Talk:Samuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Samuel-is-really-Saul material[edit]

User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for claims that critical scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah (Bible) really refers to Saul. No source is given in this article. User:FDuffy identified a source in the King Saul article, as the personal web site of Rabbi Moshe Reiss, [1], a self-published source. Per WP:RS,

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that this content is not reliably sourced and should be deleted. --Shirahadasha 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the material deleted (from the Name section)

In contrast to this, critical scholars believe that 1 Samuel 1:20 originally described Saul<ref>for example, New American Bible, footnote on 1 Samuel 1:20</ref>, a later editor substituting Samuel's name, in order to avoid the impression that Saul was originally dedicated to God, and had divine circumstances around his birth. This belief of critical scholars is attributed to the fact that Saul means asked, hence Hannah naming her child Saul because she had asked God for him makes more sense than her naming him Name of God or Heard of God.

--Shirahadasha 13:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurice Reiss is not my source. Indeed, I had never heard of him until Shirahadasha mentioned his name and website. My source is the Jewish Encyclopedia; corroborated by the New American Bible footnote (which, I must point out, is actually stated in the reference tag in the above quote  !!!!!). The claim of Shirahadasha that no source is given in the article is clearly totally untrue - the quote Shirahadasha gives clearly states a source within the reference tags. I find it disingenous to say the least, if not outright malicious, for Shirahadasha to make false claims about my sources, particularly when one of the actual sources is clearly given in the text itself. --User talk:FDuffy 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would be interesting to note that JewishEncyclopedia.com makes no mention that the story of the early years of Samuel could have been Saul's. It's interesting, though, that they mention that the battle of Mizpah could have actually been led by Saul. JJ Dangerously 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the article seems devoted to prove that Samuel and Saul were the same person. I don't see the point. Other than the similarity in name, there's no real proof. You wouldn't say Bill Clinton and Bill Gates are the same person. I hear you saying "of coarse not! they have different last names!" so did Samuel and Saul. Samuel's last name was "son of Elkanah, an Ephraimite, judge of Isreal" and Saul's was "son of Kish, a Benjamite, king of Isreal" I'd also liked to make two things extremely clear: Samuel and Saul stood in different places at the same time on multiple occasions!!!!!!! (1 Samuel 9, 10, 11:7, 13:, 15, 16:1-2, 19:) and Samuel was DEAD BEFORE Saul!!!!! (1 Samuel 28)68.50.57.15 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally disputed[edit]

The vast majority of references and explanations to the name Samuel include the explanation that it is a simple Hebrew sentence: "God has heard", (Remember Hebrew puts the verb first being a VSO language) rather than the awkwardly induced "Heard of God" that only a non Hebrew speaker would come up with. My citation to that effect has been deleted and a whole lot of pov pushing supposedly from the Jewish Encyclopedia has gone up in its place. Also, my red flag always goes up whenever I read that "Most scholars" are "in agreement" about anything to do with the Bible, since I know the fact is that Biblical scholars have seldom been "in agreement" on any single thing for the past 2000 years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of internet references are based on a literal reading of the bible. Most non-fundamentalists do not evangelise, and hence there are a significantly higher proportion of internet sites reflecting a Bible-Is-Totally-True POV than there are reflecting a What-Do-Internationally-Reputable-Scholars-Think POV. Most scholars are content with publishing in academic journals, hence leading to the internet's systemic bias in this matter. Many internet, and other "Hebrew name origin" texts, are based on Easton's, and Concordances, rather than on checking up on the scholarly consensus.

Biblical Scholars may have seldom been "in agreement" on any single thing, but there have certainly been consensus on many. Its the difference between "scientists are not in total agreement that evolution is accurate" and "99% of scientists think evolution is accurate" (see Project Steve for the rough source of the statistic); both are true, but one is a technicality and woefully misleading.

Anyway, regardless of my personal opinion, and yours, (WP:NOR), the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly spells out the Samuel = name of God/son of God/Priest position as the majority position (its somewhat non-NPOV manner of expressing this notwithstanding). The position is also expressed as statement-of-fact in a number of modern (pro-Christian) Bible translations (in footnotes). --User talk:FDuffy 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User FDuffy, please provide actual citations to the sources you have repeatedly claimed are out there. Wikipedia cannot rely on your personal word that they exist. The articles you have edited with this claim remain essentially unsourced. As discussed, the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia often isn't a reliable source for what people believe today, although you're welcome to list it as an "according to". Also, as you indicate, its "somewhat NPOV manner" doesn't seem to permit claims that it is what "most" people believed even in its day. There's no evidence at all that this speculation is as well-established as, say, evolution. --Shirahadasha 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Judges 27?[edit]

Hello, I skimmed the discussion and didn't notice any question on this so forgive me if this is repeated :). Where is Judges 27? Is this an outside source other then the Bible? Just wondering because there are only 21 chapters in the book of Judges. I am also making reference to this because I am curious with your source on how Elkanah was a Levite. (JulaBee (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

The reference seems to be Judges 17:7, according to the cited article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Tb (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Radak...[edit]

...says that Shmuel is derived from Sha'ul me'El. Though someone here might find that a bit interesting. Ayin/Yud 17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shemu'el[edit]

Agreed with previous poster. The proper translation of Shemu'el is "God has heard". "Shemu'" does come from the Hebrew root (transliterated into English) of sh-m-', meaning "to hear" or, more correctly, "he (has) heard."

As to the note about Samuel being "Saul" material, the source for this is dated. Moreover, it does not make much sense to me since Samuel's prophetic career spans TWO kings--Saul and his successor, David. Whoever the writer was, it doesn't seem (in my opinion) to lend credence to a schizophrenic Samuel, conversing with his own ghost at Endor. :) Jbeck-ot 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly "Samuel is Saul" claim is not that the biblical character of Samuel is the same character as the character of Saul. Nobody thinks a man called up his own ghost when speaking with the witch at Endor. The scholarly claim that you're describing in caricature is that some of the material about Samuel was originally about Saul. In particular, some scholars have argued that the birth story of Samuel was originally Saul's birth story. That's all.Alephb (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How about adding a list of significant people named Samuel?[edit]

I think I'll work on one. Any reason I shouldn't?

Hi! As the article title says, this is the article on the Samuel who appears in the Bible, so any other Samuel should appear in a different article. There is a Samuel article which is more general, however suggest a new article titled List of people named Samuel or similar. Note that some lists of this type have been deleted, so suggest starting with a short list and see if it meets any objections before putting a lot of work into it. --Shirahadasha 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be a very long list, and rather pointless.PiCo 07:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit.[edit]

Sorry about the stupid title, I had to have fun somewhere. But in all seriousness, Samuel is a figure that has for a long time been considered a staple in the old testament (looking at this from a catholic perspective, by the way), and has been taught as a profit and the anointer of kings for David and Saul. He is agreed by many to be his own important figure, not just a misinterpretation. Now, one possible translation error in ancient scrolls doesn't qualify nullifying his article in my opinion. Especially since there are thousands of different translators, each of whom has their own variance on the story, as well as many others. In fact, varying biblical translations are ever-expanding field that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. So far for a very long time many different religious scholars have agreed on his authenticity, enough to have him in the current versions of the stories in the bible, and to give him a mention in the Catholic Encyclopedia (under Kings I-II). I think that we should acknowledge the general consensus that Samuel is his own figure, and that he should stay that way, at least until there is concrete evidence which verifies the claim that Samuel is actually Saul, and debunks the previous evidence to his existence. 208.58.3.115 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Crapola[edit]

The Wiki article on Samuel is a bunch of liberal higher critical crapola. Why not just tell the story of Samuel as it's recorded in the Bible? If the author was trying to be helpful, any merit from the story is obscured by irrelevant speculation and unnecessary criticism.

Lead section edited[edit]

I removed the word "important" from the lead sentence as the facts speak for themselves. I think the first two sentences should be merged, actually, or otherwise cleaned up a little. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


How old was Samuel?[edit]

1 part of the article implies that Samuel was at the age of maturity when God first spoke to him. However, I have not been able to find out how we know this. In other words, cindication needed. --68.50.57.15 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Genocides[edit]

I think we must not minimize the role that according to the Bible people like Samuel believed to be God's commandament: to exterminate entire populations, even children, for political and religious purposes. For modern standards this is genocide and it shows that the Old Testament is full of unchristian actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.13.247.182 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think we should say in the article; your addition that he is "controversial" for "modern scholars" is odd; I don't know any modern scholars who support genocide, and I'm not sure what controversy you are pointing to. Tb (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the Amalecites genocide. Samuel tells king Saul that God commands him to exterminate all living beings of that tribe. Read the article about that tribe. Sorry, I should have explained myself better previously.81.193.220.166 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Title[edit]

"Samuel" Title for this article would be better,as the person is biblical figure as well as Islamic Prophet. The page 'Samuel' is now redirected to this page, but direct naming of this page as "Samuel' would be more appropriate.As we cannot do this change directly, Administrator may pl.help.--Md iet (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could not revert your move, so I've requested a move at WP:RM. The thing is, a person should be identified with the most common unique designation. Your proposal has two designations - WP:PRECISION notes that we should only be as precise as needful to identify a subject. See also WP:DEFINITE. Samuel (prophet) might have been OK, but you really should have looked for a consensus before you did this move. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
And I note we have something of a precedent with Nathan (prophet). But, unlike Nathan, Samuel is much more than a prophet - he is also a judge, etc. StAnselm (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Moved under WP:SNOW since the last move was to a bad title (no space after the comma). Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)



Samuel (The Prophet,Biblical figure)Samuel (Biblical figure) — The name of this article should go back to what it was. The current title looks suspiciously POV. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support – Should have not been moved in the first place, especially when there wasn't a discussion about the move in the first place. ɠu¹ɖяy¤ • ¢  09:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Hard to see what case could be made for the previous move. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Revert unilateral move. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Abyssal (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The The Prophet thing succeeds in only making the disambiguation needlessly big. Also possibly POV. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strongs' transliteration[edit]

I reverted some edits by an anonymous editor who added Strongs' modern Hebrew transliteration because 1) The modern Hebrew transliteration is already there; 2) there's no good reason for the "w" in Strongs' Shemuwel - it's certainly not the "correct" transliteration. StAnselm (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hebrew letter is in Shemuwel that transliterates it that way. The Strong's reference makes it very clear. It is the same W as found in Yahweh and Yeshuwa that is also transliterated as a V as in YEHOVAH. 99.56.174.63 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a waw there, but that's the long "u" sound: Sh-moo-el. But, as I said, Shmu'el is fine, and that's what's already in the article. StAnselm (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shmu'el omits the e between the h and the m which is a common Jewish practice. Jews generally refuse to put vowels in YHVH and even spell the English word "God" as "G-d". The ambiguity is that the E is left out of SHMUEL when it should be SHEMUEL. Without this E it is impossible to pronounce correctly unless you have been informed first. SHEMUWEL is pronounced the same as the Hebrew name SHEM the son of Noah. And to make it compleate it should have a W as in SHEMUWEL. "UW" is pronouced the same as "OO". By the way waw is a constenant not a vowel. There are no vowels in original written Hebrew. 99.56.174.63 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with vowels in the Divine Name. Rather, the vowel after the "sh" is a shva. StAnselm (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
just an observation, maybe the issue could be solved by placing the phonetic pronunciation in brackets beside the name. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the Strong's spelling with the other spellings at the top so that it does not take up much space and it the logical location anyway. I hope this is acceptable to you "StAnselm". 99.56.174.63 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that staying there. StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks "StAnselm".... I thought you would like that much better because no assertions are made as to any superior spelling. :-) 99.56.174.63 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Samuel is Latin. Could this be Samael a patron of Rome?[edit]

Have you noticed the simularities of the name Samael to Samuel? Since Samuel is not the real pronunciation it is logical to conclude that it also has another meaning other then "Shemuwel" which means "Heard by God". Yes Samuel has the same meaning as Samael which means "Poison of a God". No wonder Sammy Davis Jr felt compelled to join the Church of Satan but before he died denounced them for Jesus (Yeshuwa). Samael is said to be an archangel that is often viewed as being Satan. Something to think about. Better to choose the spelling Shemuwel or Shemuel when naming a son. Also I noticed in the Samuel article that "Samuel" is Latin. Were the Latinese deliberatly trying to honor and worship Samael by changing Shemuwel to Samuel? It would appear so because the Samael article reveals that Samael was a patron of the Roman empire. Interesting. I wonder how many other Biblical names have been this cleverly subverted? 99.56.174.63 (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, your information is off. Sammy Davis Jr. (a Jew, who didn't convert back to Christianity) did not join the (atheistic) Church of Satan, the title of Reverend is something they hand out to people they revere for whatever reason. They could hand it out to Jesus if they wanted. Also, the Hebrew for Samael (סמאל) and Samuel (שְׁמוּאֵל) are different, there is a ו present in Samuel. In Latin, they're still different (U and A are not the same letter). I've only seen English speakers get the two mixed up, for whatever reason. Also, you've got it backwards, some Jews decided that Samael was the patron of Rome, Rome didn't give a rat's patoot about Samael, and they never worshipped Samuel (after becoming Christians, they liked him, but not anymore any Christians of any other race).
Latinese? WTF? Dude, seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about. The Romans spoke Latin (and before them, the Latins), not the "Latinese." Your views of the Romans almost border on superstitious racism. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of the Hebrew spellings of Samael verses Samuel but the way the Hebrew name Shemuwel was "transliterated" by the Latin speaking people of Rome to Samuel which is almost the same as Samael. Obviously because the Jews did say that Samael was the patron of Rome so they must have took it to heart and decided to venerate him instead of choosing a true translieration of Shemuwel. I was being funny when I said Latinese. It is still proper English though. I don't have to speak the Queen's English. As far as Sammy Davis Jr was concerned he said before he died that the only reason he joined the church of Satan was "for the chicks". 99.56.174.63 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Taken from Yahoo Answers: Myth 27 ASL was a close friend of Sammy Davis, Jr. and inducted him into the Church of Satan. Sammy Davis, Jr. was invited to accept an honorary membership in the Church of Satan by Michael Aquino. After Davis sent Aquino his acceptance on March 17, 1973, he was presented with the honorary membership on April 13, 1973 by Aquino and Karla LaVey alone. ASL did not meet Davis until August 1973. Davis would later renounce Satanism, claiming later he was "only into it for the chicks" and re-embraced Judaism. At a nationaly televised event honoring him a few weeks before he died, Davis said "First of all, I want to thank Jesus for letting me be here tonight", completely shattering any doubt he had any lingering affinty to Satanism. Davis had been an activist for civil rights, and battled racism, in contrast to the racists and Neo-nazis that often embrace Satanism. [SOURCES: Davis letter to Aquino 3/17/73; Church of Satan Priesthood Bulletin 4/30/73; Aquino, COS, Chapter 23; Sammy Davis, Hollywood in a Suitcase (pre-publication text, printed in Daily News, New York, 9/11/80), Karla LaVey.]
                    Source(s):          http://usminc.org/satanism.html
There is no evidence of the Romans venerating Samael, you're just making that up to justify paranoid and racist fantasies. In various other instances, the Hebrew Sh became the Latin S, such as did with the names Jesus, Moses, Hosea, Isaac, Solomon... Clearly, it was just a more familiar sound to the Roman tongue. Latin also lacked a W, that was brought into the alphabet by later languages, so they could not have transliterated it as Shemuwel. You are once again showing you don't know anything about the Latin language or the Romans. Only some Jews said that Samael was the patron of Rome. Latinese isn't proper English.
Yahoo Answers is user generated content with no editorial oversight, and no fact checkers. There are also Neo-Nazis and racists that embrace Christianity, and Satanists that reject neo-Nazism, so the contrast at the end doesn't really demonstrate anything. The source given is a personal website meant to push a POV, not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Why would he make it up to "justify paranoid and racist fantasies"? The man who posted this has the name of Samuel. He is looking at this name objectively. "Latinese". Who is to say that this is not "proper English"? Must we all conform to the Queen's English?99.102.65.191 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look over the rest of that editor's contributions, as well as this site about his activities elsewhere, you'll see that that user espouses fringe views and has been hospitalized in the past for various mental disorders. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of minor Biblical figures which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of minor biblical figures which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes and facts[edit]

Infoboxes are for facts. There is no evidence that Samuel ever existed and presenting data in fields for birth and death dates and death place in an infobox misleads readers. This is not OK. This is not what infoboxes are for. Per WP:INFOBOX, they are there: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


This was the convo that I'm referencing:


=== Unsourced Material in Infoboxes, Again ===

As you've been told more than once by myself and User:Doug Weller (see here: [2] and [3]), you shouldn't keep adding unsourced dates to infoboxes about biblical characters, as you recently did to Samuel and Habakkuk. According to WP:INFOBOX all material found in an infobox should be already found in the article. Please refrain from adding unsourced dates in the future. Alephb (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Habakkuk:
"Chaldean rise to power is dated circa 612 BC, it is assumed he was active about that time, making him an early contemporary of Jeremiah and Zephaniah"
"The Book of Habakkuk is the eighth book of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew Bible. It is attributed to the prophet Habakkuk, and was probably composed in the late 7th century BC."
So, that's self explanatory.
Samuel:
"He was thus on the cusp of two eras. According to the text of the Books of Samuel, he also anointed the first two kings of the Kingdom of Israel: Saul (1050 BC) and David. (1010 BC)"
"According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, Samuel was about 11 years old."
"Samuel died and was buried in Ramah. According to classical rabbinical sources, this was at the age of fifty-two."
So, Saul was anointed ~1050 BC according to Albright, and David ~1010 BC. So, uncited? Unsourced? Nope.
BedrockPerson (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Infoboxes are for uncontroversial, simple facts. It is not clear if Samuel even existed, much less when he might have lived. Those dates are not appropriate for an infobox. Likewise traditional burial place. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The claims you're making are not sourced in the articles. When it comes to Habakkuk, if you wish to claim that he died in the 7th century, you need a source that says he died in the seventh century. Saying that he wrote a book around 612 does not prove that he kicked the bucket within the next twelve years. Jacob Neusner, for example, wrote A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai in 1962, but, believe it or not, did not die before 1974. In fact, he made it all the way to 2016.
As for Samuel, try and think about the claim you're making here. You're mixing and matching one detail from the traditional rabbinic chronology -- which would place the accession of king David in the ninth century and give Saul only a two-year reign according to Seder Olam, with a claim from Albright, which would place Saul in the eleventh-century and give him 40 years.
What's worse, the article does not have any citation to Albright, or any citation for the claim that Samuel lived fifty-two years. So you're mixing and matching from uncited sources that contradict each other. If you want to claim dates, you need a cited source that directly supports your claim. None of this WP:OR or WP:RS business will cut it.
The issue is simple. If you want to add dates to infoboxes, find sources, cite those sources in the article, and find sources that directly support your claim, rather than mixing and matching from incompatible timelines to produce your numbers. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. Alephb (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: Fair enough. BedrockPerson (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You are mistaking historical reconstructions with huge error bars as facts; again it is not even clear that Samuel existed much less what he did and stances he took.... much less when he was born and died. You are pushing the work of historians way too hard. Even the most sympathetic scholarly source i have found says: "Because of this idealized portrait (as a prophet), drawn from Israel's later institutions and shaped by Deuteronomistic historians, it is difficult to say much about Samuel historically, especially on key issues of the monarchy: was he for against it? Our sources give both perspectives. But of his importance in the crucial period of the mid-eleventh century BCE there can be no doubt, and he is linked with Moses as one of Israel's preeminent leaders". [1]

References

  1. ^ Coogan, Michael J (1993). "Samuel". In Metzger, Bruce M. The Oxford companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. p. 674. ISBN 0195046455. 

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Right or wrong (leaning towards wrong), articles like Saul, David and Solomon also have dates in their IB:s. Moses doesn´t. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'd go with wrong. There's nothing like a unified agreement on precise dates for those three characters in scholarly sources, nor for Samuel. Alephb (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Samuel's age[edit]

The article suggests that rabbinical sources say Samuel died at age 52. This seems at odds with a comparison of 1 Samuel chapter 8 where Samuel is supposed to be already old prior to Saul's anointing, and 1 Samuel chapters 19-25 wherein Samuel dies late in Saul's reign after David goes into hiding. This would ostensibly give Samuel an age of around 16 years of age when he is 'old' and looking around for a successor (up to a maximum of 29 if we very liberally cram all the events of 1 Samuel chapters 15-24 into 1 year). Is the age of 52 really an accurate mainstream rabbinical tradition? (Of course, we could ignore the tradition that Saul reigned for forty years, and instead go with Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews which states twice that Samuel's life only overlapped 18 years of Saul's 20-year reign, but that still only gets Samuel's age up to 35 when he is 'old' and looking for a successor, and also requires that Saul the 'youth' already has two adult sons when he is anointed.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the citation given only gives the Jerusalem Talmud, not a range of "classical rabbinic sources." So I made the claim more closely match the reference. Now the claim is attributed to the Jerusalem Talmud (which isn't even the main Talmud) rather than to rabbinical stuff in general. Alephb (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This is all made-up stuff. Nobody has any idea how he was when he died; it is not certain that such a person ever lived. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't a statement asserting that he actually lived, but only a statement about what the tradition says. My concern was that the article asserted a tradition that was not only entirely implausible but that also contradicts other elements of the same tradition regarding the characters involved. But deleting the statement altogether probably is the best solution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
If you have some proof that it is all made-up stuff, please post the proof; also the proof that nobody has any idea how he was when he died, also the proof that it is not certain that such a person ever lived. As to the Talmuds, they are way too far removed in time from the Tanach to show a continuous "tradition," though it certainly is interesting to know what they say about Samuel. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC))
You seem confused about the 'burden of proof', which is on those who assert that accounts of Samuel are true, not on those who indicate that there isn't reliable evidence for the positive claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Heman apparently was grandson, not great-grandson of Samuel[edit]

"33 And these are they that waited, and their sons. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel, . . . ." Thus I changed the article to read grandson, instead of great-grandson. I realize that it is possible for names to be omitted in genealogies, but I don't seen any grounds for postulating a missing name here. Or does someone have such evidence? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC))

historicity[edit]

need a section on historicity, extra-biblical evidence, etc. will be adding that this week.... Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates/location[edit]

The dates in the infobox are clarified as traditional, there's no reason to revert them. Even then, they were also proposed by William Albright, as the citations attested, who is usually cited as an authoritative source in datings of biblical events, so I see no reason to remove them solely from the infobox. Also, the Albright citation is backed up by several other scholarly sources, which are cited alongside it, so why remove it? יבריב (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion here. Infoboxes are for facts. We do not know if Samuel existed for sure; if he did we do not know when he was born or died. Yes there is no doubt that there are a lot of refs that provide historical recontructions and dates within those constructions. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)