wavy_wonder1

Samuel is only placed in a Levitic genealogy in 1Chronicles (the 6th chapter), not in 1Samuel where he is apparently an Ephraimite.

Either way, good point.


Finis,
ELB

Petergdi

The Jewish Encyclopedia thinks he was a Levite.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...#ixzz0Yh7Y2M7n

It certainly isn't an obvious conclusion from the text of 1 Samuel.

Peter.

Celsus

I did not say Samuel was a Levite, Peter did (Samuel takes the same Nazarite oath of Samson and ...eh... Jesus, interestingly), nor does it matter since his actual ancestry is a later addition, which may or may not have included introducing Levite origins. The point was Samuel is subject to the temple and derives his authority through his stay there, and he is recast as a priestly figure (though he was clearly a judge). The Eli narrative is constructed to put him under the authority of the temple... uh Tabernacle, and then later kingly annointment to establish primacy over the kings of Israel, especially convenient that Saul and David's primacy gets to be established through prophetic authority at a time when neither the temple or such a thing as Levites actually existed (no Eli is not a historical figure).

Petergdi

And I may well have been wrong.

Where exactly is Jesus a Nazirite?


How is this in the story? He tells Eli the priest off on behalf of God. Eli recognises Samuel's authority, and it doesn't come from the priesthood.


He is cast as a prophet, not as a priest.

It is nice that you know this. I'm not the least convinced that I know when it was written. It seems to have been written at a time when prophets were common enough that the writer has to tell that they were rare then. If there is a political intent it seems to be to put the prophets above the priesthood and the monarchy.

Peter.

Celsus

I said that from memory, I think Eisenman makes the argument?
Why was Samuel in the temple in the first place? Because divine wisdom comes from there. He had to be there in order to be dedicated to God, a slightly odd picture given the actual polytheism of the time, lack of a single cult centre and numerous other anachronisms.
What does Samuel 2:35 say? (Sorry, as I already conceded at the start of this thread, I've no sources with me at the moment, and am not about to go get any for the sake of an internet debate). He is cast as a replacement for Eli and certainly handles temple matters (such as the return of the ark) in ways only a priest could.

When I said "at a time when..." I am refering to the 11th century BCE, when clearly these institutions do not yet exist. In other words, they must to be retrojections and the function (of exerting authority) I postulate is in my mind the simplest explanation, the resultant question is who would do it and when (and I'd argue a pre-exilic 'when' is extraordinarily problematic).

spin

1. Mt 2:23. "He will be called a Nazorean" is derived from Jdg 13:5,7, which refers to the birth of Samson the Nazirite (nazeiraios in Sinaiticus, cf. nazwraios in Mt).
2. Tertullian, C.Marc. 4.8, supplies the prophecy for why Jesus was to be called Nazarene, "The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy.... For we are they of whom it is written, 'Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;'" (Lam 4:7).

Look at 1 Sam 2:18, where young Samuel ministers before god and wears an ephod. A person who ministers before god is a priest (eg Eze 44:19), and the ephod is a priestly garment, so young Samuel is clearly portrayed as a priestly figure here. Of course, being an Ephraimite would exclude Samuel from being a priest in the eyes of the Jerusalem establishment which viewed the line of Aaron exclusively able to be priests and which had hegemony over the literature. Samuel with a pivotal role is cast as many things, including judge, priest, seer and prophet.


spin

Petergdi

Jesus drinks wine which is a no-no for a Nazirite.


If there was an Ark, then there had to be one place the Ark was. This does not mean that there could not have been other places understood to be holy. The presence of women in front of the tent of meeting at Shiloh who the sons of Eli had sex with does not sound to me like the sort of thing that would be invented at a late date.

Samuel 2:35 is normally understood to apply to the Zakokite priesthood at Jerusalem. Eli's descendants remain priests up until Abiathar. Since the prophecy is about the doom of Eli's house, and the "sure house" of the priest who God will raise up will last until after 1 Samuel gets written - it can't mean Samuel, but it must mean Zadok.

When people say "clearly" it usually isn't at all clear. Of course the monarchy didn't exist until Saul in the biblical account. But it seems to still exist at the time Samuel was written. Why does the prophecy (at 1 Sam 2:35) say that the new family of priests will "go in and out before my annointed one for ever" if the writer knows that to be no longer true? It is easy to see why people would keep a prophecy even if it seems to have gone wrong and perhaps make excuses for it, but very hard to imagine someone inventing an already false vaticinium ex eventu unless they have the rather remarkable specific goal of fooling modern critics. It is by no means the only such case in the books of Samuel and Kings.

It is sometimes presented that the existence of polytheism using the name YHWH somehow proves that there was no pre-exilic monotheism. I think it is true that most of the evidence of the name YHWH being used by the sort of religion disapproved of by the writers seems to have been either edited out or not written, but there does seem to be a trace of it in Isaiah 36:7. I do not know how old Hebrew monotheism is, but since the biblical account would seem to indicate that we should find a lot of polytheism and idolatry even using the Name of God, I do not see how finding it can settle the matter.

Peter.

spin

("the semi-literate Samarians"? -- as against "the semi-literate Judahites"? Oh, the old empty land theory, is it? The literate Judahites, the only Judahites, returning to an empty land.)

So you think tiny little Jerusalem with its influx of refugees from Babylon was able to press home some sort of advantage over established communities well beyond the periphery of the city-state during Persian control of the area? Some sort of cultural hegemony? I can really see such an idea based on anything, can you?

But preservation of what beyond a bunch of names and traditions for a few of them. Most kings are treated in such a formulaic manner that little is required to be preserved but the sketchiest of information. The literary evidence for Judah seems to be mostly from either the later royal period, ie Hezekiah onwards and the folk traditions of David plus those Solomon wisdom traditions (so popular in very late biblical times... Wisdom, Psalms, Odes, etc.). Do check what Ben Sira presents in chapters 47-49 for a view of Judahite history circa 180 BCE.


spin

Celsus

Really? No one would at all, in trying to show the depths of desecration Eli's sons had committed, would have any motive whatsoever for bringing prostitution (or sexual promiscuity) to the temple?
Fair enough, I have no references as I said. What of his handling the ark and wearing the ephod as spin points out?
Yet you agree with me?
When is that?
Are you suggesting the presence of the word "forever" necessitates an unbroken line? I only think it means "to this present day [of the writer, and hopefully long after]" and a concept of chronological unbroken continuity would be anachronistic (did people literally mean the king should live forever when they addressed him?). A priesthood clearly existed, if uncontested, that appears to give a late post-exilic date retrojecting monolatory into a period where there wasn't such a thing (nor the kingdom). A developed priestly system requires a centralised state, and I can't see any reading of the Eli narratives except as anachronistic in comparison to what we know of late Bronze Israel.
That's not the argument I'm trying to make. The point was there was no centralised cult worship, nor even an asymmetry in the contest. It was polytheistic, and primacy of Yahwist worship is a very late, post-exilic phenomenon. The DH and Chronicles concedes to worship of other gods, but always with Yahwist primacy and Jerusalem central, which, given archaeological findings, is deeply problematic. A henotheist stage revolving national deities especially Yahweh/Asherah, Baal/Baal'at (as it appears all the nations were) is probable, a monolatorous stage (as depicted in the Bible) much more difficult to maintain. For historians, I'd suggest there is more danger in reading the Bible in terms of what it presumes, that what it neglects - it simply gets in the way of a close reading because none of the literary questions of authenticity or historicity can be settled to any degree of satisfaction.
Well not really - I just imagine the Samarians didn't get exposed to Persian art and culture and literacy, hence were at a distinct disadvantage in the propaganda war when the Jews returned. Not that they were worse than Judahites (which I see as new colonisers, under the authority of Xerxes).
Ah you are pushing me later and later, and I'll concede you do have a good point there
Ta, will do.

andrewcriddle

It is clear that Samuel does things that by the developed Law could only be done by a Levite.

However, it is at least as likely that this goes back to a time when priestly functions were not limited to Levites than that it was invented in order to imply that Samuel was a Levite.

Andrew Criddle