SAMOTRACIA, MISTERI DI

### SAMOTHRACE, MYSTERIES OF

After those celebrated at Eleusis, the mysteries of Samothrace were among the most famous in the Greek world. Various legends existed regarding their institution and origin, but the one that best reflects historical reality is perhaps that which traced the cult of the "Great Gods" of the Cabeiri back to the region of Mount Ida in Phrygia.

Alongside this miraculous tradition, there was another that sought to derive the mysteries of Samothrace from Thrace. Indeed, with Herodotus (2, 51), we have the first historical accounts of these mysteries, which he attributes to a very ancient era and to a people considered to have preceded the Greeks in Hellenic territory: the Pelasgians. Given the proximity of the region and the affinity of religious manifestations, these are to be recognized—at least in this case—as the Thracian peoples. Herodotus’ account can be compared with that of Diodorus Siculus (5, 47), according to whom, even in his time, many religious ceremonies in Samothrace preserved the characteristic dialect of the indigenous (Pelasgian?) peoples. By the end of the 4th century B.C. and especially during the Hellenistic period, Samothrace became a leading center, rivaling Eleusis: Demetrius Poliorcetes erected the famous statue of Nike in 306; Lysimachus placed the sanctuaries of the island under his protection; Perseus, defeated by the Romans, took refuge on the island, as did Ptolemy Philometor; both bear witness to the great reverence in which the island was held, a true and inviolable place of asylum.

The mysteries of Samothrace also attracted large numbers of Romans, who made it something of a national sanctuary, thanks to the tradition that the Penates of Rome were the same gods of Samothrace, brought from Dardania to Troy by Dardanus, and from there to Rome by Aeneas (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1, 61, 68). Even in the time of Libanius (4th century A.D.), the mysteries of Samothrace were still being celebrated regularly.

---

### SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

For centuries, the people of Israel kept their gaze fixed on the future Messiah; they awaited Him invested with royal power (Gen. 49:8 ff.; Num. 24:17 ff.). Samuel marks another milestone: the awaited One would be a king of the house of David and would have an eternal kingdom (2 Sam. 7). It was therefore necessary to show how the transition had occurred from the period of the judges to royal authority; how the attempt of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, had failed; and how David’s power, despite countless difficulties, became firmly established.

The original Hebrew text of Samuel has suffered as much as that of few other books of the Old Testament; yet the substance remains intact, both in terms of history and doctrine. Textual criticism provides valuable assistance in restoring many of the wounds inflicted by time. The base text is the Masoretic text (Biblia Hebraica by R. Kittel and P. Kahle, Stuttgart 1937). Of primary importance is the Greek Septuagint version from the 2nd century B.C., transmitted in various recensions (commonly read in the edition by A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, Stuttgart 1935); it is generally of extraordinary fidelity, but in comparison with the Masoretic text, it contains both notable lacunae and additions. The most famous lacunae are in 1 Sam. 17–18, where judgment is difficult. Of lesser help are the Aramaic version (Targum of Jonathan, 1st century B.C.), the Syriac (Peshitta, of uncertain date), the Old Latin (2nd century A.D.), and the Vulgate (393 A.D.; critical Benedictine edition of 1944). It should be noted that many sections of Samuel are also found in the Books of Chronicles; this is of great assistance to criticism but also raises numerous problems.

The canonicity of Samuel has never been questioned, neither in Judaism nor in the Church.

The book, while displaying a magnificent unity of design, contains notable inconsistencies. There are many passages where the description is minutely detailed (e.g., 1 Sam. 1; 9–10; 25; 2 Sam. 9–20), though without claiming to be a complete biography; yet there are also many passages of greater historical, political, and social value that are rendered in a highly schematic manner (e.g., 1 Sam. 7:15 ff.; 14:47–52; 2 Sam. 8:1–18, etc.). Many pages are genuine narrative masterpieces; others are dry enumerations. Finally, some episodes are recounted more than once with considerable differences. From this, we may conclude: a) the book is not a single continuous narrative but a compilation from various written and oral sources that pre-existed; b) the compilation was made by a single author with a precise plan; it was not the result of successive layers of documents; c) even if we must sometimes admit to "duplicates," true contradictions perhaps never occur (a separate examination is required for 1 Sam. 17–18, where the textual issue remains unresolved); in general, the same phenomenon is observed as in the various narratives of the Synoptic Gospels; d) most of the material dates back to the time of the events themselves (the judgment is consistent regarding 2 Sam. 9–20).

The author of the entire book is unknown, but he must have lived in the 10th–9th centuries B.C.; the appendix (2 Sam. 21–24) could not have been added after the 8th century, by which time the Book of Psalms already existed, containing 2 Sam. 22. Subsequently, the book underwent some intentional but minor revisions.

In the rationalist camp, there is no shortage of hypotheses, often arbitrary, that yield astonishing and contradictory results due to the extreme subjectivity of the criteria. For example, every attempt to separate the primitive documents (J. Wellhausen, 1871) has thus far failed—a task that, moreover, would not resolve a single difficulty.

For example, the religious and political situation aligns with that described in the Book of Judges; the chronology of the Philistine invasion corresponds to Egyptian data, and their presence in certain locations (Beth-shan; near Jerusalem) has been confirmed by archaeology; the emergence of a strong national monarchy in Israel is historically understandable given the precarious conditions of Assyria and Egypt at the time, as attested by their respective histories. Political institutions (court offices: 2 Sam. 8:16 ff.; 20:23 ff.) and military institutions (the "Thirty": 2 Sam. 23:13–20) are of Egyptian derivation.

The importance of Samuel is immense, both artistically, historically, and religiously. Its artistic value is universally acknowledged, particularly in the portrayal of characters, who are numerous. The narrative is of ever-renewed and varied interest, with gripping exploits (1 Sam. 14), deep emotions, anger and idylls, enthusiasm and discouragement—the whole of life. For the history of the early monarchy and of prophecy, Samuel is irreplaceable; it also enriches our knowledge of customs, mentality, and beliefs. Religiously, the primary interest of Samuel derives from its messianism: literal (2 Sam. 7; 23:1–7; 1 Sam. 2:10) and figurative (David as a type of the suffering and betrayed Christ); yet it abounds with teachings of a moral character, particularly regarding sin and forgiveness.

**

SANABALLAT (cf. Sanballat), in Akkadian Sin-ubalit (“[the god] Sin has given life”). — Governor (pehâh) of Samaria in the time of Artaxerxes I, who, taking advantage of the anarchy in Jerusalem after its fall, held sway in the city along with a certain Tobia.