army of Israel is defeated by the Philistines, Ophni and Phinees are slain and the ark taken; death of Heli, iv. The ark among the Philistines; it is brought back to Bethsames and then taken to Cariathiarim, v- vii, 1. Samuel as judge; he is instrumental in bringing the people back to the Lord and in inflicting a crushing defeat on the Philistines, vii, 2-17.

(2) History of Saul’s Government

The people demand a king; Samuel reluctantly yields to their request, viii. Saul, while seeking his father’s asses, is privately annointed king by Samuel, ix-x, 16. Samuel convokes the people at Maspha (Mizpah) to elect a king; the lot falls on Saul, but he is not acknowledged by all, x, 17-27. Saul defeats the Ammonite king, Naas, and opposition to him ceases, xi. Samuel’s farewell address to the people, xii. War against the Philistines; Saul’s disobedience for which Samuel announces his rejection, xiii. Jonathan’s exploit at Machmas; he is condemned to death for an involuntary breach of his father’s orders, but is pardoned at the people’s prayer, xiv, 1-46. Summary of Saul’s wars; his family and chief commander, xiv, 47- 52. War against Amalec; second disobedience and final rejection of Saul, xv.

(3) Saul and David

David at Court

David, the youngest son of Isai (Jesse), is anointed king at Bethlehem by Samuel, xvi, 1-33. He is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour­bearer, xvi, 14-23. David and Goliath, xvii. Jonathan’s friendship for David and Saul’s jealousy; the latter, after attempting to pierce David with his lance, urges him on with treacherous intent to a daring feat against the Philistines by promising him his daughter Michol in marriage, xviii. Jonathan softens his father for a time, but, David having again distinguished himself in a war against the Philistines, the enmity is renewed, and Saul a second time attempts to kill him, xix, 1-10. Michol helps David to escape; he repairs to Samuel at Ramatha, but, seeing after Jonathan’s fruitless effort at mediation that all hope of reconciliation is gone, he flees to Achis, King of Geth, stopping on the way at Nobe, where Achimelech gives him the loaves of proposition and the sword of Goliath. Being recognized at Geth he saves himself by feigning madness, xix, 11-xxi.

David as an Outlaw

He takes refuge in the cave of Odollam (Adullam), and becomes the leader of a band of outlaws; he places his parents under the protection of the King of Moab. Saul kills Achimelech and the priests of Nobe, xxii. David delivers Ceila from the Philistines, but to avoid capture by Saul he retires to the desert of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan. He is providentially delivered when surrounded by Saul’s men, xxiii. He spares Saul’s life in a cave of the desert of Engaddi, xxiv. Death of Samuel. Episode of Nabal and Abigail; the latter becomes David’s wife after her husband’s death, xxv. During a new pursuit, David enters Saul’s camp at night and carries off his lance and cup, xxvi. He becomes a vassal of Achis, from whom he receives Siceleg (Ziklag); while pretending to raid the territory of Juda, he wars against the tribes of the south, xxvii. New war with the Philistines; Saul’s interview with the witch of Endor, xxviii. David accompanies the army of Achis, but his fidelity being doubted by the Philistine chiefs he is sent back. On his return he finds that Siceleg has been sacked by the Amalecites during his absence, and Abigail carried off with other prisoners; he pursues the marauders and recovers the prisoners and the booty, xxix-xxx. Battle of Gelboe; death of Saul and Jonathan, xxxi.

(4) History of the Reign of David

David at Hebron

He hears of the death of Saul and Jonathan; his lament over them, II, i. He is anointed King of Juda at Hebron, ii, 1-7. War between David and Isboseth, or Esbaal (Ishbaal), the son of Saul, who is recognized by the other tribes, ii, 8-32. Abner, the commander of Isboseth’s forces, having quarrelled with his master, submits to David and is treacherously slain by Joab, iii. Isboseth is assassinated; David punishes the murderers and is acknowledged by all the tribes, iv-v, 5.

David at Jerusalem

Jerusalem is taken from the Jebusites and becomes the capital, v, 6-16. War with the Philistines, v, 17-25. The ark is solemnly carried from Cariathiarim to Sion, vi. David thinks of building a temple; his intention, though not accepted, is rewarded with the promise that his throne will last forever, vii. Summary of the various wars waged by David, and list of his officers, viii. His kindness to Miphiboseth, or Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan, ix. War with Ammon and Syria, x.

David’s Family History

His adultery with Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, xi. His repentance when the greatness of his crime is brought home to him by Nathan, xii, 1-23. Birth of Solomon; David is present at the taking of Rabbath, xii, 24-31. Amnon ravishes Thamar, the sister of Absalom; the latter has him assassinated and flies to Gessur; through the intervention of Joab he is recalled and reconciled with his father, xiii-xiv. Rebellion of Absalom; David flies from Jerusalem; Siba, Miphiboseth’s servant, brings him provisions and accuses his master of disloyalty; Semei curses David; Absalom goes in to his father’s concubines, xv-xvi. Achitophel counsels immediate pursuit, but Absalom follows the advice of Chusai, David’s adherent, to delay, and thus gives the fugitive king time to cross the Jordan, xvii. Battle of Mahanaim; Absalom is defeated and slain by Joab against the king’s order, xviii. David’s intense grief, from which he is aroused by Joab’s remonstrance. At the passage of the Jordan he pardons Semei, receives Miphiboseth back into his good graces, and invites to court Berzellai, who had supplied provisions to the army, xix, 1-39. Jealousies between Israel and Juda lead to the revolt of Seba; Amasa is commissioned to raise a levy, but, as the troops are collected too slowly, Joab and Abisai are sent with the bodyguard in pursuit of the rebels; Joab treacherously slays Amasa. Summary of officers, xix, 40-xx.

(5) Appendix

The two sons of Respha, Saul’s concubine, and the five sons of Merob, Saul’s daughter, are put to death by the Gabaonites, xxi, 1-14. Various exploits against the Philistines, xxi, 15-22. David’s psalm of thanksgiving (Ps. xvii), xxii. His “last words”, xxiii, 1-7. Enumeration of David’s valiant men, xxiii, 8-39. The numbering of the people and the pestilence following it, xxiv.

UNITY AND OBJECT

I-II Books of Kings never formed one work with III-IV, as was believed by the older commentators and is still maintained by some modern writers, although the consecutive numbering of the books in the Septuagint and the account of David’s last days and death at the beginning of III Kings seem to lend colour to such a supposition. The difference of plan and method pursued in the two pairs of books shows that they originally formed two distinct works. The author of III-IV gives a more or less brief sketch of each reign, and then refers his readers for further information to the source whence he has drawn his data; while the author of I-II furnishes such full and minute details, even when they are of little importance, that his work looks more like a series of biographies than a history, and, with the exception of II, i, 18, where he refers to the “Book of the Just”, he never mentions his sources. Moreover, the writer of III-IV supplies abundant chronological data. Besides giving the length of each reign, he usually notes the age of the king at his accession and, after the division, the year of the reign of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom; he also frequently dates particular events. In the first two books, on the contrary, chronological data are so scant that it is impossible to determine the length of the period covered by them. The position taken by the author of III-IV, with regard to the facts he relates, is also quite different from that of the author of the other two. The former praises or blames the acts of the various rulers, especially with respect to forbidding or allowing sacrifices outside the sanctuary, while the latter rarely expresses a judgment and repeatedly records sacrifices contrary to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch without a word of censure or comment. Lastly, there is a marked difference in style between the two sets of books; the last two show decided Aramaic influence, whereas the first two belong to the best period of Hebrew literature. At the most, it might be said that the first two chapters of the third book originally were part of the Book of Samuel, and were later detached by the author of the Book of Kings to serve as an introduction to the history of Solomon; but even this is doubtful. These chapters are not required by the object which the author of the Book of Samuel had in view, and the work is a complete whole without them. Besides, the summary, II, xx, 23-26, sufficiently marks the conclusion of the history of David. In any case these two chapters are so closely connected with the following that they must have belonged to the Book of Kings from its very beginning.

The general subject of I-II Kings is the foundation and development of the Kingdom of Israel, the history of Samuel being merely a preliminary section intended to explain the circumstances which brought about the establishment of the royal form of government. On closer examination of the contents, however, it is seen that the author is guided by a leading idea in the choice of his matter, and that his main object is not to give a history of the first two kings of Israel, but to relate the providential foundation of a permanent royal dynasty in the family of David. This strikingly appears in the account of Saul’s reign, which may be summarized in the words: elected, found wanting, and rejected in favour of David. The detailed history of the struggle between David and Saul and his house is plainly intended to show how David, the chosen of the Lord, was providentially preserved amid many imminent dangers and how he ultimately triumphed, while Saul perished with his house. The early events of David’s rule over united Israel are told in few words, even such an important fact as the capture of Jerusalem being little insisted on, but his zeal for God’s worship and its reward in the solemn promise that his throne would last forever (II, vii, 11-16) are related in full detail. The remaining chapters tell how, in pursuance of this promise, God helps him to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and does not abandon him even after his great crime, though he punishes him in his tenderest feelings. The conclusion shows him in peaceful possession of the throne after two dangerous rebellions. The whole story is thus built around a central idea and reaches its climax in the Messianic promise, II, vii, 11 sqq. Besides this main object a secondary one may be observed, which is to convey to king and people the lesson that to obtain God’s protection they must observe His commands.

AUTHOR AND DATE

The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name; this strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naïvely persuaded himself that Samuel wrote the events which occurred after his death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, i-xxiv), the rest to the Prophets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par., xxix, 29, “Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.” But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides, the unity of plan and the close connection between the different parts exclude composite authorship; we must at least admit a redactor who combined the three narratives. This redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown.

The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of David. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesêtre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiam the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David, Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, between the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to recent critics it belongs to the seventh century, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign cedrtain limits of time within which the work must have been composed. The explanation concerning the dress of the king’s daughters in David’s time (II, xiii, 18) supposes that a considerable period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by his foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: “For which reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day.” (I, xxvii, 6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of writing the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed berfore the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Josias’s reform (621 B.C.). As has been remarked, the author repeatedly records without censure or comment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of II-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias’s reform, censures every departure from the Law in this respect or, as in III, iii, 2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits. The appendix, however, may possibly be due to a somewhat later hand. Moreover, additions by a subsequent inspired revisor may be admitted without difficulty.

SOURCES

It is now universally recognized that the author of I-II Kings made use of written documents in composing his work. One such document, “The Book of the Just”, is mentioned in connection with David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (II, i, 18). The canticle of Anna (I, ii, 1-10), David’s hymn of thanksgiving (II, 22:2-51; cf. Psalm 17), and his “last words” were very probably also drawn from a written source. But besides these minor sources, the writer must have had at hand, at least for the history of David, a document containing much of the historical matter which he narrates. This we infer from the passages common to I-II Kings and the First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), which are shown in the following list:– I K., xxxi II K., iii, 2-5 v, 1-10 v, 11-25 vi, 1-11 vi, 12-23 ” ” ” vii I Par., x, 1-12 iii, 1-4 xi, 1-9 xiv, 1-16 xiii, 1-14 xv, 25-29 xvi, 1-3, 43 xvii I K., viii x,1-xi, 1 xii, 26-31 xxi, 18-22 xxiii, 8-39 xxiv I Par., xviii xix, 1-xx. 1 xx, 1-3 xx, 4-8 xi, 10-46 xxi Although these passages often agree word for word, the differences are such that the author of Paralipomenon, the later writer, cannot be said to have copied from I-II Kings, and we must conclude that both authors made use of the same document. This seems to have been an official record of important public events and of matters pertaining to the administration, such as was probably kept by the court “recorder” (2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24), and is very likely the same as the “Chronicles of King David” (1 Chronicles 27:24). To this document we may add three others mentioned in I Par. (xxix, 29) as sources of information for the history of David, namely, the “Book of Samuel”, the “Book of Gad”, and the “Book of Nathan”. These were works of the three Prophets, as we gather from II Par., ix, 29; xii, 15; xx, 34, etc.; and our author would hardly neglect writings recommended by such names. Samuel very probably furnished the matter for his own history and for part of Saul’s; Gad, David’s companion in exile, the details of that part of David’s life, as well as of his early days as king; and Nathan, information concerning the latter part, or even the whole, of his reign. Thus between them they would have fairly covered the period treated of, if, indeed, their narratives did not partially overlap. Besides these four documents other sources may occasionally have been used. A comparison of the passages of I-II Kings and I Par. given in the list above shows further that both writers frequently transferred their source to their own pages with but few changes; for, since one did not copy from the other, the agreement between them cannot be explained except on the supposition that they more or less reproduce the same document. We have therefore reason to believe that our author followed the same course in other cases, but to what extent we have no means of determining.

THE CRITICAL THEORY

According to recent critics, I-II Kings is nothing but a compilation of different narratives so unskillfully combined that they may be separated with comparative ease. In spite of this comparative ease in distinguishing the different elements, the critics are not agreed as to the number of sources, nor as to the particular souce to which certain passages are to be ascribed. At present the Wellhausen-Budde theory is accepted, at least in its main outlines, by nearly the whole critical school. According to this theory, II, ix-xx, forms one document, which is practically contemporary with the events described; the rest (excluding the appendix) is chiefly made up of two writings, an older one, J, of the ninth century, and a later one, E, of the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. They are designated J and E, because they are either due to the authors of the Jahwist and Elohist documents of the Hexateuch, or to writers belonging to the same schools. Both J and E underwent modifications by a revisor, J² and E² respectively, and after being welded together by a redactor, RJE, were edited by a writer of the Deuteronomic school, RD. After this redaction some further additions were made, among them the appendix. The different elements are thus divided by Budde:– J.–I, ix, 1-x, 7, 9-16; xi, 1-11, 15; xiii, 1-7a, 15b-18; xiv, 1-46, 52; xvi, 14-23; xviii, 5-6, 11, 20-30; xx, 1-10, 18-39, 42b; xxii, 1-4, 6-18, 20-23; xxiii, 1-14a; xxvi; xxvii; xxix-xxxi. II, i, 1-4, 11-12, 17-27; ii, 1-9, 10b, 12-32; iii; iv; v, 1-3, 6-10, 17-25; vi; ix-xi; xii, 1-9, 13-30, xiii-xx, 22. J².–I, x, 8; xiii, 7b- 15a, 19-22. E.–I, iv, 1b-vii, 1; xv, 2-34; xvii, 1-11, 14-58; xviii, 1-4, 13-29; xix, 1, 4-6, 8-17; xxi, 1- 9; xxi, 19; xxii, 19-xxiv, 19; xxv; xxviii. II, i, 6-10, 13-16; vii. E².–I, i, 1-28; ii, 11- 22a, 23-26; iii, 1-iv, 1a; vii, 2-viii, 22; x, 17-24; xii. RJE.–I, x, 25-27; xi, 12-14; xv, 1; xviii, 21b; xix, 2-3, 7; xx, 11-17, 40-42a; xxii, 10b; xxiii, 14b-18; xxiv, 16, 20-22a. II, i, 5. RD.–1, iv, 18 (last clause); vii, 2; xiii, 1; xiv, 47-51; xxviii, 3. II, ii, 10a, 11; v, 4-5; viii; xii, 10-12. Additions of a later editor.–I, iv, 15, 22; vi, 11b, 15, 17-29; xi, 8b; xv, 4; xxiv, 14; xxx, 5. II, iii, 30; v, 6b, 7b, 8b; xv, 24; xx, 25- 26. Latest additions.–I, ii, 1-10, 22b; xvi, 1-13; xvii, 12-13; xix, 18-24; xx, 10-15; xxii, 5. II, xiv, 26; xxi-xxiv.

This minute division, by which even short clauses are to a nicety apportioned to their proper sources, is based on the following grounds. (1) There are duplicate narratives giving a different or even a contradictory presentation of the same event. There are two accounts of Saul’s election (I, viii, 1-xi), of his rejection (xiii, 1-14 and xv), of his death (I, xxxi, 1 sqq., and II, i, 4 sqq.), of his attempt to pierce David (I, xxiii, 10-11, and xix, 9-10d). There are also two accounts of David’s introduction to Saul (I, xvi, 14 sqq. and xvii, 55-58), of his flight from court (xix, 10 sqq., and xxi, 10), of his taking refuge with Achis (xxi, 10 sqq., and xxvii, 1 sqq.), of his sparing Saul’s life (xxiv, and xxvi). Lastly, there are two accounts of the origin of the proverb: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” (x, 12; xix, 24). Some of these double narratives are not only different, but contradictory. In one account of Saul’s election the people demand a king, because they are dissatisfied with the sons of Samuel; the prophet manifests great displeasure and tries to turn them from their purpose; he yields, however, and Saul is chosen by lot. In the other, Samuel shows no aversion to the kingdom; he privately anoints Saul at God’s command that he may deliver Israel from the Philistines; Saul is proclaimed king only after, and in reward of his victory over the Ammonite king, Naas. According to one version of Saul’s death, he killed himself by falling on his sword; according to the other, he was slain at his own request by an Amalecite. Again, in xvi, David, then arrived at full manhood and experienced in warfare, is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour-bearer, and yet in the very next chapter he appears as a shepherd lad unused to arms and unknown both to Saul and to Abner. Moreover, there are statements at variance with one another. In I, vii, 33, it is stated that “the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel . . . all the days of Samuel”; while in ix, 16, Saul is elected king to deliver Israel from them, and in xiii a Philistine invasion is described. In I, vii, 15, Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life, though in his old age he delegated his powers to his sons (viii, 1), and after the election of Saul solemnly laid down his office (xii). Finally, in I, xv, 35, Samuel is said never to have seen Saul again, and yet in xix, 24, Saul appears before him. All this shows that two narratives, often differing in their presentation of the facts, have been combined, the differences in some cases being left unharmonized. (2) Certain passages present religious conceptions belonging to a later age, and must therefore be ascribed to a later writer, who viewed the events of past times in the light of the religious ideas of his own. A difference of literary style can also be detected in the different parts of the work. If all this were true, the theory of the critics would have to be admitted. In that case much of I-II Kings would have but little historical value. The argument from the religious conceptions assumes the truth of Wellhausen’s theory on the evolution of the religion of Israel; while that from literary style is reduced to a list of words and expressions most of which must have been part of the current speech, and for this reason could not have been the exclusive property of any writer. The whole theory, therefore, rests on the argument from double narratives and contradictions. As this seems very plausible, and presents some real difficulties, it demands an examination.

DOUBLETS AND CONTRADICTIONS

Some of the narratives said to be doublets, while having a general resemblance, differ in every detail. This is the case with the two accounts of Saul’s disobedience and rejection, with the two narratives of David’s sparing Saul’s life, and of his seeking refuge with Achis. Such narratives cannot be identified, unless the improbability of the events occurring as related be shown. But is it improbable that Saul should on two different occasions have disregarded Samuel’s directions and that the latter should repeat with greater emphasis the announcement of his rejection? Or that in the game of hide-and-seek among the mountains David should have twice succeeded in getting near the person of Saul and should on both occasions have refrained from harming him? Or that under changed conditions he should have entered into negotiations with Achis and become his vassal? Even where the circumstances are the same, we cannot at once pronounce the narratives to be only different accounts of the same occurrence. It is not at all strange that Saul in his insane moods should twice have attempted to spear David, or that the loyal Ziphites should twice have betrayed to Saul David’s whereabouts. The two accounts of Saul among the prophets at first sight seem to be real doublets, not so much because the two narratives are alike, for they differ considerably, as because both incidents seem to be given as the origin of the proverb: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” The first, however, is alone said to have given rise to the proverb. The expression used in the other case–”Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?”–does not necessarily imply that the proverb did not exist before, but may be understood to say that it then became popular. The translation of the Vulgate, “Unde et exivit proverbium”, is misleading. There is no double mention of David’s flight from court. When in xxi, 10, he is said to have fled from the face of Saul, nothing more is affirmed than that he fled to avoid being taken by Saul, the meaning of the expression “to flee from the face of” being to flee for fear of some one. The double narrative of Saul’s election is obtained by tearing asunder parts which complement and explain one another. Many a true story thus handled will yield the same results. The story as it stands is natural and well connected. The people, disgusted at the conduct of the sons of Samuel, and feeling that a strong central government would be an advantage for the defence of the country, request a king. Samuel receives the request with displeasure, but yields at God’s command and appoints the time and place for the election. In the meanwhile he anoints Saul, who is later designated by lot and acclaimed king. All, however, did not recognize him. Influential persons belonging to the larger tribes were very likely piqued that an unknown man of the smallest tribe should have been chosen. Under the circumstances Saul wisely delayed assuming royal power till a favourable opportunity presented itself, which came a month later, when Naas besieged Jabes. It is objected, indeed, that, since the Jabesites did not send a message to Saul in their pressing danger, chap. xi, 4 sq., must have belonged to an account in which Saul had not yet been proclaimed king, whence a double narrative is clearly indicated. But even if the Jabesites had sent no message, the fact would have no significance, since Saul had not received universal recognition; nothing, however, warrants us to read such a meaning into the text. At all events, Saul on hearing the news immediately exercised royal power by threatening with severe punishment anyone who would not follow him. Difficulties, it is true, exist as to some particulars, but difficulties are found also in the theory of a double account. The two accounts of Saul’s death are really contradictory; but only one is the historian’s; the other is the story told by the Amalecite who brought to David the news of Saul’s death, and nothing indicates that the writer intends to relate it as true. We need have little hesitation in pronouncing it a fabrication of the Amalecite. Lying to promote one’s interests is not unusual, and the hope of winning David’s favour was a sufficient inducement for the man to invent his story.

With regard to the apparent contradiction between xvi, 14-23, and xvii, it should be remarked that the Vatican (B) and a few other MSS. of the Septuagint omit xvii, 12-31 and xvii, 55-xviii, 5. This form of the text is held to be the more original, not only by some conservative writers, but by such critics as Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and H. P. Smith. But though this text, if it were certain, would lessen the difficulty, it would not entirely remove it, as David still appears as a boy unused to arms. The apparent contradiction disappears if we take xvi, 14-23, to be out of its chronological place, a common enough occurrence in the historical books both of the Old and of the New Testament. The reason of the inversion seems to be in the desire of the author to bring out the contrast between David, upon whom the spirit of the Lord came from the day of his anointing, and Saul, who was thenceforth deserted by the spirit of the Lord, and troubled by an evil spirit. Or it may be due to the fact that with xvii the author begins to follow a new source. This supposition would explain the repetition of some details concerning David’s family, if xvii, 17-21, is original. According to the real sequence of events, David after his victory over Goliath returned home, and later, having been recommended by one who was aware of his musical skill, he was called to court and permanently attached to the person of Saul. This explanation might seem inadmissible, because it is said (xviii, 2) that “Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father’s house.” But as “on that day” is often used in a loose way, it need not be taken to refer to the day on which David slew Goliath, and room will thus be left for the incident related in xvi, 14-23. It is not true, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the two accounts, as is asserted. The so-called contradictory statements may also be satisfactorily explained. As vii is a summary of Samuel’s administration, the words “the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel” must be taken to refer only to Samuel’s term of office, and not to his whole lifetime; they do not, therefore, stand in contradiction with xiii, where an incursion during the reign of Saul is described. Besides, it is not said that there were no further wars with the Philistines; the following clause: “And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines, all the days of Samuel”, rather supposes the contrary. There were wars, indeed, but the Philistines were always defeated and never succeeded in gaining a foothold in the country. Still they remained dangerous neighbours, who might attack Israel at any moment. Hence it could well be said of Saul, “He shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines” (ix, 16), which expression does not necessarily connote that they were under the power of the Philistines. Ch. xiii, 19-21, which seems to indicate that the Philistines were occupying the country at the time of Saul’s election, is generally acknowledged to be misplaced. Further, when Samuel delegated his powers to his sons, he still retained his office, and when he did resign it, after the election of Saul, he continued to advise and reprove both king and people (cf. I, xii, 23); he can therefore be truly said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. The last contradiction, which Budde declares to be inexplicable, rests on a mere quibble about the verb “to see”. The context shows clearly enought that when the writer states that “Samuel saw Saul no more till the day of his death” (xv, 35), he means to say that Samuel had no further dealings with Saul, and not that he never beheld him again with his eyes. Really, is it likely that a redactor who, we are told, often harmonizes his sources, and who plainly intends to present a coherent story, and not merely a collection of old documents, would allow glaring contradictions to stand? There is no sufficient reason, then, why we should not grant a historical character to the section I, i-II, viii, as well as to the rest of the work. Those internal marks–namely, lifelike touches, minuteness of detail, bright and flowing style–which move the critics to consider the latter part as of early origin and of undoubted historical value, are equally found in the first.

THE HEBREW TEXT, THE SEPTUAGINT, AND THE VULGATE

The Hebrew text has come down to us in a rather unsatisfactory condition, by reason of the numerous errors due to transcribers. The numbers especially have suffered, probably because in the oldest manuscripts they were not written out in full. In I, vi, 19, seventy men become “seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people.” In I, xiii, 5, the Philistines are given the impossible number of thirty thousand chariots. Saul is only a year old when he begins to reign, and reigns but two years (I, xiii, 1). Absalom is made to wait forty years to accomplish the vow he made while in Gessur (II, xv, 7). In I, viii, 16, oxen are metamorphosed into “goodliest young men”, while in II, x, 18, forty thousand footmen are changed into horsemen. Michol, who in II, vi, 23, is said to have had no children, in II, xxi, 8, is credited with the five sons of her sister Merob (cf. I, xviii, 19; xxv, 44; II, iii, 15). In II, xxi, 19, Goliath is again slain by Elchanan, and, strange to say, though I Par., xx, 5, tells us that the man killed by Elchanan was the brother of the giant, some critics here also see a contradiction. Badan in I, xii, 11, should be changed to Abdon or Barak, and Samuel, in the same verse, to Samson, etc. Many of these mistakes can readily be corrected by a comparison with Paralipomenon, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions. Others antedate all translations, and are therefore found in the versions as well as in the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. In spite of the work of correction done by modern commentators and textual critics, a perfectly satisfactory critical text is still a desideratum. The Septuagint differs considerably from the Massoretic text in many instances; in others the case is not so clear. The Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew text closely resembling the Massoretic; but the original text has been interpolated by additions and duplicate translations, which have crept in from the Itala. Additions occur: I, iv, 1; v, 6, 9: viii, 18; x, 1; xi, 1; xiii, 15; siv, 22, 41; xv, 3, 12; xvii, 36; xxi, 11; xxx, 15; II, i, 26; v, 23; x, 19; xiii, 21, 27; xiv, 30; duplicate translations, I, ix, 15; xv, 32; xx, 15; xxiii, 13, 14; II, i, 18; iv, 5; vi, 12; xv, 18, 20.

———————————–

Catholic: GIGOT, Special Introd. (New York, 1901), 251-65; CORNELY, Introductio, (Paris, 1897), i, 240-76; HUMMELBAUER, Comm. in Libros Samuelis (Paris, 1886); FILLION in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Rois (les quatre livres des); VIGOROUX, Manuel Bibl., 10th ed., II (Paris, 1899), 80 sqq.; CLAIR, Livres des Rois (Paris, 1884); DHORME, Les Livres de Samuel (Paris, 1910); KAULEN, Einleitung (3rd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1890), 223-30; SCHÄFERS, I Sam., i-xv literarkritisch untersucht in Bibl. Zeitschr., V (1907), 1, 126, 235, 359; VI, 117; PETERS, Beiträge zur Text-und Literaturkritik der B252;cher Samuels (Vienna, 1904); WIESMANN, Die Einführung des Königtums in Israel in Zeitsch. für Kathol. Theologie, XXXIV (1910), 118-153; IDEM, Bemerkungen zum I Buche Samuels, ibid., XXXII (1908), 187, 597; XXXIII, 129, 385, 796. Non-Catholic: STENNING in HAST., Dict of the Bible, s. v. Samuel, I and II; DRIVER, Literat. of the O. T., 8th ed. (Edinburgh, 1909), 172-85; IDEM, Notes on Heb. Text of the B. of Samuel (Oxford, 1890); H. P. SMITH, Comm. on the B. of Samuel (New York, 1899); WELLHAUSEN, Composition des Hexateuchs und der Histor. Bücher des A. T. (Berlin, 1899); IDEM, Text der Bücher Samuels (Göttingen, 1871); BUDDE, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel (Giessen, 1890); IDEM, The Books of Samuel in HAUPT, Sacred Books of the O. T. (Baltimore, 1894); IDEM, Die Bücher Samuel in MARTI, Kurzer Hand Comm. zum A. T., (1902); CORNILL in Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben (1885), 113 sqq.; IDEM in Königsberg. Studien (1887); 25 sqq.; IDEM in Zeitsch. für A. T. Wissensch., (1890), 96 sqq.; THENIUS, Die Bücher Samuels, ed. LÖHR (Leipzig, 1898); KLOSTERMANN, Die Bücher Samuels und der Könige (Munich, 1887).

F. BECHTEL Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Samuel, First And Second Books Of

These two historical portions of Scripture, in all the editions of the original and versions, immediately precede the books of Kings, and are intimately connected with them. There is less critical dispute concerning them than respecting those books that precede them.

I. Name and Division. The books so called received this name (which is now customarily attached to them in Hebrew printed texts) subsequently to the completion of the Sept., in which their present name is , (First and Second of Kings); and similarly in the Vulg. Hence they are entitled in the English version The First [or Second] Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First [or Second] Book of the Kings. The name may in some measure be explained and justified on the ground that the early part of the first book is chiefly concerned about Samuel, and that the two kings Saul and David, whose reigns occupy all the rest of the books, were both anointed by Samuel to their office.

In Hebrew MSS. the work is one and not two. The present division was first made in the Sept., and was thence adopted into the Vulg. But Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 6, 25), expressly states that they formed only one book among the Hebrews. Jerome (Proefatio in Libros Samuel et Malachim) implies the same statement; and in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 14, c. 2), wherein the authorship is attributed to Samuel, they are designated by the name of his book, in the singular number ( ). After the invention of printing they were published as one book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed at Soncino in A.D. 1488, and likewise in the Complutensian Polyglot printed at Alcala, A.D. 1502-1517; and it was not till the year 1518 that the division of the Sept. was adopted in Hebrew, in the edition of the Bible printed by the Bombergs at Venice. The work constitutes a separate and independent whole, and is not to be joined either with the book of Judges or with that of Kings, from which it differs by many important characteristics.

II. Contents. The statements of the books of Samuel belong to an interesting period of Jewish history. The preceding book of Judges refers to the affairs of the republic as they were administered after the conquest, when the nation was a congeries of independent cantons, sometimes partially united for a season under an extraordinary dictator. As, however, the mode of government was changed, and remained monarchical till the overthrow of the kingdom, it was of national importance to note the time, method, and means of the alteration. This change happening under the regency of the wisest and best of their sages, his life became a topic of interest. The first book of Samuel gives an account of his birth and early call to the duties of a seer, under Eli’s pontificate; describes the low and degraded condition of the people, oppressed by foreign enemies; proceeds to narrate the election of Samuel as judge; his prosperous regency; the degeneracy of his sons; the clamor for a change in the civil constitution; the installation of Saul; his rash and reckless character; his neglect of, or opposition to, the theocratic elements of the government. Then the historian goes on to relate God’s choice of David as king; his endurance of long and harassing persecution from the reigning sovereign; the melancholy defeat and death of Saul on the field of Gilboa; the gradual elevation of the man according to God’s own heart to universal dominion; his earnest efforts to obey and follow out the principles of the theocracy; his formal establishment of religious worship at Jerusalem, now the capital of the nation; and his series of victories over all the enemies of Judea that were wont to molest its frontiers. The annalist records David’s aberrations from the path of duty; the unnatural rebellion of his son Absalom, and its suppression; his carrying into effect a census of his dominions, and the divine punishment which this act incurred; and concludes with a few characteristic sketches of his military staff. The second book of Samuel, while it relates the last words of David, yet stops short of his death. As David was the real founder of the monarchy and arranger of the religious economy; the great hero, legislator, and poet of his country; as his dynasty maintained itself on the throne of Judah till the Babylonian invasion, it is not a matter of wonder that the description of his life and government occupies so large a portion of early Jewish history. The books of Samuel thus consist of three interlaced biographies those of Samuel, Saul, and David. The following are the details:

1. Israel under Samuel (1 Samuel 1-12; B.C. 1120-1093). The parentage, birth, and consecration of Samuel (ch. 1); Hannah’s prayer (1Sa 2:1-10); the evil practices of the sons of Eli; a man of God predicts the troubles which shall befall Eli (1Sa 2:10-33); God calls Samuel in the night, and reveals to him the judgment of the house of Eli, to whom Samuel declares it (1Sa 3:1-18); Samuel is established to be a prophet in Shiloh (1Sa 3:19 to 1Sa 4:1); a battle of the Philistines with the; Israelites between Aphek and Eben-ezer; the Israelites, being defeated, send for the ark from Shiloh; another battle ensues, in which Israel is again smitten, the ark is taken, and the two sons of Eli slain; the news is carried to Eli, who dies; Ichabod is born (ch. 4); penalties inflicted on the Philistines on account of the ark of God; it is sent back with presents to Israel, first to Beth-she-mesh, and then to Kirjath- jearim (1 Samuel 5-7); the reformation under Samuel and the national assembly at Mizpeh (1Sa 7:2-6); the Philistines again invade Israel, but at the cry of Samuel the Lord discomfits them with thunder, and they are smitten before Israel; their conquests restored to Israel from Ekron to Gath, and peace established (1Sa 7:7-14); Samuel judges Israel in a circuit of four cities yearly (1Sa 7:15-17); becoming old, he makes his sons judges over Israel, but their conduct is bad (1Sa 8:1-3); the elders of Israel come to Samuel at Ramah and demand a king; Samuel protests, but by divine direction yields at length (1Sa 8:4-22); Saul, son of Kish, seeking the lost asses of his father, visits Samuel, who, forewarned by God of his coming, entertains him with honor, and on parting anoints him to be king, and gives him signs in confirmation, which come to pass; Samuel then calls an assembly at Mizpeh, and there Saul is publicly designated by lot to be king over Israel, but not acknowledged by all the people (1 Samuel 9, 10); the men of Jabesh-gilead, sending to Gibeah in their distress, Saul is roused to aid them, and gains a great victory over the Ammonites; then Saul is joyfully recognized as king by all the people at Gilgal, where Samuel renews the kingdom (1 Samuel 11); there Samuel addresses the people, vindicates his own conduct, and exhorts them to fidelity to God and their king; the miracle of thunder and rain at wheat harvest (1 Samuel 12).

2. Israel under King Saul (1 Samuel 13-31; B.C. 1093-1053). Saul forms an army of two thousand men under his own command at Michmash, and one thousand under Jonathan at Gibeah; Jonathan smites the Philistine garrison at Geba, and the Philistines gather a great army; Israel is greatly distressed; Saul awaits Samuel at Gilgal, but begins to offer sacrifice before his arrival, for which act of disobedience he is rejected of God (1Sa 13:1-14); in the extremity of the times Jonathan and his armor bearer discomfit the Philistines at Michmash; in the general pursuit Jonathan tastes honey contrary to the command of Saul; his life is spared at the demand of the people (1 Samuel 8:15-14, 45); Saul’s successes in war against the neighboring tribes; his children and relatives named (1Sa 14:46-52); Saul, commanded to exterminate Amalek, only partially obeys, and Samuel declares to him his rejection from the kingdom; Samuel and Saul finally part (1 Samuel 15); Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint David, son of Jesse, to be king (1Sa 16:1-13); in consequence of Saul’s malady, David is sent for to cheer him with music (1Sa 16:14-23); the Philistines and the Israelites arrayed for battle in the valley of Elah; Goliath challenges Israel, and is killed by David (1 Samuel 17); Jonathan and David make a covenant of friendship; Saul retains David near him, and sets him over his men of war; the women- singers give greater honor to David than to Saul, who is displeased, and seeks to destroy David (1 Samuel 18); Jonathan takes David’s part and Michal also; David flees to Samuel at Ramah; they go together to Naioth; Saul sends messengers, and then goes himself to fetch David; they all prophesy (ch. 19); David visits Jonathan; they renew their covenant; Jonathan makes known to David by the device of the arrows Saul’s determination to kill him; their parting (ch. 20); David flees to Nob, where he obtains the shewbread, and proceeds to Achish, king of Gath, and feigns madness; then to the cave of Adullam, to Mizpeh of Moab, and to Hareth; Saul kills Ahimelech and the priests by the hand of Doeg the Edomite (ch. 21, 22); David saves Keilah from the Philistines, but leaves it on the approach of Saul, and abides in the wilderness of Ziph, where Jonathan visits him; Saul is recalled from the pursuit of David by an invasion of the Philistines (1 Samuel 23); David in the wilderness of Engedi spares Saul’s life (ch. 24); Samuel’s death and burial; the narrative of Nabal and his wife Abigail (ch. 25); David again spares the life of Saul at Hachilab; he goes with six hundred men to Achish, king of Gath, who gives him Ziklag to dwell in the Philistines encamp against Israel; Saul in vain seeks counsel from God, and then has recourse to the witch of Endor; the princes of the Philistines refuse David’s aid in battle (1 Samuel 26-29); David returns to Ziklag and finds it desolated; he pursues the Amalekites and recovers the spoil (ch. 30); the battle of Gilboa; Saul and his three sons die (ch. 31); the news of Saul’s death reaches David at Ziklag, and calls forth his touching dirge or lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1).

3. The Unsettled Succession, Ishbosheth king of Israel, David of Judah (2Sa 2:1 to 2Sa 5:3; B.C. 1053-1046). David is anointed king of Judah at Hebron; Ishbosheth is made king of Israel; the fight between the followers of David and of Ishbosheth by the pool of Gibeon (ch. 2); David’s power increases in Hebron; six sons born to him there; Abner forsakes Ishbosheth, and makes terms with David to transfer the kingdom of Israel to him; is slain by Joab; David’s lamentation over him (ch. 3); the head of Ishbosheth is brought by Rechab and Baanah to David, who punishes them for the deed (ch. 4); the tribes of Israel make David their king (2Sa 5:1-3).

4. Israel under King David (2Sa 5:4-24; B.C. 1046-1013). David, after being king of Judah for seven vears and a half, reigns thirty- three years in Jerusalem over all Israel; he captures the fortress of Zion from the Jebusite, forms a friendship with Hiram king of Tyre, defeats the Philistines at Baal-perazim, and again from Geba unto Gazer (ch. 5); David brings up the ark of the Lord; the breach of Uzzah; the house of Obed- edom is blessed; the ark brought to Jerusalem; Michal derides David for dancing before the ark (ch. 6); David is forbidden to build a house for the Lord in a message brought to him by Nathan the prophet, who announces the establishment of his dynasty; David’s prayer (ch. 7); his victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, etc., recited (ch. 8); his kindness to Mephibosheth (ch. 9); his victory over Bene-ammon (ch. 10); his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah; Nathan’s parable; punishment denounced; David’s penitence; the child dies; Solomon is born; David captures Rabbah of Bene-ammon (ch. 11, 12); the affair of Amnon and Tamar; Absalom’s revenge and flight to Geshur; Joab artfully procures his return after three years’ absence (ch. 13, 14); the rebellion of Absalom and the flight of David; the ark, the priests, and Hushai sent back to Jerusalem; the treachery of Ziba; the reviling of Shimei; conflicting advice given by Hushai and Ahitophel to Absalom, and Ahitophel’s suicide (ch. 15-17); the battle in the forest of Ephraim; Absalom’s death; David’s great grief (ch. 18); David’s return to Jerusalem; the conduct of Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai; the rivalry between Judah and Israel in bringing back the king (ch. 19); the rebellion of Sheba; Joab slays Amasa; Sheba’s head given to Joab at Abel (ch. 20); the three years’ famine, and the appeasement of the Gibeonites; the burial of the bones of Saul and his sons; the giants of the Philistines slain by David’s servants (ch. 21); David’s song (Psalms 18) (ch. 22); the last words of David; the names and exploits of his heroes (ch. 23); the numbering of the people and the pestilence (ch. 24).

III. Origin and Structure. It is evident that Samuel could not be the author of the whole of these books, since his death is recorded in the 25th chapter of the first book, and the history continues after his death down to nearly the end of the reign of David, a period of perhaps forty-five years. There is a somewhat common opinion that the first twenty-four chapters were written by Samuel and the rest by Gad and Nathanan opinion founded on 1Ch 29:29 : Now the acts of David the king, first and last, are they not written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer? There is much in the general structure of the books, (and in the relation of the several parts to each other, to render it probable that different writers, living at different times, were concerned in their production, notwithstanding the degree of uniformity which the style and language exhibit. The most reasonable supposition is: that they were the work of one compiler, who used historical records of various sources. This opinion, though held by nearly all modern critics, as Thenius, and even by Hvernick and Keil, is not new, as Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodoret, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory observed that the four books of Kings were historical abridgments of several books or memoirs of the prophets which are cited in them. The grounds on which this view of the origin of these books is based have, however, only in very recent times been fully expounded. Warning the reader against attaching undue importance to the evidence which has been adduced in proof of this position, his attention may nevertheless be directed to the following points:

1. There is considerable difference in the manner of the writers; some portions contrasting in their brief, fragmentary, chronological character with others which are more full and copious, and (in one part at least) minutely biographical (comp. 1Sa 5:1-12; 1 Samuel 8; 1Sa 20:15-22; 1Sa 23:8-29, with 2 Samuel 11-20).

2. In several places there may be perceived the conclusion of the original documents, to which additional matter has been attached, yet without being so joined as to appear like a natural continuation. In some places the compiler has placed together what he found narrated by different writers respecting the persons whose histories they wrote, without having so worked them up into one narrative as to harmonize all their parts (1Sa 7:15-17; 1Sa 14:47-52; 2Sa 8:15-18; 2Sa 20:23-26).

3. Of some events there appear to be double accounts recorded, and occasionally these accounts are different, and sometimes, apparently at least, inconsistent; as, for instance, how Saul became king (1 Samuel 9-10; 1 Samuel 16, and 1Sa 10:17-27); how and why Saul was rejected (1Sa 13:8-14; 1Sa 15:10-26); how David became known to Saul (1Sa 16:14-21, and 1Sa 17:55 to 1Sa 18:2); how David spared Saul’s life (1 Samuel 24, 26); how David went over to the Philistines (1Sa 21:10-15; 1Sa 27:1-4); how the proverb Is Saul also among the prophets? arose (1Sa 10:9-13; 1Sa 19:22-24). It should here be remarked that these alleged discrepant passages, as well as many more which skeptical critics have adduced, need to be explained, whatever opinion may be held respecting the authorship of these books. As, for instance, the statement that Samuel (1Sa 7:15-17) was all his life long judge over Israel, but according to 1Sa 8:1-3 had surrendered the office to his sons (but see 1Sa 12:2); the occasion and the motives for demanding a king, as differently stated in 1Sa 8:5 and 1Sa 12:12; the two accounts of Goliath (1Sa 17:1-10, and 2Sa 21:19); the double record of Samuel’s death (1Sa 25:1; 1Sa 28:3); the two descriptions of the manner of Saul’s death (1Sa 31:1-6 and 2Sa 1:1-10); the twofold account of the battle with the Syrians (2 Samuel 8, 10), etc. Such different, though not therefore discordant, portions of the work may probably be best explained on the assumption that the books consist of materials brought together from various sources. This origin may be granted, however, without admitting that there is any inconsistency or contradiction among the materials so joined together; just as in the case of the Gospel history, which is constituted by the separate narratives of four different, but not therefore discordant, writers. It is not the object of this article to explain the alleged inconsistencies, however completely that might be done. They are here mentioned only as they bear upon the question of authorship, and as they seem to indicate the use of a variety of materials by the author or compiler of these books.

4. The relation between the books of Chronicles and the books of Samuel is thought to point to the same conclusion. It can scarcely be maintained that the author of the Chronicles has derived from the books of Samuel all the materials for the narratives which are common to both works. There are so many variations between the history as related by the chronicler and as related in Samuel as to render it probable, not that the chronicler derived everything from Samuel, but that he had access to the sources used also by the compiler of Samuel. This may be explained by a comparison of 2Sa 5:1-10; 2Sa 23:8-39 with 1Ch 11:12. The chronicler has placed in continuous narrative David’s anointing as king of Israel at Hebron, the capture of Jerusalem, the building of the city of David, and the list of David’s heroes, with their deeds, probably as he found them connected in the documents which he used; while in Samuel they are detached, the list of heroes being placed separately in the history of the latest period of the life of David. So in 1 Chronicles 3, the list of David’s children is given in a form probably drawn from some official register to which the writer of Samuel had access, as he gives the list in two portions to suit the course of his narrative (2 Samuel 3, 2-5; 2 Samuel 5, 14-16).

5. The hand of a compiler is thought to be perceptible in certain detached observations here and there occurring in the course of the history, in the way of explanation of some portion drawn from the documents; as for example, in 1Sa 9:9, the expression . is explained: For the prophet of today was called formerly the seer. 1Sa 17:14-15, is regarded as an interposed remark, to connect this history with the account given in the previous chapter of the family of Jesse.

IV. The Sources. Should these books then appear to be a compilation from several original documents, the interesting question arises, How far may it be possible to resolve the whole work into its constituent parts, so as to obtain some idea of the nature of the sources whence the parts were derived? Thenius has attempted to solve this difficult problem in the following way. On internal grounds he distinguishes five principal sources:

(a.) A History of Samuel, contained in 1 Samuel 1-7, which seems to conclude naturally as a separate and independent narrative, in which Samuel is altogether the principal person.

(b.) A History of Saul, comprised in the following portions: 1 Samuel 8; 1Sa 10:17-27; 1 Samuel 11; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Samuel 15; 1 Samuel 16; 1Sa 18:6-14; 1 Samuel 26; 1Sa 28:3-25; 1 Samuel 31. The materials derived from this source are interwoven with others derived from a third source, viz.:

(c.) A History of David, from which have been derived the following portions: 1Sa 14:52; 1 Samuel 17; 1 Samuel 18, in part; 19; 20; 21, in part; 22; 23; 24; 25; 27; 1Sa 28:1-2; 1 Samuel 29; 1 Samuel 30; 2 Samuel 1-5; 2 Samuel 7; 2 Samuel 8.

(d.) Another History of Saul, from which 1 Samuel 9; 1Sa 10:1-16; 1 Samuel 8; 1 Samuel , 14 have been drawn. This is regarded as an older and more strictly historical document than b, that being considered as of much later origin, and as founded on tradition.

(e.) Lastly, a Biography of David, embracing full details of the second half of his life, and recounting his family history (2 Samuel 11; 2Sa 12:1-25; 2 Samuel 13-20).

The relation of 2 Samuel 21-24 to the preceding portions seems to be that of a supplement or appendix of matters not related in chronological order, nor having any close connection with each other.

There is doubtless very much hypercriticism in this account of Thenius. So far as authorities or sources are quoted in the books themselves, the matter is much more simple. To only one work is direct reference made, viz. to the book of the upright (Jasher), (2Sa 1:18), elsewhere also quoted only once (Jos 10:13), and, as both the quotations are in verse, the work is thought to have been a book of poems. SEE JASHER, BOOK OF.

There are, however, certain parts of the books of Samuel which must have been derived either from verbal tradition or from some written documents, such, for instance, as the following poetical pieces: the song of Hannah (1Sa 2:1-10); David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:19-27); David’s lament over Abner (2Sa 3:33-34); Nathan’s parable (2Sa 7:1-4); a song or psalm of David (2Sa 22:2-51 [Psalms 18]); the last words of David (Psa 23:1-6). To these must be added the lists of names and genealogies, etc.

It is said in 1Ch 29:29, Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. The old opinion as to the authorship of Samuel, to which we have already alluded, was founded on this quotation. The prophets were wont to write a history of their own times. That Samuel did so in reference to the great events of his life is evident from the statement that he wrote the manner of the kingdom in a book, and laid it up before the Lord (1Sa 10:25). The phrase , words of Samuel, may not refer to our present Samuel, which is not so comprehensive as this collection seems to have been. It does not, like the treatise to which the author of Chronicles refers, include the acts of David, first and last. The annals which these three seers compiled were those of their own times in succession (Kleinert, Aechtheit d. Jes. pt. 1, p. 83); so that there existed a history of contemporary events written by three inspired men. The portion written by Samuel might include his own life, and the greater part of Saul’s history, as well as the earlier portion of David’s career. Gad was a contemporary of David, and is termed his seer. Probably also he was one of his associates in his various wanderings (1Sa 22:5). In the latter part of David’s reign Nathan was a prominent counsellor, and assisted at the coronation of Solomon. We have, therefore, prophetic materials for the books of Samuel. Hvernick ( 161) supposes there was another source of information to which the author of Samuel might resort, namely, the annals of David’s reign a conjecture not altogether unlikely, as may be seen by his reference to 2Sa 8:17, compared with 1Ch 27:24. The accounts of David’s heroes and their mighty feats, with the estimate of their respective bravery, have the appearance of a contribution by Seruiah, the scribe, or principal secretary of state. Out of such materials ample and authoritative, some of them written and some of them oral the books of Samuel appear to be made up (Bunsen, Bibelwerk, pt. 2. p. 496; Karo, De Fontibus Librorum quoe feruntur Samuelis [1862]).

V. Antiquity. The external evidence carries the book only to the age of the Ptolemies, when the Sept. version was made, or possibly to the age of Nehemiah, if we may trust the apocryphal account of the foundation of a library by the latter (2Ma 2:13). But the internal evidence is much stronger. The high antiquity of the books of Samuel, or of the sources whence they were principally derived, in comparison with that of the Kings and Chronicles, appears from the absence of reference to older sources or authorities in the former, such as is frequently made in the latter. It hence appears that the compiler did not live at any great distance from the events which he relates, and therefore does not deem it needful to refer his readers to sources already known to them; while the original sources have for the most part all the marks of having been written by persons contemporaneous with the events described. Against this opinion as to the early age of the books of Samuel, various objections have been brought. The phrase unto this day is often employed in them to denote the continued existence of customs, monuments, and names whose origin has been described by the annalist (1Sa 5:5; 1Sa 6:18; 1Sa 30:25). This phrase, however, does not always indicate that a long interval of time elapsed between the incident and such a record of its duration. It was a common idiom. Joshua (1Sa 22:3) uses it of the short time that Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh had fought in concert with the other tribes in the subjugation of Canaan. So, again, he (1Sa 23:9) employs it to specify the time that intervened between the entrance into Canaan and his resignation of the command on account of his approaching decease. Matthew, in his Gospel (1Sa 27:8, and 1Sa 28:15), uses it of the period between the death of Christ and the composition of his book. Reference is made in Samuel to the currency of a certain proverb (1Sa 10:12), and to the disuse of the term seer (1Sa 9:9), but in a manner which by no means implies an authorship long posterior to the time of the actual circumstances. The proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? was one which for many reasons would obtain rapid and universal circulation; and, if no other hypothesis be considered satisfactory, we may suppose that the remark about the term seer becoming obsolete may be the parenthetical insertion of a later hand; or, it may be that in Samuel’s days the term nabi came to be technically used in his school of the prophets. SEE PROPHET.

There is little reason for supposing that any part of the work was composed even so late as subsequently to the division of the kingdom. For the expression Israel and Judah (occurring 1Sa 11:8; 1Sa 17:52; 1Sa 18:16; 2Sa 3:10; 2Sa 5:5; 2Sa 24:1), which is claimed as proof of an origin after the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam, has no such force (as must be obvious from 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 2:9-10; 2Sa 2:17; 2Sa 2:28; 2Sa 18:6-7; 2Sa 18:16; 2Sa 19:9, compared with 12, 15, 16), from which it is clear that the phrase, if not already in use, originated in the circumstances that at first only the tribe of Judah adhered to David, while the remaining tribes under the common name of Israel formed a separate kingdom for seven years and a half, under Ishbosheth, and afterwards for a short time under Absalom. There is, however, one passage, 1Sa 27:6, Therefore hath Ziklag been to the kings of Judah till this day, which is not so clearly reconcilable with this view, unless it should prove to be a note added by a later hand.

With this claim to high antiquity the other internal evidence, so far as it goes, entirely agrees. In the unsettled times of the judges the observance of the ritual enjoined in the books of Moses had fallen greatly into disuse. Sacrifices which were lawful only before the door of the tabernacle were offered at many places, as at Mizpeh and Gilgal. No disapprobation of this practice is expressed in Samuel, though it very often is so in Kings. The Pentateuch seems to exert little influence on the habits of the people as described in Samuel, or on the ideas and language of the writers. There are, in; deed, fewer allusions to Moses and his writings in Samuel than in any other of the early books of Scripture. But this may doubtless be in part accounted for by the disorganized and somewhat anomalous state into which matters fell in consequence of the capture of the ark by the Philistines, and the essentially new era which was shortly afterwards introduced by the institution of the kingdom, with the stirring events that followed in the personal histories of Saul and David. The name of Moses occurs fifty-six times in Joshua, in Judges three, in Samuel two, in Kings ten, in Chronicles thirty-one. The law of Moses is never once named in Samuel.

The language is distinguished by its purity, and this also is an argument for the early origin of these books. A considerable number of words and forms of words are peculiar to them, and several occur which are found only in one other book besides. But it is unnecessary here to give lists of them.

VI. The Author or Compiler. With the exception of a brief expression in the Talmud (Egyptian Gemara, A.D. 500, Baba Bathra, fol. 14), ( Samuel wrote his book), there is no opinion expressed by antiquity respecting the name of the author. No mention is made of it in the books of Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles, or in any part of the Bible. Nor is it named in the Apocrypha or in Josephus. The work is generally attributed to some competent historian, who availed himself of authentic documents in preparing it. Some writers, as Abarbanel and Grotius, ascribe it to Jeremiah, some to Ezra, and some to Isaiah. There is not nearly so much probability that Jeremiah compiled the books of Samuel (as is argued at some length by Hitzig, Die Psalmen, p. 48-85) as there is that he was the writer of the books of Kings. There is much greater dissimilarity of language, style, and spirit between Samuel and Jeremiah than between Kings and Jeremiah. The great number of words and forms of words peculiar to this work point out a distinct author and age, and it would seem most likely that it was compiled in an early period after the death of David, and previously to the rending of the kingdom under Rehoboam; unless the opinion which has widely prevailed in the Christian Church should be finally adopted, that the work begun by Samuel was carried on and finished before the death of David by Nathan and Gad, or that it was the work of some member of the school of the prophets who had personal knowledge of the events which he narrates. If, however, this theory cannot be maintained, and there should be grounds for supposing that the compiler lived not earlier than the times of Rehoboam (see Thenius on 2Sa 8:7; 2Sa 14:27), still it must be acknowledged that the materials which he used were of earlier date, and must for the most part have been written by persons who were contemporaneous with the events. It appears certain that memoirs were written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (see 2Ch 29:29), and perhaps also by other members of the schools of the prophets, although it may not be equally certain that those memoirs are identical with the present books of Samuel. The fact that a recorder or remembrancer (), whose office it was to prepare memoirs or annals of passing events, is mentioned early among the household of David, is not without an important bearing on this question. It is clear that the authors of the original documents, if not of the work itself, must have occupied such positions of honor and influence as gave them ample opportunity of knowing the events of the times in which they wrote. Such minute details as we find, for instance, in the history of David, belonging rather to his private than to his public life the story of Bathsheba, of David’s behavior on the death of her child, of Amnon and Tamar, of the secret sending to the priests from Mahanaim, etc. bespeak perfectly well instructed writers, who had access to the best sources of information.

Sthelin (Einleit. 25, etc.) conjectures that a large portion of Samuel was written by the author of the Pentateuch and of the books of Joshua and Judges. But continuity of history in the same form does not prove identity of authorship, nor are the similar phrases found in these books sufficient in number or characteristic idiom to support the theory. Nay, Samuel is free from the so called Chaldaisms of Judges and the archaisms of the Pentateuch. The peculiar theory of Jahn, on the other hand, is that the four books of Samuel and Kings were written by the same person, and at a date so recent as the 30th year of the Babylonian captivity. His arguments, however, as well as those of Eichhorn (Einleit. 468), and Herbst (Einleit. 2, 1-139), who hold a similar view, are more ingenious than solid (introduction, 46). The fact of all the four treatises being named Books of Kings is insisted on as a proof that they were originally undivided and formed a single work a mere hypothesis, since the similarity of their contents might easily give rise to this general title, while the more ancient appellation for the first two was The Books of Samuel. Great stress is laid on the uniformity of method in all the books. But this uniformity by no means amounts to any proof of identity of authorship. It is nothing more than the same Hebrew historical style. The more minute and distinctive features, so far from being similar, are very different. Nay, the books of Samuel and Kings may be contrasted in many of those peculiarities which mark a different writer:

(a.) In Kings there occur not a few references to the laws of Moses; in Samuel not one of these is to be found.

(b.) The books of Kings repeatedly cite authorities, to which appeal is made, and the reader is directed to the Acts of Solomon, the book of the Chronicles of Kings of Israel, or Judah. But in the books of Samuel there is no formal allusion to any such sources of information.

(c.) The nature of the history in the two works is very different. The plan of the books of Samuel is not that of the books of Kings. The books of Samuel are more of a biographical character, and are more limited and personal in their view.

(d.) There are in the books of Kings many later forms of language. For a collection of some of these the reader is referred to De Wette (Einleit. in das A.T. 185, note e). Scarcely any of those more recent or Chaldaic forms occur in Samuel. Besides, some peculiarities of form are noted by De Wette ( 180), but they are not so numerous or distinctive as to give a general character to the treatise (Hirzel, De Chaldaismi Bibl. Origine, 1830). Many modes of expression common in Kings are absent from Samuel (Keil, Einleit. 53). SEE KINGS, BOOKS OF.

(e.) The concluding chapters of the second book of Samuel are in the form of an appendix to the work a proof of its completeness. The connection between Samuel and Kings is thus interrupted. It appears, then, that Samuel claims a distinct authorship from the books of Kings. Sthelin, indeed, supposes that the present division between the two treatises has not been correctly made, and that the two commencing chapters of 1 Kings really belong to 2 Samuel. This he argues on philological grounds, because the terms (1Ki 1:38), (1Ki 1:12), and (1Ki 1:29) are found nowhere in Kings but in the first two chapters, while they occur once and again in Samuel. There is certainly something peculiar in this affinity, though it may be accounted for on the principle that the author of the pieces or sketches which form the basis of the initial portions of 1 Kings not only composed those which form the conclusion of Samuel, but also supervised or published the whole work which is now called by the prophet’s name.

Thus the books of Samuel have an authorship of their own an authorship belonging to a very early period. While their tone and style are very different from the later records of Chronicles, they are also dissimilar to the books of Kings. They bear the impress of a hoary age in their language, allusions. and mode of composition. The insertion of odes and snatches of poetry, to enliven and verify the narrative, is common to them with the Pentateuch. They abound in minute sketches and vivid touches. As if the chapters had been extracted from a diary, some portions are more fully detailed and warmly colored than others, according as the original observer was himself impressed. Many of the incidents, in their artless and striking delineation, would form a fine study for a painter.

VII. The Object. So far as the compiler of these books might be conscious of a direct aim in his work, producing it, as doubtless he did, under the impulse and guidance of the Holy Spirit, it might be his endeavor to continue the history of the chosen people, and especially to record the remarkable change which was effected in the method of the divine government, when the God of Israel ceased to rule the people by judges, and permitted them to be governed by kings, as were the other nations of the earth. In pursuing this object the writer took care to point out the important distinction which was to be maintained between the kings of Israel and those of other nations, in the separation of the civil from the ecclesiastical, or the secular from the religious authority; and also to describe the origin and influence of the prophetical order in relation both to the monarchy and to the people. The books of Kings are a history of the nation as a theocracy; those of Chronicles have special reference to the form and ministry of the religious worship, as bearing upon its reestablishment after the return from Babylon. Samuel is more biographical, yet the theocratic element of the government is not overlooked. It is distinctly brought to view in the early chapters concerning Eli and his house, and the fortunes of the ark; in the passages which describe the change of the constitution; in the blessing which rested on the house of Obed-Edom; in the curse which fell on the Bethshemites and Uzzah and Saul for intrusive interference with holy things.

VIII. Particular Relation to the Books of Chronicles. That portion of the history which is common to the books of Samuel and of Chronicles is found in 2 Samuel 1-24, and 1 Chronicles 10-21, beginning with the account of the death of Saul and ending with the story of the pestilence. Between these two narrations of the same period of history the following differences may be pointed out.

1. The book of Samuel contains, but that of Chronicles omits:

1. The story of David’s kindness to Mephibosheth, 2 Samuel 9.

2. Of Bathsheba and Uriah, 2Sa 11:2-12; 2Sa 11:25.

3. The rebellion of Absalom, 2 Samuel 13, etc.

4. The surrender of seven of the sons of Saul to the Gibeonites, 2Sa 21:1-14.

5. A war with the Philistines, 2Sa 21:15-17.

6. David’s song (Psalms 18), 2 Samuel 22.

7. The last words of David, 2 Samuel 23.

2. The book of Samuel omits, but that of Chronicles contains:

1. A list of David’s adherents.

2. A list of those who chose David to be king at Hebron.

3. David’s preparation for building the Temple.

4. The arrangement of the Levites and priests for Temple service.

5. David’s officers and heroes, etc.

3. The two works present several portions of the history in a different order, such as the following:

2Sa 5:11-25 ………….. 1 Chronicles 14

2Sa 6:1-10…………..1Ch 11:1-9.

2Sa 6:3-11…………..1 Chronicles 13.

2Sa 6:12-23 ………….1 Chronicles 15.

2Sa 23:8-10 ……….. 1Ch 11:10-47.

4. The differences of verbal and grammatical forms in the narration of the same events in these two works are of such a nature as to indicate the greater antiquity of the books of Samuel. Nearly all the points in which Chronicles differ from Samuel may be distinctly explained by the more recent origin of the former. They are too numerous and minute to be here mentioned.

5. Many of the numbers in Samuel and Chronicles differ, as 2Sa 10:13; 2Sa 18:24, and 1Ch 19:12. 2Sa 23:8, and 1Ch 11:11. 2Sa 24:9; 2Sa 24:13, and 1Ch 21:5; 1Ch 21:12.

These discrepancies are doubtless to be accounted for on the ground of errors of transcription. Whether the numbers in Samuel are generally right, and those in Chronicles generally wrong, which is the common (but perhaps usually incorrect) opinion, or whether errors exist in both, cannot be determined until more careful attention shall have been given to the subject, and a more critical edition of the Hebrew text shall have been prepared. SEE CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF.

IX. Chronology. One of the most striking points of difference between the books of Samuel and of Kings is the more sparing use of dates in the former. The means of determining the periods of time in which the various events recorded in them happened are exceedingly scanty. The most helpful are found in other parts of Scripture. Thus, in Acts 13 we find that Saul was king by the space of forty years. We know already that David reigned over Judah and all Israel forty years, and we have also calculated that Samuel must have lived about 110 years. If, then, Samuel died about five years before Saul, we find that the history covers a period of 155 years, except that brief portion of the life of David not contained in Samuel. These numbers agree with the usual dates assigned to the commencement and termination of the books of Samuel. SEE CHRONOLOGY.

X. Canonicity, etc. The historical credibility and canonicity of these books need not be fully discussed in this place. The internal evidence of their truthfulness and the external evidence of their canonical authority are both complete. The style in which they are written is simple, natural, and bold. Places, times, and other minute details are freely and artlessly given. The course and connection of the history carry with them the proof of their truthfulness. The characters and events are in accordance with the times in which they are placed. Attempts to establish contradiction and discrepancy have not succeeded. The history contained in these books fits in and accords with the preceding and subsequent portions of the history of the Israelitish people, although the several portions were composed at long intervals and by different authors. Portions of them are quoted in the New Test. (2Sa 7:14, in Heb 1:5; 1Sa 13:14, in Act 13:22). References to them occur in other sections of Scripture, especially in the Psalms, to which they often afford historic illustration. The old objections of Hobbes, Spinoza, Simon, and Le Clerc are well disposed of by Carpzov (Introductio, p. 215). Some of these supposed contradictions we have already referred to, and for a solution of others we refer to Davidson’s Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 544, etc. Some of the objections of Vatke, in his Bibl. Theol. cujus mentio est refutatio are summarily disposed of by Hengstenberg (Die Authentie des Pentat. 2, 115). See, in addition to the ordinary Introductions to the Old Test. such as those of Horne, Hvernick, Keil, De Wette the following later works: Bleek, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Berl. 1860), p. 355-368; Sthelin, Specielle Einleitung in die kanonischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Elberfeld, 1862), p. 83-105; Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament (Lond. and Edinb. 1862), p. 491-536.

XI. Commentaries. The exegetical helps on the entire books of Samuel alone have not been numerous: Origen, Selecta (in Opp. 2, 479; also in Gallandii Bibl. Patrum, 14); Ephrem Syrus, Explanatio (in Opp. 4, 331); Theodoret, Quoestiones (in Opp. 1, 1); Gregory, Expositiones (in Opp. 3, 2, 1); Jerome, Quoestiones (in Opp. [ Spur.], 3, 755); Eucherius, Commentaria (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 6); Procopius, Scholia [includ. other hist. books] (in Meursii Opp. 8, 1); Isidore, Commentaria (in Opp.); Babe, Expositio, etc. (in various forms, in Opp.); Angelomus, Enarrationes (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 15); Hildebert, Versio Metrica (in Opp. p. 1191); Raban, Commentarii (in Opp.); Rupert, Commentarii (in Opp. 1, 345); Hugo Victor, Annotationes (in Opp. 1); Abrabanel, [includ. other hist. books] (s.1. et a. [Pesaro, 1522]; Naples, 1543, fol.; Leips. 1686, fol.); Bafiolas, (Leiria, 1494, fol.; also in the Rabbinic Bibles); Bugenhagen, Adnotationes [includ. Deuteronomy] (Basil. 1524; Argent. 1525, 8vo); Menius, Commentarius [on 1 Samuel] (Vitemb. 1532, 8vo); Brentius, Commentaria (in Opp. 2); Lambert, Commentarius (Argent. 1526; Francof. 1539, fol.); Caussin [R.C.], Dissertationes (Par. 1550, fol.; Colon. 1552, 4to); Weller, Commentaria [includ. 1 Kings] (Francof. 1555, 2 vols. 8vo); Peter Martyr, Commentarii (Tigur. 1567, fol.); Strigel, Commentarius [includ. Kings and Chronicles] (Lips. 1569, 1583, fol.; Neost. 1591, 8vo); Borrhus, Commentarius [includ. other hist. books] (Basil. 1577, fol.); Allschul, (Cracow, 1595, fol., and later); Ascheich, [includ. other hist. books] (Venice, ] 1601, 1620, fol., and later); Pflacker, Predigten (Tb. 1602, fol.); Lafado, [includ. other hist. books] (Venice, 1603, fol.); Bidemach, Auslegung (Tb. 1605, fol.); Willet, Harmony (Cambr. 1606; Lond. 1607, 4to; ibid. 1614, fol.); Leonhart, Hypomnete [includ. Kings and Chronicles] (Erf. 1608, 1614, 8vo); Serarius [R.C.], Commentaria [includ. other books] (Lugd. 1613; Mogunt. 1617, fol.); Laurent, Auslegung (Leips. 1615, 1616, fol.); Drusius, Adnotationes [on parts, includ. other books] (Franec. 1618, 4to); Rangolius [R.C.], Commentarii (Par. 1621-24, 2 vols. fol.); De Mendoza [R.C.], Commentaria [on 1 Samuel 1-15] (Lugd. 1622-31, 3 vols. fol.); Sanchez [R.C.], Commentarius (Antw. 1624; Lugd. 1625, fol.); Crommius [R.C.], Theses (includ. other hist. books] (Lovan. 1631, 4to); De Vera [R.C.], Commentaria (Limae, 1635, fol.); Bonfrere [R.C.], Commentarius [includ. Kings and Chronicles] (Tornaci, 1643, 2 vols. fol., and later); Wulffer, Predigten (Nremb. 1670, 4to); De Naxera [R.C.], Excursus (Lugd. 1672, 3 vols. fol.); Osiander, Commentarius (Stuttg. 1687, fol.); Schmid, Commentarius (Argent. 1687-89, 2 vols. 4to); Moldenhauer, Erluterung [includ. other hist. books] (Quedlinb. 1774, 4to); Obornik, [on 1 Samuel] (Vienna, 1793, 8vo); Detmold, (ibid. 1793, 8vo, and later); Hensler, Erluterung [on 1 Samuel] (Hamb. and Kiel, 1795, 8vo); Horsley, Notes (in Bibl. Criticism, 1); Mulder, [includ. other hist. books] (Amst. 1827, 8vo); Lindsay, Lectures (Lond. 1828, 2 vols. 12mo); Kalkar, Quoestiones [on the authenticity of 1 Samuel] (Othin. 1835); Knigsfeldt, Annotationes [on 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles] (Havn. 1839, 8vo); Wellhausen, Der Text d. B. S. (Gtt. 1841, 8vo); Thenius, Erklrung (in the Kurzgef. exeg. Handb., Leips. 1842, 1864, 8vo); Keil and Delitzsch, Commentar (ibid. 1864; transl. in Clarke’s Library, Edinb. 1866, 8vo); Erdmann, Erklrung (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, Bielefeld, 1873, 8vo). SEE OLD TESTAMENT.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Samuel, First and Second Books of

Samuel, First and Second Books of. We cite this from Rice’s Our Sixty-six Sacred Books: The two books of Samuel were originally one in the Hebrew Bible. Even the Massoretic note at the end of the second book, giving the number of verses, treats them as one book. The Septuagint regarded the books of Samuel and of Kings as a complete history of the Hebrew kingdom, and divided them into four books, calling them “Books of the Kingdoms.” This division is followed in the Latin and Douay versions, where they are named the first, second, third, and fourth books of Kings. The modern division was introduced into Hebrew printed Bibles in 1518. The author of the two now called 1 and 2 Samuel is unknown. The name of the books probably arises from the fact that Samuel is the hero of the first part. Samuel could have written only 24 chapters of the first book, since the 2th chapter records his death. The contents indicate that official records may have been consulted by the writer, and national hymns were incorporated in the work, as the song of Hannah, 1Sa 2:1-10; David’s song over Abner, 2Sa 3:33-34; his thanksgiving song, and his farewell song, 2Sa 22:1-51; 2Sa 23:1-7. The date of composition was not later than Solomon’s time, as the language proves. “It is pure Hebrew, free from Aramaisms and late forms. Constructions such as are found in Kings are not found in Samuel.” The difficulties are chiefly the adjustment of the chronology, the variations between the Hebrew and Greek texts, and the apparent discrepancies, as 1Sa 23:19; 1Sa 24:22, and chap. 26. The first book covers a period of about 80 years1171 to 1056 b.c.and the second book from 1056 to 1015 b.c.the important era of the reign of David

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible