Lastly, in I Sam. xv. 35 it is said that Samuel came no more to see Saul again till the day of his death,' and the statement is supposed to contradict xix. 24, where Saul met with Samuel, and lay naked all day and all night before him.' The languag,e Samuel added not to see or to visit Saul ;' that is, no longer paid him any visit of friendship or cereinony, no longer sought him out to afford him counsel or aid. This declaration cannot surely be opposed to the following portion of the record, which states that Saul accidentally met Samuel ; for he pursued David to Ramah, where the prophet dwelt, and so came in contact with his former bene factor. May we not therefore conclude that the compiler has not in these cases joined two narra tives of opposite natures very loosely together, or overlapped them in various places ; but has framed out of authoritative documents a consecutive history, not dwelling on all events with equal interest, but passing slightly over some, and formally detailing others with national relish and delight ? There is, whatever their various sources—written or oral—a substantial unity in these books. Besides there are phrases peculiar to them, such as nu.= min+ in I Sam. i. 3, II, etc., and roro r6rn (2 Sam. xx. 19, etc.), which do not occur in the earlier books, and which seem to indicate a characteristic unity of style.
&VT.—The desig-n of these books is not very different from that of the other historical treatises of the O. T. 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 re-establish ment 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 con stitution ; 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. The book shows clearly that God was a jealous God ; that obedi ence to hint secured felicity ; that the nation sinned in seeking, another king ; that Saul's special iniquity was his impious oblivion of his station as Jehovah's vicegerent, for he contemned the prophets and slew the priesthood ; and that David owed his prosperity to his careful culture of the central principle of the Hebrew goveminent.
Relation to Kings and Chronicles.—Samuel is distinctly referred to in Kings, and also quoted (comp. Sam. ii. 33 with 1 Kings ii. 26 ; 2 Sam. v. 5 with Kings ii. 1 ; 2 Sam. vii. 12 With I Kings ii. 4, and Chron. xvii. 24, 25). The his tory in Kings presupposes that contained in Samuel. The opinion of Bertholdt, that the author of Chronicles did not use our books of Samuel, ap pears contrary to evident fact, as may be seen by a comparison of the two histories. Even Keil (Apologetischer Versuch iiber die Chronik, p. 206) supposes that the chronicler Ezra did not use the memoirs in Samuel and Kings ; but Movers, Eich horn, Gramberg, and De \Vette prove that the present books of Samuel were, among others, the sources which the chronicler drew from in the for mation of a large portion of his history.
Credibility. —The authenticity of the history found in the books of Samuel rests on sufficient grounds. Portions of them are quoted in the N.
T. (2 Sam. vii. 14, in Heb. 5 ; I Sam. xiii. 14, in Acts xiii. 22). References to them occur in other sections of Scripture, especially in the Psalms, to which they often afford historic illustra tion. It has been argued against them that they contain contradictory statements. The old objec tions of Hobbes, Spinoza, Simon, and Le Clerc, are well disposed of by Carpzovius (Introductio, p. 215 ; see Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 541). Some of the objections of Vatke, in his Bibl. Theol.—cujus mentio est refutatio—are sum marily disposed of by Hengstenberg (Die Authentie des Pentat. vol. ii. p. 115). Discrepancies in numbers, and sometimes in proper names, are the most common ; and it is well known that textual errors in numeration are both most frequently and most easily committed. [Davin ; CHRONICLES ; KINGS ; SAUL.] Commentaries.—Victorini Strigelii Comm. in guatuor Libr. Reg. et ParaN515. 1624, folio ; N. Serrarii Comm. in libr. yosue, yud. Ruth, Reg.
Paralipp. 1609, folio ; Seb. Schmidt, In Lib. Sam. Comm. 1684-89, 4to ; Jac. Bonfrerii Comm. in lebr. guat. Reg. etc, 1643; Clerici Comm. in libr Sam., Opera, ii. ; Jo. Drusii Annotat. in Locos dz:nfe. josh. ,ud. Sam. 1618 ; Hensler, Erlduterungen des I. B. Sam. etc. 1795 ; Maurer, Comment. Critic. vol. i. 1835; Chandler's Critical History of the Lift of David, 2 VOIS. 1786 ; Die Blither Samuels erkliirt von Otto Thenius, 1842; Biblircher Commentar iiber d. Alte Test, Die Bucher Samuels von C. E. Keil, 1864.— J. E.