1 Samuel 4 WH

4:13 See comments on 1 Sam 2:12–13a. Eli sits because he is a weak old man. His chair, called “the chair,” is that which he normally sat upon. He is by the side of the city gate, watching the road leading to Ebenezer and Aphek, because he is worried that the news will be bad and the ark may be lost. Although he is blind (v. 15) and does not see the courier pass into the town, he is said to be “watching” (מְצַפֶּה, metsappeh)—perhaps (if we follow LXX) even “watching the road.” He is thus a blind watchman and shepherd for the flock of God.484

4:3 Apparently the Philistine army did not immediately follow up this initial victory by pursuing the Israelite army eastward. They remained on their side of the border. This gave Israel—who still had manpower for a second engagement despite the loss of four thousand men—time to reflect and regroup. While the Israelite defeat was not a rout, for there were sufficient surviving troops for a second engagement, it was important to assess the loss by counting the missing and to revise a strategy that would permit a victory in the next encounter. We are not told the length of the interval between the two engagements. Since it was necessary to send back to Shiloh and bring the ark to Ebenezer, it may have taken more than a single night.

When secular nations fight and experience loss today, no one considers factors other than manpower, equipment, training, and strategy—their own and their enemy’s. But in antiquity, when nations who believed in God (or gods) fought, the outcome was always attributable to divine forces, never to human factors. When polytheistic nations were involved, they could attribute a loss either to the displeasure of their own gods or to the superiority of the enemy’s gods. When a monotheistic nation is involved, it can only attribute its defeat to the displeasure of its own God, for other gods do not exist.

The question “Why has Yahweh struck us down today before the Philistines?” demonstrates that the Israelite elders have no doubt that it was Yahweh who struck them. Their only uncertainty is why. But instead of instituting an oracular inquiry to determine the reason, which might have revealed that it was because of the wickedness of the people as epitomized by their priests, Eli and sons, they jumped to the conclusion that it was because they didn’t have the ark in their midst, as it had been in the wilderness wanderings and during the conquest of the promised land.

The use of the verb “they said” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ, wayyomeru) instead of “they asked” (וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ, wayyish'alu) suggests that the elders merely discussed among themselves the reason for the defeat, not that they inquired of God by oracle. This suspicion is confirmed by what follows: They had no instructions from God to fetch and use the ark as a kind of talisman.

The question itself reveals their firm faith that only Yahweh—not the superior numbers, weaponry, or skill of the Philistine troops—could have caused them to be defeated. It was Yahweh himself who “struck us down” (נְגָפָנוּ, negaphanu)—the very same verb (נָגַף, nagaph) that the narrator used in the preceding verse to describe the defeat

CHAP. 4

Israel smitten by the Philistines, ver. 1, 2. They bring the ark into the camp, which affrights the Philistines, ver. 3–9. Israel beaten and the ark taken, ver. 10, 11. The news brought to Shiloh and the death of Eli, ver. 12–18. The travail and death of his daughter-in-law, ver. 19–22.

V. 1. The word—That is, the word of the Lord revealed to Samuel, and by him to the people. A word of command, that all Israel should go forth to fight with the Philistines, as the following words explain it, that they might be first humbled and punished for their sins, and so prepared for deliverance. Went out—To meet the Philistines, who having by this time recruited themselves after their loss by Samson, and perceiving an eminent prophet arising among them, by whom they were likely to be united, and assisted, thought fit to suppress them in the beginning of their hopes.

V. 3. Wherefore, &c.—This was strange blindness, that when there was so great a corruption in their worship and manners, they could not see sufficient reason why God should suffer them to fall by their enemies. The ark—That great pledge of God’s presence and help, by whose conduct our ancestors obtained success. Instead of humbling themselves for, and purging themselves from their sins, for which God was displeased with them, they take an easier and cheaper course, and put their trust in their ceremonial observances, not doubting but the very presence of the ark would give them the victory.

V. 4. Bring the ark—This they should not have done without asking counsel of God.

V. 5. Shouted—From their great joy and confidence of success. So formal Christians triumph in external privileges and performances: as if the ark in the camp would bring them to heaven, tho’ the world and the flesh reign in the heart.

V. 7. Heretofore—Not in our times; for the fore-mentioned removals of the ark were before it came to Shiloh.

V. 8. Wo, &c.—They secretly confess the Lord to be greater than their gods, and yet presume to oppose him. Wilderness—They mention the wilderness, not as if all the plagues of the Egyptians came upon them in the wilderness, but because the last and sorest of all, which is therefore put for all, the destruction of Pharaoh and all his host, happened in the wilderness, namely, in the Red-sea, which having the wilderness on both sides of it, may well be said to be in the wilderness. Altho’ it is not strange if these Heathens did mistake some circumstance in relation of the Israelitish affairs, especially some hundreds of years after they were done.

V. 10. Tent—To his habitation, called by the antient name of his tent. There fell—Before, they lost but four thousand, now in the presence of the ark, thirty thousand, to teach them that the ark and ordinances of God, were never designed as a refuge to impenitent sinners, but only for the comfort of those that repent.

V. 11. The ark—Which God justly and wisely permitted, to punish the Israelites for their profanation of it; that by taking away the pretences of their foolish confidence, he might more deeply humble them, and bring them to true repentance: and that the Philistines might by this means be more effectually convinced of God’s almighty power, and of their own, and the impotency of their gods, and so a stop put to their triumphs and rage against the poor Israelites. Thus as God was no loser by this event, so the Philistines were no gainers by it; and Israel, all things considered, received more good than hurt by it. If Eli had done his duty, and put them from the priesthood, they might have lived, tho’ in disgrace. But now God takes the work into his own hands, and chases them out of the world by the sword of the Philistines.

V. 13. The ark—Whereby he discovered a public and generous spirit, and a fervent zeal for God, and for his honour, which he preferred before all his natural affections, not regarding his own children in comparison of the ark, tho’ otherwise he was a most indulgent father. And well they might, for beside that this was a calamity to all Israel, it was a particular loss to Shiloh; for the ark never returned thither. Their candlestick was removed out of its place, and the city sunk and came to nothing.

V. 18. He fell—Being so oppressed with grief and astonishment, that he had no strength left to support him. The gate—The gate of the city, which was most convenient for the speedy understanding of all occurrences. Old—Old, and therefore weak and apt to fall; heavy, and therefore his fall more dangerous. So fell the high-priest and judge of Israel! So fell his heavy head, when he had lived within two of an hundred years! So fell the crown from his head, when he had judged Israel forty years: thus did his sun set under a cloud. Thus was the wickedness of those sons of his, whom he had indulged, his ruin. Thus does God sometimes set marks of his displeasure on good men, that others may hear and fear. Yet we must observe, it was the loss of the ark that was his death, and not the slaughter of his sons. He says in effect, Let me fall with the ark! Who can live, when the ordinances of God are removed? Farewell all in this world, even Life itself, if the ark be gone!

V. 20. Fear not—Indeed the sorrows of her travail would have been forgotten, for joy that a child was born into the world. But what is that joy to one that feels herself dying? None but spiritual joy will stand us in stead then. Death admits not the relish of any earthly joy: it is then all flat and tasteless. What is it to one that is lamenting the loss of the ark? What can give us pleasure, if we want God’s word and ordinances? Especially if we want the comfort of his gracious presence, and the light of his countenance?

V. 21. I-chabod—Where is the glory? The glory—That is, the glorious type and assurance of God’s presence, the ark, which is often called God’s glory, and which was the great safeguard and ornament of Israel, which they could glory in above all other nations.

V. 22. The ark—This is repeated to shew, her piety, and that the public loss lay heavier upon her spirit, than her personal or domestic calamity.

“Why?” questions in time of defeat can be somewhat rhetorical in prayer-laments (e.g., Pss 10:1; 22:1; 42:9; 43:2; 44:23–24). But they can also be specific, seeking rectification and a change in fortunes. This is clearly the latter type. But instead of truly seeking to rectify the inner moral problem that prevents Yahweh from aiding them against their enemies, they seek only a mechanical expedient: the physical presence of the ark.

Since the noun אֲרוֹן (aron) (“ark”) is masc., it is impossible to be sure whether it or Yahweh is the subject of the following two verbs: “may come into our midst and save us” (וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ … וְיָבֹא, weyoshi'enu … weyavo'). There is abundant evidence in this passage for the superstitious belief that the mere presence of the ark in their midst would change the outcome of the following battle. Yet it is still insufficient to assume that the elders, who had just said that “Yahweh struck us down,” would assume that it would be the ark that would save them from the Philistines and not Yahweh, constrained by the presence of his holy ark among them. Thus it is possible that Yahweh is the subject of both of the following verbs, or at least the second (“that it may come into our midst, and He may save us”).

4:4 The normal term for the ark in this period was either אֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְהוָה (aron berith yehwah) (“the ark of the covenant,” 1 Sam 4:3, 4, 5; although the LXX reads κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, kibōton tou theou hēmōn; and κιβωτὸν κυρίου, kibōton kyriou) or “the ark of God” (‏אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהִים[הָ], aron elohim[ha]; LXX κιβωτός τοῦ θεοῦ, kibōtos tou theou). When this expression is expanded, the nature of the expansion is determined by the historical and narrative requirements. For instance, in the narrative of the crossing of the Jordan River and the taking of Jericho, the expression is expanded by the words כָּל־הָאָרֶץ אֲדוֹן (kol-ha'arets adon) (“the Lord of all the land [or earth],” Josh 3:11, 13), presumably because these two closely related events constituted the first significant step in taking possession of Yahweh’s land, which had been promised to Israel. In the present passage, the basic expression has been expanded by two elements: (1) צְבָאוֹת יְהוָה (tseva'oth yehwah) (“Yahweh of Hosts”) has replaced the simple יְהוָה (yhwh), and (2) he is further described as הַכְּרֻבִים יֹשֵׁב (hakkeruvim yoshev) (“enthroned on the cherubim”). The first enlargement relates directly to the need for military victory, and the second identifies Yahweh as the unseen one whose throne is formed by the cherubim figured on the top of the ark. The location of Yahweh’s throne will surely guarantee is effective presence to fight for Israel. Although, strictly speaking, the text does not put the words “Yahweh of Hosts who is enthroned on the cherubim” (v. 4) in the mouths of the leaders (v. 3), it has been well said that: “[These Israelites] hope ‘the LORD of Hosts who dwells between the cherubim’ will bring a division of celestial beings to fight on their side, not realizing that the Philistines are part of his hosts to uphold what is right.”460

Caquot (77–78) thinks bringing the ark to the battlefield is a last resort, an ultima ratio. Since only in the first days of their entry into Canaan under Joshua had the Israelites been led in battle by the priests carrying the ark (e.g., at Jericho), this might have been seen as a kind of “reform”: a returning to the practice of the days of the conquest. After all, the ark played no role in the stories of God delivering his people from foreign oppression in the days of the judges.

In terms of what has gone before in chaps. 2–3, it is clear what God’s purpose was in inducing the people to summon the ark (1 Sam 2:25, 34): God intended to kill Hophni and Phinehas, who as priests would have to bring the ark from Shiloh and carry it into battle in the front lines.

A thoughtful reader might well ask: Why did God allow the Israelites to be defeated and to lose so many lives? Could he not have just struck Hophni and Phinehas dead for their sins? The elders’ attitude in attributing a magic power to the ark quite apart from the presence of Yahweh and his will to aid Israel, together with their subsequent need to put away idols before the victory of Israel in 1 Sam 7:2–4, suggests that some of the Israelites were worshiping other gods at this time and were subject to God’s punishment.

Selected Bibliography

Bentzen, A. “The Cultic Use of the Ark in Samuel.” JBL 67 (1948): 37–56.

Stirrup, A. “ ‘Why Has Yahweh Defeated Us Today Before the Philistines?’ The Question of the Ark Narrative.” TynBul 51 (2000): 81–100.

The Philistines Defeat Israel and Capture the Ark (1 Sam 4:5–11)

Original Text

5 וַיְהִי כְּבוֹא אֲרוֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָה aאֶל־הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיָּרִעוּ bכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּרוּעָה גְדוֹלָה וַתֵּהֹם הָאָרֶץ׃ 6 וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת־קוֹל הַתְּרוּעָה aוַיֹּאמְרוּ bמֶה קוֹלל הַתְּרוּעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת בְּמַחֲנֵה הָעִבְרִים וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי אֲרוֹן יְהוָה בָּא אֶל־הַמַּחֲנֶה׃ 7 וַיִּרְאוּ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי אָמְרוּ aבָּא bאֱלֹהִים אֶלc־הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אוֹי לָנוּdכִּי לֹא הָיְתָה כָּזֹאת אֶתְמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם׃ 8 אוֹי לָנוּ מִי יַצִּילֵנוּ מִיַּד הָאֱלֹהִים הָאַדִּירִים הָאֵלֶּה אֵלֶּה הֵם הָאֱלֹהִים הַמַּכִּים אֶת־מִצְרַיִם בְּכָל־מַכָּה aבַּמִּדְבָּר׃ 9 הִתְחַזְּקוּ וִהְיוּ לַאֲנָשִׁים פְּלִשְׁתִּים aפֶּן תַּעַבְדוּ לָעִבְרִים כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ לָכֶם וִהְיִיתֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים וְנִלְחַמְתֶּם׃ 10 וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ aפְלִשְׁתִּים וַיִּנָּגֶף יִשְׂרָאֵל bוַיָּנֻסוּ אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו וַתְּהִי הַמַּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד וַיִּפֹּל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף רַגְלִי c׃11 aוַאֲרוֹן אֱלֹהִים נִלְקָח וּשְׁנֵי בְנֵי־עֵלִי מֵתוּ חָפְנִי וּפִינְחָס׃

Textual Notes

5.a. The LXX reading κιβωτὸς κυρίου (kibōtos kyriou) reflects יְהוָה אֲרוֹן (yhwh aron) (“the ark of Yahweh”).

5.b. The LXX reading ἀνέκραξεν (anekraxen) (“all Israel shouted”) reflects a sg. verb ויריע (wyry'), instead of the MT’S וירעו (wyr'w).

6.a. Auld (64) objects to קוֹל הַתְּרוּעָה (qol hatteru'ah) here in the MT, claiming it is unique in the Bible. But קוֹל (qol) does occur followed by other terms for human vocal celebration or outcry (cf. קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה … קוֹל עַנּוֹת, qol anoth gevurah … qol annoth, Exod 32:18; קוֹל הַצְּעָקָה, qol hatstse'aqah, 1 Sam 4:14).

6.b. Gk reads: “And the Philistines (οἱ ἀλλόφυλοι, hoi allophyloi) said.”

7.a. The LXX reading “and they said” implies a text ויאמרו (wy'mrw), which (as noted by Auld, 64) differs only in the consonantal text by the initial letter from the MT’S כי אמרו (ky 'mrw).

7.b. It is entirely possible that the Philistines used a pl. verb here, since they were polytheists. See v. 8, where it becomes clear that they regarded the arrival of the ark as signaling the arrival of an entire Israelite pantheon of deities.

7.c. The LXX reads “These gods came to them,” retroverting to באו אלהים אלה אליהם (b'w 'lhym 'lh 'lyhm); L retroverts to באו אלהיהם אלה אליהם (b'w 'lhyhm 'lh 'lyhm) (“these their gods have come to them”), which seems too awkward to be correct. Such a construction occurs only in אֵ֔לֶּה וְאַמְהֹֽתֵיהֶם֙ עַבְדֵיהֶ֤ם (elleh we'amhotheihem avdeihem) (Ezra 2:65 = Neh 7:67), where a pair of pl. nouns plus poss. suffix are modified by אֵלֶּה (elleh). L’s reading in this verse remains unconvincing.

7.d. The LXX adds ἐξελοῦ ἡμᾶς, κύριε, σήμερον (exelou hēmas, kyrie, sēmeron) (“Save us, Lord [i.e., Yahweh?], today!” הַיּוֹם יהוה הצילנו, hayyom yhwh htsylnw); cf. v. 8.

8.a. The LXX inserts καὶ (kai) (“even, also”): ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (en pasē plēgē kai en tē erēmō). The reading requiring the addition of the copula waw here is unlikely. If the intention were to say that the plagues took place throughout Egypt and also in the desert, more would be needed, such as בָּאָרֶץ (ba'arets) (“in the land”) or בְּאַרְצָם (be'artsam) (“in their land”) before “and in the desert” (so correctly Keil and Delitzsch, 55).

9.a. The 4QSamA reading פלשתיים (plshtyym) shows us—as we would already suspect from the sg. form פְּלִשְׁתִּי (pelishtiy)—that the regular pl. spelling in the MT stands for פְּלִשְׁתִּיִּם (pelishtiyyim). See also Greek spellings Φυλιστιιμ (Phylistiim) and Φυλιστιειμ (Phylistieim) in those cases—from Genesis through Joshua—where the MT is not translated ἀλλόφυλοι (allophyloi) (“foreigners”).

10.a. The Gk reading καὶ ἐπολέμησαν αὐτούς (kai epolemēsan autous) (“And they fought them”) assumes a Heb. text וַיִּלָּחֲמוּם (wayyillachamum).

10.b. The LXX reads ἀνὴρ Ισραηλ (anēr Israēl) (“a man of Israel”): 4Q51 5a:2 has space in lacuna for ישראל איש (yshr'l 'ysh) but not for פְלִשְׁתִּים (phelishtim).

10.c. The LXX reads ταγμάτων (tagmatōn) (“of the ranks”) instead of the reading רַגְלִי (ragliy) (“foot soldier[s]”) in the MT, 4Q51 5a:4, and Tg. The LXX may have had a Heb. text דֶּגֶל (degel) or דִּגְלוֹ (diglo) (see Num 2:2, 10, 18, 25, etc.). The use of רַגְלִי (ragliy) is somewhat unlikely here since Israel did not possess chariots at this time, which would have necessitated drawing the distinction between foot soldiers and horse troops.

11.a. The textual agreement in this verse between MT, G, Q, and Tg. is complete.

Translation

5 When the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came into the camp, all the Israelites gave a loud shout, so that the earth resounded. 6 The Philistines heard the shouting, and they said, “What is this loud shouting in the camp of the Hebrews?” And when they learned that the ark of Yahweh had entered the camp, 7 the Philistines became afraid, for they said: “Gods have come into the camp.” And they said: “Woe to us! Nothing like this has ever happened before. 8 Woe to us! Who can rescue us from the hand of these mighty gods. These are the gods who struck the Egyptians with every kind of plague in the wilderness. 9 Take courage, and be men, O Philistines, in order not to become slaves to the Hebrews as they have been to you; be men and fight.” 10 So the Philistines did fight, Israel was defeated, and every one of them fled to his home. There was a very great slaughter, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. 11 The ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died.

Commentary

In the space of six verses, the people of Yahweh go from the heights of joy and confidence to utter despair and dejection. Their initial joy and confidence was falsely based upon the physical presence of the ark. The celebration was an empty one, serving only to stiffen the resolve and courage of their Philistine enemies. It is remarkable that, in response to the threat posed by the Israelite God and his ark, the Philistines do not call upon their own god, as Goliath later does against David. Instead, they relied on their own strength and manly fighting abilities (“be men … be men”)! This seems a shockingly secular touch. But perhaps it is our narrator’s way of showing that the Philistine victory was not due to the power of their gods: Yahweh had caused it, and he had allowed the Philistines to win simply by their own desperate courage and toughness. In fact, the narrator has the Philistines imply the powerlessness of their own gods by their rhetorical question: “Who can deliver/save us from the power of these mighty gods [i.e., Yahweh and his ark]?”

The view that this text unit is an insertion, and not a part of the original battle narrative, shows an unwillingness to apply the norms of ANE battlefield rhetoric—or at the very least of the later literary portrayal of such battles—to ancient Israelite literature (see comments below).

4:5–8 The people believed that the presence of the ark in the Israelite camp meant the presence of Yahweh to lead his people in victory. The shout (וַיָּרִעוּ, wayyari'u, “and they shouted”) reminds us of the role of the shout (תרועה, trw'h) in holy war elsewhere (Josh 6:5; Judg 7:20; 1 Sam 17:20, 52; 2 Chr 20:21–22).

Furthermore, the verb המם (hmm) (v. 5) also involves a sound: compare 1 Kgs 1:45, where the activity of המם (hmm) is called a קוֹל (qol) (“sound, noise”). The thought is that the very promised land (אֶרֶץ, erets) under their feet made a sympathetic sound, a response to Israel’s joy. It is unnecessary and unwarranted to see this passage as referring to an earthquake phenomenon (pace Klein, 137). The sounds of battle cries (מִלְחָמָה קוֹל, milchamah qol) and those of celebration and dancing (עַנּוֹת קוֹל, annoth qol) could easily be confused (Exod 32:17–19). Does the very earth’s resonating with the enthusiastic shouts of the Israelites indicate that Yahweh was showing his agreement, that he was thus guaranteeing victory this time? This must have been the people’s belief, but it was unwarranted. The powerlessness of this loud battle cry is contrasted with Yahweh’s own powerful voice that puts his enemies to flight in 1 Sam 7:10–11.

4:6 Battle cries were part of the psychology of warfare. They demoralized the enemy, as demonstrated in this passage. Of course, this does not mean that they were always calculated. But they were invariably noticed.

The narrator and the Israelites within the narrative refer to themselves as “Israelites” (ישראל בני, yshr'l bny, אנשי ישראל, 'nshy yshr'l), while the Philistines within the narrative refer to them as “Hebrews” (עברים, 'brym)—a term that can have pejorative connotations. Foreigners use it of the Israelites, as can be seen in the Genesis and Exodus narratives set in Egypt (Gen 40:15; 43:32; Exod 1:22; 2:6, 13; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3).

Most modern English translations (versus AV and ASV’s “understood”) correctly render ידע (yd') here (v. 6) as “learned.” NET has “realized.” The required aspect is “came to know.” It is implied that reconnaissance was carried out.

4:7–8 The description of the Philistines’ response to the Israelites serves an ironic purpose: The narrator wishes us to see it as an empty parody on the true presence of God with his people, as was the case in the days of Moses and Joshua. The event indeed impressed the Philistines, but its effect was the opposite of what the true presence of God in Israel’s armies produced in times of Israel’s repentance and faith. There was no panic among the Philistines (compare המם, hmm, Exod 14:24; גור, gwr, קוץ, qwts, Num 22:3; פַּחְדְּךָ וְיִרְאָתְךָ, pachdekha weyir'othkha, Deut 2:25; 7:23; 11:25; Josh 2:9), only a stiffened resolve and courage.

The Philistines had only a vague and confused idea of what had happened when Yahweh rescued his people from Egypt. They had heard of the plagues, and they knew of the disaster that befell the pharaoh’s troops in the desert regions adjoining Egypt on the northeast, where the Reed Sea crossing took place. But they mistakenly thought that all the plagues had occurred there as well. Still, even these confused traditions were enough to impress and frighten them.

4:9 The speech in 1 Sam 4:9 is framed by the synonymous clauses לַאֲנָשִׁים וִהְיוּ (la'anashim wihyu) and לַאֲנָשִׁים וִהְיִיתֶם (la'anashim wihyithem). In both cases this clause is mated to a different verb: הִתְחַזְּקוּ (hithchazzequ) in the first case, and וְנִלְחַמְתֶּם (wenilchamtem) in the second. Because they serve as a frame, the sequence of “be men” and the mated verb is inverted: the mating verb (הִתְחַזְּקוּ, hithchazzequ) preceding in colon* one and וְנִלְחַמְתֶּם (wenilchamtem) coming after in colon* three.

HALOT cites several examples of הִתְחַזֵּק (hithchazzeq) with the meaning “to pluck up one’s courage” (Gen 48:2; Judg 20:22; 1 Sam 4:9; 2 Chr 15:8; 21:4; 23:1; 25:11). The LXX’s use of its customary translation of פְּלִשְׁתִּים (pelishtim) with ἀλλόφυλοι (allophyloi) (“foreigners”) does not work well when the term is in the mouth of the Philistines themselves.

This verse is part of what in second millennium and early first millennium BC military narratives Mario Liverani calls “the spoken aspect of war”—more specifically the exhortation of the king/commander to his forces:

[Two] more features of the spoken aspect of war are attested on the occasion of the battle itself. The first is the exhortation of the king to his soldiers to prepare their armour and weapons and to be in readiness for the combat. Here is [the Egyptian pharaoh] Tuthmosis III before the battle of Megiddo: “Prepare yourselves, make ready your weapons, for one will engage with that wretched foe in the morning’; and here is [the Assyrian king] Shalmaneser I before the battle of Nihriya: “Put on your armour, mount your chariots! The Hittite king is coming in battle array.” The second is the reciprocal reviling by the two armies or their champions—thus repeating in a baser way the content of the formal challenge.

An example from an Akkadian-language letter of the Old Hittite king Ḫattušili I reads as follows:

My campaign has begun (lit. my road is open). So you should be a man (Akkadian lu-ú a-i-la-at) with respect to the man of Ḫaḫḫum. (10) Devour his food rations like a dog! (11) The oxen which you take shall be your own. The sheep and goats which you take shall be your own. (13) Be a man with respect to him! (14) I from this side, (15) and you from that side.

A typical example of what Liverani refers to as a “challenge”—namely, the exchange of messages containing charges and counter-charges—is the following excerpt from the annals of King Muršili II:

After I had conquered the land of Tipiya, I sent a letter to Anniyaš, the King of Azzi, and wrote to him: “My subjects who went over to you while my father was in the land of Mitanni [give them back to me].” … But the king of the land of Azzi wrote back to me … as follows: “Regarding what you write to me,—if [I have any civilian captives,] or anyone else has come over to me, [I will not give them back,] and if you demand […].” But I wrote back thus: “I have come and have encamped before the frontier of your country, and have not attacked your country, and have not laid hands on it by seizing civilian captives, cattle or sheep. But you have acted wantonly [toward My Majesty], and you have come [and attacked] the land of Dankuwa [and depopulated it]. Therefore the gods shall take their stand on my side, and shall decide the case in my favor.”

4:10 Since the report is not sent to Samuel, it is clear that the final verses of chap. 3 were proleptic, referring to the time after Eli’s death.

There is a form for reporting results of battles. A general statement of outcome, such as “Israel triumphed/was defeated,” precedes a casualty report. ANE reports of battles typically only report victories, and they only specify the enemy casualties, not those of one’s own fighting men. In the Hebrew Bible, the casualties of Israel are given as well, and in some instances only those of Israel.

How did the victor keep track of how many of the enemy were killed? One way would be to count corpses on the battlefield. After the battle between the Hittites and the Egyptians during the reign of Ramses II of Egypt, Egyptian officials counted the severed hands of Hittite warriors to determine the number killed, as portrayed in the scene on an Egyptian relief in the temple of Ramses at Abydos. The circumcised Egyptians counted their slain foes by heads or hands, except in the case of the uncircumcised Libyans, whose phalli were often amputated for counting.476 When King Saul offered his daughter in marriage to David if the latter killed a one hundred Philistines and presented him with their uncircumcised foreskins as the bride price, David complied (see 1 Sam 18:23–29).

4:11 Following the generalized casualty report comes the highlights of that report, or in some cases its interpretation. In contrast to the preceding verse, here the nominal subjects of both clauses—the ark and the sons of Eli—are highlighted by fronting in MT, Q, and LXX (Bar-Efrat, 110). The contrast in value between the two losses is stark, but both events represent judgment.

The fact that the niphal form נִלְקָח (nilqach) is also used in Ezek 33:6 to describe Israelites taken away into exile is perhaps an intertextual clue that this is the beginning of an “exile” in Philistine territory for the ark (see also 1 Sam 4:17, 19, 21–22; and 1QIsaA 41:26 on Isa 49:25, where the MT has יֻקָּח, yuqqach). The “exile” theme will be explored in the following chapter, with intertextual links both backward to the exodus and forward to the Babylonian captivity. Perhaps there is also an allusion to the use of לקח (lqch) in 1 Sam 4:3, suggesting an ironic result of the taking of the ark there (Bar-Efrat, 110).

The mention of the deaths of Eli’s sons, without explicitly indicating who killed them, serves as a reminder that the ultimate cause was God himself, who promised this event in 1 Sam 2:34 (see “Prophecy against the House of Eli [1 Sam 2:27–36]”).

The dramatic break with the preceding era is symbolized by the loss of both the ark and the offspring of Eli. There will now be a new beginning. Dietrich connects the disastrous defeat at Ebenezer and the capture of the ark with the people’s later request for a king:

Faith in YHWH must have taken major damage when the sacred ark, which a tribal league had taken into battle against the Philistines at Ebenezer, was lost. The fact that Yahweh easily held his own while in enemy country was a small comfort. Israel’s immediate reaction to the severe political and military devastation at the turn of the millennium was the establishment of the monarchy. This, too, did not take place outside of Israel’s faith in YHWH. The biblical texts, however, also let the request for a king collide with trust in YHWH. After the previous disasters, it was perfectly understandable that the Israelites requested a king from Samuel “to rule us and to fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:20).

Selected Bibliography

Oberholzer, J. P. “The ʿibrîm in I Samuel.” In Studies on the Books of Samuel: Papers Read at 3rd Meeting Held at Stellenbosch, 26–28 January 196, ed. A. van Selms and A. H. van Zyl, 54. Die ou testamentiese werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 1960.