I. Title, Literary History, And Historiography
A. Title
First and Second Samuel were originally a single work, as the Qumran Samuel scroll (4QSama), Talmudic references, and Masoretic notes indicate (McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 3). But because of length, Samuel was incorporated into the Jewish community’s Greek Bible (Septuagint [LXX]; third-second centuries B.C.E.) as a two-volume work. The Latin Bible (Vulgate) continued this practice. Not until the sixteenth century was Samuel treated as two books in Hebrew traditions. Dividing the corpus in this way led to the curious result that Samuel does not appear in the second volume that bears his name.
According to some ancient Jewish sources, “Samuel” was so titled because the prophet featured in the work wrote it (and Judges). But today scholars suggest rather that the name derives from the fact that Samuel was featured prominently in the book. In the Septuagint, 1-2Sa is called 1-2 Kingdoms, being grouped with 1-2Ki as 1-4 Kingdoms.
B. Literary History
Traditionally, Jews and Christians believed that Samuel was comprised of eyewitness accounts of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (1Ch 29:29). But most modern critical scholars contend that Samuel consists of disparate sources. They isolate sources supporting the monarchy (1Sa 9-10) and some discouraging the monarchy (1Sa 8); an ark tradition (1Sa 4-6; 2Sa 6); cryptic hero accounts (2Sa 21:15-22; 23:8-39); originally independent poems (1Sa 2:1-10; 2Sa 1:19-27; 22:2-51 [cf. Ps 18]; 23:1-7); a cycle of stories about Saul; the account of David’s rise; the story of succession to the throne of David (2Sa 9-24; 1Ki 1-2); and more).
Using the model of Pentateuchal source criticism, this heterogeneity was observed because of thematic tensions, duplications, or outright contradictions in the materials themselves (McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 12). For example, Saul was chosen by lot in 1Sa 10:17-27 but by public acclamation in 1 Sa 11. Yahweh appears to reject him twice (1Sa 13, 15). David is Saul’s armor-bearer and personal musician in 1Sa 16, but unknown to the king in 1Sa 17. There seem to be two versions of David’s engagement to Saul’s daughters (1Sa 18), two accounts of David’s defection to the Philistine king at Gath (1Sa 21, 27), and two incidents of his refusal to kill Saul (1Sa 24, 26).
Nevertheless, Martin Noth suggested that Samuel is part of a “Deuteronomistic History” extending from Dt to 2Ki [excluding Ruth]. The exilic author/editor organized the traditions into a unified work propounding a distinctive viewpoint. Others accepted most of Noth’s thesis but disagreed either over its precise theological thrust or over how many editorial revisions it underwent (Cross, 274-89; Halpern, 107-20; Nelson, passim; von Rad, 334-47; Van Seters, 249-91; 322-53).
C. Historiography
Many nineteenth-century scholars asserted that Samuel imparted historical information only about the period when it was written (late seventh, early sixth centuries). Thus Samuel was not a suitable source for reconstructing the eras of Samuel, Saul, or David (Halpern, 16-35). Others subsequently argued that at least some Samuel traditions were reliable. Regardless of theological or historiographical overlays, it was believed that much of Samuel was a relatively trustworthy account of Israel’s early monarchic period (Rost).
More recently, scholars interested in newer literary approaches have remarked that posing historiographical questions to material like Samuel is illegitimate. Its meaning inheres in its textual structure and “narrative world,” not in ostensive historical references.
Advocates of social scientific historical methods urge the use of various sociological models as a means of evaluating biblical texts (Wilson). No text is to be dismissed out of hand as a potential historical source; it has to be tested by appropriate external models, including archaeological data.
Still others assert that the Deuteronomistic history generally and Samuel specifically manifest historiographic intention (Halpern, 266-80). For our purposes, suffice it to say that history is doubtless encoded in Samuel. But the artful nature of the text and the complicated history it reflects suggest that the historicity issue is more complex than previously thought.