Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/419

 ISRAEL- 403 covering what it was that the nation needed, but in finding out the man who was capable of supplying that need. ml. Having come to know Saul ben Ivish, a Benjamite of the town of Gibeah, a man of gigantic form, and swift, enthusiastic nature, he declared to him his destiny to become king over Israel. Saul very soon had an opportunity for showing whether Samuel had been a true seer or no. The city of Jabesh in Gilead was besieged by the Ammonites, and the inhabit ants declared themselves ready to surrender should they fail in obtaining speedy succour from their countrymen. Their messengers had passed through all Israel without meeting with anything more helpful than pity, until at last tidings of their case reached Saul as he was returning with a yoke of oxen from the field. Hewing his cattle in pieces, he caused the portions to be sent in all directions, with the threat that so should it be done with the oxen of every people obeyed the summons, fell suddenly one morning upon tho Ammonites, and delivered the beleaguered city. atriotic Having thus found Saul the man for their need, thfiy niggle, refused to let him go. In Gilgal, Joshua s old camp, they anointed him king. The act was equivalent to imposing upon him the conduct of the struggle against the Philistines, and so Ii3 understood it. The first signal for the attack was given by his son Jonathan, when he slew the nerib of the Philistines at Gibeah. These in consequence advanced in force towards the focus of the revolt, and took up a position opposite Gibeah on .the north, being divided from it only by the gorge of Michmash. Only a few hundred Benjamites ventured to remain with Saul. The struggle opened with a piece of genuine old heroic daring. While the Philistines were dispersed over the country in foraging expeditions, Jonathan, accompanied by his armour-bearer only, and without the knowledge of Saul, made an attack upon the weak posts which they had left behind at ths pass of Michmash. After the first had been surprised and overmastered, the others took to flight, no doubt in the belief that the two assailants were supported. They carried their panic with them into the half-deserted camp, whence it spread among the various foraging bands. The commotion was observed from Gibeah opposite, and, without pausing to consult the priestly oracle, King Saul determined to attack the camp. The attempt was com pletely successful, but involved no more than the camp and its stores ; the Philistines themselves effected an unmolested retreat by the difficult road of Bethhoron. lie Saul was no mere raw stripling when he ascended the ingdom. throne ; he already had a grown-up son at his side. Nor was he of insignificant descent, the family to which he belonged being a widespread one, and his heritage con siderable. His establishment at Gibeah was .throughout his entire reign the nucleus of his kingdom. The men on whom he could always reckon were his Benjamite kins men. He recognized as belonging to him no other public function besides that of war ; the internal affairs of the country he permitted to remain as they had been before his accession. War was at once the business and the re source of the new kingdom. It was carried on against the Philistines without interruption, though for the most part not in the grand style but rather in a series of border skirmishes. As regards the position of Samuel in the theocracy and the relati in which lie stood to Saul, the several narratives in the book lation of amuel nd ul. Samuel differ widely. The preceding account, so far as it relates to Samuel, is based upon 1 Sam. ix., x. 1-16, xi. , where he appears simply as a P.oeh at Raman, and has nothing to do either with the administration of the theocracy or with the JSTebiim. For a fuller treatment of the subject the reader is referred to &quot;Wellhausen s Gcschichte Israels (1878), vol. i. pp. 256-285, from which the follow ing paragraphs may be quoted: &quot; Samuel is of less importance for history itself than he is for the Tradition history of tradition, in which the treatment which his figure received regarding supplies us with some means of judging how far it can be trusted Sunmel. as a whole. Four stages of the tradition can be distinctly traced. Originally (ix. 1-x. 16) he is simply a seer, but at the same time a patriotic Israelite, who is touched to the heart by the extremities to which his country has been reduced, and who uses his authority as seer in order to impress upon the man whom he has perceived to be fit for the task the conviction that he has been called to be the helper and leader of Israel. Samuel s greatness consists in the fact of his having aroused into activity one who came after him and was greater than he ; after he had kindled the light which burns so brightly, he is no longer seen. But his meteoric appearance and disappearance created a wondering admiration which led to the pro duction of the narrative of his childhood, in which he already as a boy predicts the downfall of the Israel of the pre-monarchical period (1 Sam. i.-iii.). This done, he disappears into the darkness again ; in chap. iv. sqq. we lose sight of him completely, and it is only as an old man that we encounter him once more. &quot; On the other hand the circumstance that after the meeting with Saul nothing more is heard of the seer gave countenance to the belief that a rupture between them must have taken place very soon. This belief we meet with in the second stage of the tradition, which is re presented by the narratives recorded in chaps, xv. and xxviii. Its origin is to be sought in the inconsistency involved in the fact that Jehovah does not afterwards confirm on the throne him whom he has chosen to be king, but overthrows his dynasty. Thus it becomes necessary that Samuel, who had anointed Saul, should to his sorrow have laid upon him the duty of announcing his rejection. In this stage of the tradition he is represented no longer as a simple seer, but as a prophet after the style of Elijah and Elisha, who regards the Lord s anointed as a piece of his own handiwork, and lays his commands upon him (xv. 1), though, according to x. 7, he has expressly left him to be guided by his own inspirations. &quot; The transition from the second to the third stage is easy. Here Samuel transfers the unction, as soon as it has been withdrawn from Saul, to David, whom he sets up against his rejected prede cessor as the de jure king by the grace of God. The respect with which he is regarded has meanwhile increased still further ; tho elders tremble before him (1 Sam. xvi. 4), and he possesses a magical power over men (xix. 1 8 sqq. ). &quot;But hitherto he has invariably been represented as intellectually the author of the monarchy. It is reserved for the last (exilian or post-exilian) stage in the development of the tradition (1 Sam. vii., viii., x. 17 sqq., xii., xiii. 7-15) to represent him on the contrary as one who resists to the utmost of his power the desire of the people to have a king. Fremonarcbical Israel is represented as a hierocracy and Samuel as its head ; hence the feelings which he expresses. &quot;The modern judgment has been prejudiced in Saul s favour by Samuel s curse, and to David s disadvantage by Samuel s blessing ; the truth has suffered less by the depreciation of the one than by the exaltation of the other. By critics Saul is honoured as the antago nist and David disparaged as the creature of that craving for ecclesiastical ascendency of which they consider Samuel to have been the incarnation. In this estimate a degree of power as over against the kingship is attributed to the prophet which he cannot possibly have possessed unless he had firm ground to stand on and an organ ized power of influence throughout extensive circles. But he can not be supposed to have found such support in the Nebiim, who were only then for the first time making their appearance under the in fluence of an epidemic inspiration which was not as yet restricted to any exclusive circle or school; and with whom, besides, according to the old tradition, intimate relations were held by the king and not by the seer (for the historical explanation of a familiar saying given in 1 Sam. xix. 18 sqq. is cancelled by the admittedly older passage in 1 Sam. x. 10 sqq. Nor is it possible to hold that Samuel was in conspiracy with the priests against Saul. In support of such a theory indeed reliance is placed upon 1 Sam. xxi., xxii., where Ahimelech of Nob supplies bread to David in his flight, and expiates this offence with his own death and that of the whole house of Eli. But, in the first place,* these priests have no visible connexion with Samuel; in the second, there is nothing to make it probable that they were in any league with David; thirdly, it is certain, on the other side of the argument, that as against the king they represented no distinct power in tho state, but rather were entirely the creatures of his smile or frown, on a faint suspicion they actually were annihilated without a, single word of remonstrance being anywhere raised. Such a view of Samuel s relation to Saul and David as that which we have been discussing proceeds upon the radically erroneous assumption that Samuel had the hierocracy to rest on in his acts of opposition to the monarchy. But the student who carries the hierocracy back to those early times has still to learn the very elements of what is necessary to a true historical appreciation of Hebrew antiquity. &quot; It is not without significance that the warlike revival of the nation proceeded from Benjamin. By the battle of
 * one who should refuse to help in relieving Jabesh. The