The modern judgment has been prejudiced in Saul’s favour by Samuel’s curse, and to David’s disadvantage by Samuel’s blessing; the picture of the one has not suffered from the blackening so much as that of the other from the glorification. 1

************************************* 1.  The efforts of later writers to glorify David are at their worst in their account of his last testament (1Kings ii. 1-12).  Even the language betrays this piece as a post-Deuteronomic insertion (v. 2-4); the contents are borrowed from the succeeding narrative.  But in the narrative Solomon’s conduct towards Adonijah, Abiathar, Joab, and Shimei is not dictated by any means by the testament, but by other considerations; and it is the declared object of the narrator to show how Solomon’s throne was established by the removal of the elements of danger.  Nor do the acute calculations of the weak old king agree very well with the general impression given of him at this time by 1Kings i. ii. ****************************************

Some critics, who are unencumbered either by prejudice or by knowledge of the subject, regard Saul as the antagonist and David as the creature of the clerical lust of rule, of which they see the embodiment in Samuel.  But this view gives Samuel a powerful position over against the king such as he cannot have possessed unless he had broad ground under his feet and an influence well and extensively organised.  Did he find support in the Nebiim?  These were only then rising into view out of an irregular enthusiasm which was not yet confined to any definite circle or school; and besides, the old tradition speaks of a close connection between them and the king, but not between them and the seer.  The belief that the latter was the founder and president of their guild is based on the worthless anachronistic anecdote, 1Samuel xix. 18 seq.  Or was Samuel in conspiracy with the priests against Saul?  This is inferred from 1Samuel xxi.-xxii. where Abimelech of Nob provides David with bread on his wanderings, and expiates this offence with his own death and that of the whole race of Eli.  But in the first place these priests have no connection with Samuel.  In the second place there is nothing to make it probable that they had an understanding with David, or were acquainted with his ambitious plans if he had then begun to cherish them.  In the third place, it is positively certain that they represented no distinct power in the state as against the king, but on the contrary were entirely the creatures of his smile or frown; on the occurrence of a faint suspicion they were put to death to a man without a dog barking to remonstrate.  The liberal view we are discussing of Samuel’s relation to Saul and David is based on the erroneous assumption that Samuel had the hierocracy to rest on in his acts of opposition to the monarchy.  But the student who carries back the hierocracy to these early times has still to learn the very elements of what is necessary to a true historical appreciation of Hebrew antiquity.