Inter-Varsity Press

CONTENTS

Editors’ preface

Author’s preface

Introduction

1. Genre and purpose

2. Composition

2.1. Authorship

2.2. Sources

2.3. Date

2.4. Key literary devices

3. Structure

4. Text

5. Place in canon

6. Central themes

6.1. The reign of God

6.2. Kingship

6.3. Prophetic authority

Text and commentary

(From the) INTRODUCTION

1. Genre and Purpose

David Jobling (2000) intriguingly asks, ‘What, if anything, is 1 Samuel?’ He thus questions the legitimacy of treating Samuel as a coherent text in its own right, arguing that the canonical division of Joshua–Kings into a series of discrete books is the outcome of a Masoretic process that divided existing material rather than recognizing something inherent in it. Jobling’s argument is specific to 1 Samuel alone, but the basic issue stands, especially given his view that Judg. 2:11 – 1 Sam. 12 and then 1 Sam. 13 – 2 Sam. 7 constitute legitimate objects of study that might more coherently be described as books than 1 Samuel. Given that the division between 1 and 2 Samuel is artificial (see below, ‘Structure’), then Jobling has a reasonable case, suggesting that attempts to treat 1 Samuel on its own are illegitimate. But Jobling also raises a larger question about those texts that surround Samuel and the extent to which they constitute reference points for it. For Jobling, Joshua–Kings constitute a large block of material that has only secondarily been broken up. Privileging certain points as beginnings and endings (and he here has in mind especially Eslinger 1983) creates readings that might support some groups but undercut others. In short, is it legitimate to regard Samuel as a coherent block of text? And if we do, what effect does this have?

The issue of Samuel’s relationships is not only tied to Joshua–Judges, but also to the books of Kings. For many years, scholars have assumed that 1 Kgs 1 – 2 continues the story left off at the end of 2 Sam. 20 (see Fokkelman 1981: 411–430 for a literary integration), so that studies of the so-called Succession Narrative (following Rost 1982) have routinely crossed the canonical divide. Even though it can be argued that 1 Kgs 1 – 2 constitutes a later piece of literature written in full awareness of 2 Sam. 9 – 20 (Keys 1996: 43–70; see ‘Form and structure’ on 2 Sam. 9), the tradition of the LXX in naming the books of Samuel–Kings as 1 – 4 Kingdoms indicates that those responsible for it believed there was a close link between these texts. The crucial point to make is that a close link makes it legitimate to study Samuel as a discrete text. If Keys is correct (cf. McCarter 1980b), Kings was written in awareness of 2 Sam. 9 – 20, but still as a discrete text. We should also note that both Judges and Samuel conclude with material that is superficially nothing more than appendixes (Judg. 17 – 21 and 2 Sam. 21 – 24), but that, on closer inspection, is more closely integrated to the surrounding material than many have thought (see Klement 2000a: 61–85). The canonical text concludes each book with such material, suggesting it is intended to conclude a section. That is to say, the presence of such conclusions indicates that Judges and Samuel can be treated as discrete units, whereas the absence of anything similar within Samuel suggests that the books of Samuel should be read together and not as separate entities. Joshua–Judges provides important background necessary for interpreting Samuel, while Kings continues its story; but we are still to read Samuel on its own terms.

That we can read Samuel as a discrete text enables consideration of its genre and purpose. Genre labels are something generated by readers to assist in interpretation, but a genre is still chosen by an author as a mechanism for communication (Brown 2007: 140), in particular for communicating the work’s central purpose. Modern readers might construct genres differently from ancients, but attention to genre is essential for recognizing a work’s purpose.

At a most basic level, we can note that Samuel is a piece of narrative prose recounting the story of monarchy’s beginnings in Israel and its ultimate association with David. Several other genres are embedded within this narrative, including poems (e.g. 1 Sam. 2:1–10), prophetic utterances (e.g. 1 Sam. 2:27–36) and parabolic material (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:1–4), while there is also considerable diversity in the type of narrative employed. Although observing that Samuel is a narrative may not take us too far, it is worth noting that narrative prose was not the only option available for recounting monarchy’s origins in Israel. One could, for example, create an epic poem that focused solely on the decrees of deity, but Samuel’s authors instead chose to tell a story that, although shaped by Yahweh’s presence, is still concerned with political events involving historical characters.

If Samuel is about kingship’s origins and consolidation under David, can we speak of it as a work of history? From the perspective of history as a modern (or postmodern) discipline, the answer is ‘No’, because such history is written by analysing identifiable causes (Provan, Long and Longman 2003: 36–43), and appeal to God is excluded. But it is doubtful that any in Israel, or the ANE as a whole, would think like that (Walton 2007: 220–222). Even Ps. 14’s observation about the fool who says there is no God is actually concerned with someone who acts as if Yahweh is not active in life, suggesting that folly is denying Yahweh’s involvement in the world rather than genuine atheism. Even Qoheleth, for all his uncertainty about exactly what God does, cannot bring himself to separate God from daily life (e.g. Eccl. 8:17). So within an ancient frame of reference it is certainly arguable that Samuel is written with a historical intent, although much of it is written in a manner different from modern patterns (see Whybray 1968: 11–19). That historical intent is apparent from how Samuel describes events foundational for later Israelite readers, events that helped to explain their identity. Kingship and the Davidic covenant were vital features for national life, and yet the challenge of the major powers of the first millennium BC constantly questioned their place.

As a work with historical intent, Samuel offers a testimony to explain these issues, a testimony that interprets that history. As with any testimony, because it generates problems it must be probed as to its concerns and reliability, though these are not generally incapable of resolution (Provan, Long and Longman 2003: 193–238; cf. Tsumura 2007: 23–32). But it is important to stress that it is not offering a complete history of the period. Such a history would need to consider many issues that simply do not arise in Samuel, which instead chooses to tell its story through three central characters, Samuel, Saul and David. These three are linked in Yahweh’s purposes, so one can assert that Yahweh is the book’s central figure. …