Something Old , Something Older : Reconsidering 1 Sam . 2 : 27-36

Recently scholarly discourse has offered two different
 readings of 1 Sam. 2:27-36. One perspective is that the passage is primarily a
 late Deuteronomistic composition geared to account for the rise of Davidic and
 Zadokite circles, while the other perspective argues for its early and
 distinctively northern linguistic features, pointing to an origin at Shiloh
 independent of any Jerusalemite considerations. A third understanding of the
 passage, though, is possible: the text originated in an early Ephraimite setting
 and was later redacted to incorporate a more historically comprehensive concern.
 The crux of this understanding is based on the presence of distinctively Mosaic
 language and ideas which pertain to Shilonite circles and traditions. The
 original form of the passage therefore points to the replacement of the corrupt
 Elide line at Shiloh with a more suitable Mosaic tradent, and likely relates to
 the rise of Samuel as the central bearer of the Shiloh tradition in the ensuing
 narratives.


1.2.
In a recent article, Gary Rendsburg offered a response to an earlier analysis of 1 Sam.2:27-36 made by Marc Brettler. 1 Based on terminology identified as Davidic and Zadokite in theme, Brettler suggested that the passage was an exilic composition penned by the Deuteronomistic Historian (DtrH). 2 Rendsburg's analysis, on the other hand, pointed out linguistic features characteristic of "Israelian Hebrew" (IH), suggesting that the passage was an early text from Ephraimite circles. 3Further, Rendsburg pointed out the broader context of 1 Sam.1-2, i.e., its concern with the Elide priestly line and the Shiloh sanctuary, and that the passage's terminology was consistent with this literary setting. 4ndsburg's analysis of IH constructs supports an earlier northern origin for the text, but Brettler's identification of the text's relation to Davidic/Judean contexts is difficult to ignore.While Rendsburg has made the case that the term (v.28) is IH in form, its function within the broader verse seems to relate to Davidic ideology with the theme of a unified tribal polity. 5Furthermore, the terminology coupled with the phrase "shall walk before me forever" (v.30) relates to similar terminology in 2 Sam.7, as Brettler points out. 6The signs of later composition reappear in v. 31 with the term , which creates a bridge from 1 Sam.2:22 to 4:18.This latter passage is part of the originally independent ark narrative that was worked into its current position in the text by a later redactor. 7In addition to integrating the ark narrative, the terminology ties the passing of Eli's authority to other significant moments in the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) where authority figures were past their prime and fit for succession. 8 1.3.

2.1.
These Dtr terminological/editorial considerations, however, do not obscure the IH features present in the text as noted by Rendsburg.The terms and their constructs are particular not only to earlier periods but to dialects that persisted exclusively in the north even in later times. 9The presence of the IH material strongly points to a written text of Ephraimite origin that pre-dates later Judean scribal activity, but the working of the ark narrative into the passage as well as the themes relating to a United Monarchy strongly suggest a Judean hand.We are thus faced with evidence that supports the divergent conclusions of both Rendsburg and Brettler, which leaves the question of the passage's dating unresolved.A third position, however, may offer a solution to the problem: the text of 1 Sam.2:27-36, in its current form, is the result of two compositional and editorial stages.

II
The linchpin for the above proposal is verse 35 --"And I shall raise [up] for myself The retention of IH constructs (such as in v. 28) would not necessarily be anachronistic in a later period; older northern terminology that suited Josianic purposes would likely have been embraced and put to use by Judean scribes in the 7th century, and the stylistic continuity between Josianic and Exilic literature would allow such terms to persist well into the 6 th . 122.2.It is the later reliance upon older sources, however, that lends credence to Rendsburg's position concerning the text's early Ephraimite origins.Indeed, we find additional terms in verse 35 that reveal the passage's original shape and meaning.
The verse opens with the phrase , "and I shall raise [up] for myself", which resonates with the language of Deut.18:15-18 concerning Mosaic prophets and might therefore lead one to suspect a later origin.However, given the antiquity of the Mosaic ties to Shiloh, the term is quite at home in a text of northern origin depicting an episode taking place at the sanctuary, which, as Rendsburg notes, is a significant feature pointing to the authorship of the passage. 13The term may also relate to an early theology among the tradition circles at Shiloh retained by the authors of Deut.18:15-22 -Samuel's father Elqanah conceives of the as an historical reflex waiting to be expressed in 1 Sam.1:23, pertaining to the realization of Hannah's promise, not YHWH's. 14Likewise, the term figures significantly into Samuel's activity at the sanctuary in 1 Sam.3:1, 11, 17-20 and especially 3:21.

2.4.
This concept of the as an historical force is found in later passages related to figures associated with Shiloh.We find the same terminology at work in 1 Sam.
15:13, where Saul mistakenly believes that he has realized YHWH's historical intentions ( ) through his incomplete war against the Amaleqites as he greets Samuel.Further, in 1 Kgs.12:24, Shemaiah the proclaims that the secession of the northern tribes is a divine the term suggests a typological association with the anonymous of our passage as well as Samuel himself. 15We should note also that the vast majority of prophets associated with the as the basis for their prophetic oracles are of Ephraimite origin, follow speech patterns similar to that of the anonymous , and are in some cases overtly connected with Mosaic tradition. 16Those prophets of Judean origin associated with the may have either been influenced by northern tradition in the wake of 721 BCE or may have had their work brought in line with Deuteronomic ideology via a later redaction 17 .
Another important term surfaces in verse 35 with Mosaic overtones: , "faithful".This is tied to Num. 12:7, part of a brief archaic text that qualifies Moses as superior to all other intermediaries.While the aforementioned verse pertains to Moses as a prophet, there is no reason to deny its applicability to Mosaic priestly conduct as well 18 .We should note that like 1 Sam.2:35, Num.12:7 pairs the term with the terminology ( )suggesting a common tradition behind the two passages.DtrH could easily apply these terms to a priesthood affiliated exclusively with the Davidic house, but the connection with Num.12:7 suggests that they initially pertained to the rise of a priestly line to replace the corrupt Elides at Shiloh.Indeed, Cross demonstrated that the rivalry between the Mushite and Aaronide priestly houses is a persistent theme in the Pentateuchal narratives, and 1 Sam.2:27-36 suggests tensions internal to the Mushite house itself. 19The early layer of the text thus seems to relate more to a Shiloh-Mushite issue than one pertaining to Jerusalem or the Zadokites.2:27-36 seems to be pointing to one figure as Eli's replacement: Samuel.It is Samuel who engages is expressly Mosaic activity in 1 Sam.7:5-12 (which shares language with the old JE Sinai traditions) 20 and it is Samuel who establishes a priestly house of his own via his sons in Beer Shevah, however short lived it may have been. 21Moreover, Samuel engages in juridical and cultic activity of decidedly Mosaic dimensions, so much so that he is known to be an , an intercessor like the anonymous speaker in 2:27-36 who makes YHWH's will a matter of public policy. 22Even the reality of kingship is presented as the result of Samuel's intercessory activity in 1 Sam.8-12; indeed his priestly and prophetic functions run in parallel during the early days of the Monarchy as a counterbalance to the authority of the king. 23III 3.1.

3.2.
The current form of 1 Sam.2:27-36 therefore evidences two primary stages: an initial Ephraimite composition that established Samuel as the primary religious figure at Shiloh, and a later Dtr layer that transformed the earlier material to pertain to the rise of the Zadokites (as per 1 Kgs.

( ) a faithful
priest ( ) who shall do[that which is] in my heart and in my soul ( ); and I shall build for him a faithful house ( ), and he shall walk before my anointed ( ) always."This verse contains an assortment of terms that are both expressly Deuteronomic ( anonymous thus not only predicts the Zadokite priesthood that accompanied the Davidic Monarchy but also the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah, which fulfilled the Davidic covenant from DtrH's point of view. 11In this case, the passage pre-supposes a Dtr redaction, as Brettler suggested.

2. 5 .
Verse 35 therefore identifies a priestly figure to replace Eli, but one with distinctively Mosaic characteristics.Considering the circumstances of the larger narrative and the overt Mosaic references in verse 35, the original form of 1 Sam.

DtrH 26 .
Such a move would allow the basic content of the pre-Dtr text as well as the narrative context surrounding it to be preserved yet adapted to suit broader historical considerations.If the pre-Dtr material in 2:27-36 was initially part of the narrative now found in 1 Sam.3, then we would have before us a rather complete model of Mosaic figurehood, from internal insight to external proclamation.The placement of Samuel's oracle into the mouth of a rhetorical literary figure, cast in the image of the person who first spoke it, allowed for both early tradition and later meaning to find an equal voice in the text.
2:26-27).The retention of the older text was crucial for the legitimacy of its transformation: kingship and the Zadokite priesthood that accompanied it were both ultimately subordinate to Mosaic tradition, the legitimizing force behind Dtr theology.24DtrHsharedElqanah'sWearefacedwith a thematic doublet of sorts, though the doublet is offset by a lack of articulation in the second case: we learn that Samuel spoke, but we do not hear his words.Moreover, the doublet is atypicalwhile doublets typically found in narrative passages suggest editorial activity, they also suggest divergent compositional voices and perspectives.25Such is not the case with 1 Sam.3:11-18, which offers no significantly different point of view from the polemic of 1 Sam.2:27-36 (on the pre-Dtr level).The difference between the two, in terms of theme and theology, is virtually non-existent.We are thus left with the question: why two episodes with two oracles that, originally, did not really differ from each other except in detail and articulation?3.3.A possible answer may reside in the authority of early traditions and the concerns of later tradents.Like most of the Dtr narrative, 1 Sam.2:27-36 was not freely penned by DtrH but was firmly founded upon traditional sources that could not be abrogated.This, plus the fact that the of 2:27-36 is anonymous (in a narrative replete with personal names at every turn) suggests that in its pre-Dtr form, the oracle of 2:27-36 was actually voiced by Samuel himself in the narrative;the anonymous serves as a rhetorical surrogate for Samuel created by