![]() Most Popular: New Additions: Also Available: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF 1 SAMUEL
THIS and the three following books were formerly termed the first, second, third, and fourth books of Kings, and the two books of Samuel made in ancient times but one; the separation which has taken place seems to have been done without reason or necessity. These books are, properly speaking, a continuation of the book of Judges, as they give us an account of the remaining judges of Israel, down to the election of Saul; and of all the kings of Israel and Judah to the Babylonish captivity. But who was the compiler? Some of the most learned among the Jews suppose it to have been Jeremiah the prophet, and that the style bears a near resemblance to his prophecies. That they were the work of a more recent author than Samuel, etc., Grotius thinks evident from this circumstance, that the names of the months are comparatively modern, and were not known among the ancient Jews. Others have attributed them to David; others, to Hezekiah; and others, to Ezra the scribe, on his return from the Babylonish captivity. Calmet’s opinion is as probable as any, viz., "That these books were written by the same hand, though composed out of the memoirs left by persons of that time; and that the compiler has generally used the same terms he found in those memoirs, adding here and there something of his own by way of illustration." The equality of the style, the frequent eulogiums on the character of Samuel, the connection of the materials, particular quotations, and remarks on certain events, are, he thinks, proofs sufficiently clear of what he assumes. These books contain remarks or expressions which could only proceed from a contemporary author, and others which are evidences of a much later age. 1. For instance, we read, 1 Samuel 3:1, The word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision; i.e., in the days of Eli, the high priest: hence it is evident that the author lived in times in which prophecy was more common; which, in fact, it was after Samuel, under David, and the succeeding kings of Israel and Judah. 2. Again, in the time of the author of this book, Beth-el was called Beth-aven, 1 Samuel 13:5, which name was given to it in derision after Jeroboam had placed there his golden calves. 3. Again, it is said, 1 Samuel 6:18, that the ark of the Lord was set down in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, where it remained to the time of this author; and yet, in 1 Samuel 7:15, he speaks of Samuel as being already dead: And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. 4. It is not natural to suppose that Samuel would have spoken of himself as is done 1 Samuel 2:26: And the child Samuel grew, and was in favor both with the Lord and with men; but if he were dead when this book was written, any author might have added this with the strictest propriety. 5. In 1 Samuel 27:6, it is said that Achish gave Ziklag to David, Wherefore Ziklag pertaineth to the kings of Judah unto this day. This is a proof that when this book was written the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were separated; and that, although the tribe of Simeon belonged to the kings of Israel, yet Ziklag, which was in that tribe, remained in the hands of the kings of Judah. Here, therefore, are proofs that this book contains matters which must have been written by a contemporary author; and others which could not have been inserted but in times much posterior. These seeming contradictions are reconciled by the hypothesis that the books were compiled, by a comparatively recent author, out of materials of a much earlier date, the author not changing many of the expressions which he found in those ancient documents. Several other proofs might be here adduced to support this opinion; but as the reader will find them noticed in the places where they occur, it is not necessary to repeat them here. Those who wish to see the subject farther discussed, may consult Calmet. We may rest satisfied with these three things: 1. That the books of Samuel were constructed out of original and authentic documents. 2. That the compiler was not contemporary with the facts he narrates. And, 3. That both the author and time in which he compiled his history, though comparatively more recent than the facts themselves, are nevertheless both uncertain. THIS WAS CLIPPED FROM ADAM CLARK'S COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2. MR. CLARKS COMMENTARY IS A PUBLIC DOMAIN DOCUMENT. |