The Wicked “Sons of Eli” and the Composition of 1 Samuel 1–4

Abstract

Scholars have struggled to reach consensus about the literary relationship between the anti-Elide material in 1 Sam 2–3 and the so-called “Ark Narrative” in 1 Sam 4–6. I propose a new resolution to this problem. I argue that the two named characters, Hophni and Phinehas, have been introduced secondarily to and independently from the unnamed “sons of Eli” and represent a redactional layer that runs through chs. 1–2, and 4. Before the addition of these characters, the “sons of Eli” designated a generic priesthood associated with the character, Eli. The material about this priesthood is comprised of discrete passages that have been appended to Samuel’s birth story and its extension. The anti-Elide material was later connected to 1 Sam 4 through the addition of Hophni and Phinehas, who serve to recast the Elides’ iniquities as the reason for the Israelite defeat and loss of the ark. Scholars have struggled to reach consensus about the literary relationship between the anti-Elide material in 1 Sam 2–3 and the so-called “Ark Narrative” in 1 Sam 4–6. I propose a new resolution to this problem. I argue that the two named characters, Hophni and Phinehas, have been introduced secondarily to and independently from the unnamed “sons of Eli” and represent a redactional layer that runs through chs. 1–2, and 4. Before the addition of these characters, the “sons of Eli” designated a generic priesthood associated with the character, Eli. The material about this priesthood is comprised of discrete passages that have been appended to Samuel’s birth story and its extension. The anti-Elide material was later connected to 1 Sam 4 through the addition of Hophni and Phinehas, who serve to recast the Elides’ iniquities as the reason for the Israelite defeat and loss of the ark.