The First Book of Samuel: A Study in Prophetic History

Contents

Preface

1

The Birth and Dedication of Samuel

(1:1-2:11)

2

The Decline of the House of Eli and the Rise of Samuel

(2:12-4:1)

3

The Philistines Capture the Ark

(4:1-7:2)

4

Samuel Assumes National Leadership

(7:3-8:22)

5

The Selection of Saul as King

(9:1-10:27)

6

Saul Assumes National Leadership

(11:1-12:25)

7

War of Independence Begins

(13:1-14:52)

8

The Amalekite War

(15:1-15:35)

9

The Emergence of David

(16:1-17:58)

10

David and Jonathan

(18:1-21:1)

11

David as Fugitive

(21:2-24:23)

12

David and Abigail

(25:1-43)

13

Saul’s Obsession with David Renewed

(25:44-28:2)

14

The Final Days of Saul

(28:3-31:13)

References

Notes

Preface

The subject of this study is the story of Samuel and Saul and the anything but smooth transition of Israel from a tribal confederacy to a centralized state, as presented in the Masoretic text of the First Book of Samuel. The term story rather than history of the transition is employed to describe the subject because the biblical book is a history only in the very special sense of prophetic history, which bears little relationship to history in the modern sense of the term. The distinguishing feature of prophetic history is that it is history written from a prophetic perspective with a particular purpose in mind, namely, to illustrate to later generations of the children of Israel the historical consequences of failure by its political and religious leaders to observe and comply with the terms of the divine covenant entered into between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai, following the exodus from Egypt.

Understood in this manner, the story related in the First Book of Samuel of the prophet-judge Samuel and Israel’s first king Saul, the rise of David, and the difficult transition from a tribal confederacy to a centralized state, as well as the earlier and later narratives in the other biblical works commonly but misleadingly designated as the historical books of the Bible are based on historical events that clearly were believed to have taken place, as viewed through a prophetic prism. It is noteworthy in this regard that the so-called historical books of the Bible are referred to in Judaic tradition as the books of the early prophets. Accordingly, the primary focus of these prophetic narratives is on the moral implications of the decisions and actions taken by men rather than the factual historical accuracy of the details of the events described.

The focus in this study is primarily on what the authors and editors of the Hebrew text of the First Book of Samuel are purporting to teach us in their own special way. It is only peripherally concerned with many of the issues of primary interest to the modern academic studies of biblical texts such as when the text was finalized and by whom, literary analysis of the language employed, comparative analysis of the text and other ancient literature, and other such topics. All of these issues are of valid intellectual concern but, with some notable exceptions, contribute little to understanding what the authors and editors of the Hebrew text are trying to convey to us, which is, as indicated, the principal concern of this study.

The translation of the Hebrew text employed in this study is with some minor modifications that of the old Jewish Publication Society translation that is itself based on the translation found in the King James version of the Scriptures. Although there are many modern translations available, I have demurred from using them because every translation is also an interpretation and, unfortunately, some translations take a bit too much liberty with the ancient text. I have found the old JPS version, with all its archaisms and other difficulties, many of which will be discussed in the body of this work, to best reflect the language of the Masoretic Hebrew version, making it easier to analyze and hopefully to comprehend the subtleties of the ancient text.

1

The Birth and Dedication of Samuel

 (1:1-2:11)

The story of founding of the Israelite national state begins with an explanation of how circumstances contrived to cause the last of the biblical Judges, the prophet Samuel, to be raised from infancy to maturity at the heart of the only centralized institution, the Tabernacle, to have survived more or less intact the more than two centuries of struggle of the children of Israel to establish themselves in the land divinely promised to them following their exodus from servitude in the land of Egypt. The historical context in which the story unfolds is the period following Samson’s initial engagement in the struggle against the Philistines, already well established in the coastal region of the land, who sought dominion over the land in its entirety. It was during the latter part of this period, at a time when Eli the high priest from the house of Ithamar the son of Aaron also served in the role of judge or magistrate of the people of Israel, that the story of Samuel unfolds.

¹.¹ Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jehoram, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. ¹.² And he had two wives: the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

For Samuel to have been raised in the Tabernacle, it evidently was deemed appropriate if not necessary to establish that he was a Levite by birth and thereby eligible to provide assistance to the priests serving in the sanctuary. In an apparent attempt to begin to do this, the text provides a partial genealogy of his ancestors in the male line going back four generations. However, a full genealogy is provided elsewhere in Scripture that makes it clear that Samuel’s father Elkanah is in the direct line of descent from Kohath, the son of Levi (1 Chron. 6:7-12, 18-23). With regard to the reason why this full genealogy is not given in the present text, it has been suggested that the records available to the biblical writer at the time may only have covered the period of family residency in Ramathaim-zophim that began with Zuph.¹ Although the present text would also appear to assert that Elkanah was an Ephraimite, he indeed was such by place of birth but not by tribal affiliation. In this regard, we are told, the families of the children of Kohath, the Levites . . . had the cities of their lot out of the tribe of Ephraim (Josh. 21:20). The Levites were precluded by their mission from being landowners and were thus settled among the landholding tribes.

There is a good deal of uncertainty about the site of the family home given here as Ramathaim-zophim, a name that appears only in this text, it later being referred to as Ramah, a common biblical name assigned to hilltop towns and villages. Although the precise location of the town is uncertain, it is generally believed to have been in the southern part of the hill country of Ephraim, and not very far north of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the use of the unique designation Ramathaim-zophim raises the need for an explanation, one being that the name literally means ‘two hills facing each other,’ which may be a notable topographical feature of the site.² It has also been suggested that the plural Ramathaim is used to designate Elkanah’s home because he had homes on both of the hilltops that made up the city, each occupied by one of his two wives, an arrangement made to keep them apart and thereby to keep peace in his household.³

Alternatively, the name has been explained as referring to the place popularly known as the hilltop home of ‘prophets,’ the term zopheh understood as referring to a person who is able to foresee. Thus it has been argued that the town of Ramah spoken of here was the ancestral home of the ‘sons of Korah,’ that is, the sons of Moses’ cousin Korah, who rebelled against his authority. The sons of Korah, to whom a number of psalms are attributed, rejected the stance of their father and sided with Moses and were subsequently considered by tradition to have been prophets. According to the extended genealogy cited above, Elkanah was one of their descendents.⁴

It has been observed that the wording of some biblical texts seems to draw a distinction between an ordinary person and one playing an important role in the biblical narrative, as may be seen by the manner in which they are introduced. Thus, in the former case the text would state, there was a man of the hill country of Ephraim (Judg. 17:1), and in the latter case, there was a certain man of Zorah . . . whose name was Manoah (Judg. 13:2), Manoah being the father of Samson. Similarly, our text states, there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, thus putting the reader on notice by the use of the phrase a certain man that this was a man who played an important role in the unfolding story, becoming the father of the prophet-judge Samuel.⁵

The biblical texts also tended to distinguish between the worthy and unworthy among men through the word order in which their names are given. Thus, our text states, his name was Elkanah, the order of the words being a literary device indicating that he was a good man. By contrast, in the case of identifying an unworthy character the order of the wording is the reverse, as may be seen with regard to Nabal, who appears in our text later, where it states, Nabal is his name (1 Sam. 25:25). Similarly in the case of the Philistine champion Goliath we are told Galyat shemo, literally, Goliath is his name (1 Sam. 17:4), a nuance often lost in translations. On the other hand, worthy characters are identified in the same manner as Elkanah. Thus, with regard to the father of Samson it states that his name was Manoah (Judg. 13:2); with regard to the father of David it states, whose name was Jesse (1 Sam. 17:12); with regard to the future husband of Ruth it states, his name was Boaz (Ruth 2:1); and with regard to the cousin who adopted Esther it states, whose name was Mordecai (Esther 2:5).⁶ Thus, without going into an extensive discussion of Samuel’s parents, the text implicitly suggests that Elkanah was a good man and that, of course, his mother Hannah, as will soon become evident, was an outstanding personality in her own right. The point, I would suggest, is to establish that Samuel was the scion of virtuous parents, a heritage that served him well even though they played only a very minor role in his upbringing.

Finally, setting the stage for what was about to occur, the text points out that Elkanah had two wives, Hannah, presumably his first wife who appeared to be barren, and Peninnah, who he probably married subsequently to bear him children. It is noteworthy that the text does not state that Hannah was akarah or barren, but simply that Hannah had no children, the implication being that she was not inherently barren, but rather, as the text later asserts, she had no children because the Lord had shut up her womb (1:6). That is, it was because of divine intervention that she was childless, presumably so that when she did give birth it would be clear that it was part of the divine scheme in which her future son, committed by her to lifelong service to God, would play an important part in the history of Israel.⁷ In this regard it may be observed that the domestic situation of Elkanah is somewhat analogous to that of the patriarch Jacob, who also had two wives, his beloved Rachel, who like Hannah was childless, and Leah, who like Peninnah had numerous children. Rachel ultimately gave birth to Joseph, who played a crucial role in the birth of the nation, and Hannah would ultimately give birth to Samuel, who would play a crucial role in the birth of the Israelite state.

It also was asserted, possibly on the basis of some oral tradition, that it was only after ten years of childless marriage that Elkanah, probably at Hannah’s urging because of her inability to have children, as was the case earlier with Sarah who urged Abraham to marry Hagar for the same reason, took a second wife who gave him a number of sons and daughters. The number of Penninah’s children is unspecified in the text but assumed by some to have been ten sons, given Elkanah’s statement to the childless Hannah, Am I not better to thee than ten sons?’ (1 Sam. 1:8).⁸ If there is any validity to this tradition, the point at which the narrative begins would have to be at least nine years later, to account for the number of Penninah’s pregnancies and births, making Hannah’s span of childlessness at least nineteen years. Hannah’s plight echoes that of the matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, each of which was relieved of childlessness through divine intervention to produce the patriarchs Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, all critical to the formation and survival of Israel. Now Hannah joins their ranks, her son Samuel destined to serve as the architect behind the creation of the first pan-Israelite state.

¹.³ And this man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phineas, were there priests unto the Lord.

Although Elkanah is presumed to have been a good man, there is some question as to whether he was as religiously devout as biblical teaching called for. Thus it was stipulated, Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel (Ex. 34:23), but we are told that Elkanah went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh, which was the site of the central sanctuary in his day. Shiloh, located in the mountains of Ephraim, on the east side of the highway that goeth from Beth-el to Shechem (Judg. 21:19), was chosen by Joshua as the site at which to erect the Tabernacle. It remained, for the most part, the location of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant until the conquest of the city by the Philistines, described later in the text (1 Sam. 4:11). However, it has been pointed out, the sanctuary at Shiloh was not situated in a sufficiently central position for tribes settled at great distances, nor was it in high favor among those living within easier reach. The neighboring tribes were displeased with the arrogance and the egotism of the sons of Ephraim.⁹ This suggests that regular attendance at the sanctuary may have been less than anticipated.

The phrase miyamim yamimah, translated as from year to year, can also be understood as meaning ‘from one set of days to another,’ that is from one festival to another, and the classical Aramaic rendition of the text has so construed it.¹⁰ Nonetheless, the phrase miyamim yamimah may reasonably be understood as meaning ‘annually’ because, although the matter of whether Elkanah complied fully with the biblical requirement plays no role in the unfolding narrative, it does raise the question of whether his non-compliance was an anomaly or whether it had become common practice among the faithful because of the practical problems associated with making the demanded pilgrimage three time a year, which seems quite plausible. It also has been suggested that what is being described is a family cultic pilgrimage that took place once a year aside from the three pilgrim festivals, that were biblically obligatory only for adult males.¹¹ In either case, consistently making even just an annual pilgrimage to the central sanctuary bespeaks a significant religious commitment.¹²

It also has been argued that by stating this man went up out of his city, the text is pointing out that it was this man alone and no other from his city that made the annual pilgrimage with his entire family, presumably so that they would all experience the spirituality of the sacrificial rite, which went beyond the more limited requirement that all thy males appear before the Lord God, a further indication of Elkanah’s exceptional qualities.¹³ As to why his annual pilgrimage would in any case be considered exceptional, the text notes that at the time Eli, the high priest, who was also effectively the leader of the people to the extent that he was acknowledged as such after the death of Samson, apparently was no longer actively officiating at the Tabernacle owing to his advanced age, his two sons officiating in his stead. The implication of their being mentioned here by name, it was suggested, is that the corrupt practices of these sons, described in some detail below, may have been a principal cause of the serious decline in participation by the other residents of Elkanah’s city in the pilgrimage to Shiloh. By contrast, Elkanah not only went there himself but also took his entire family with him.¹⁴

It is noteworthy that in this text we find the first appearance in Scripture of the title Lord of hosts (Tzevaot),¹⁵ the precise meaning of which is a matter of continuing dispute, some taking it as referring to the hosts of heaven, that is, the stars and the angels, and others in a more prosaic sense as the God of the armies of Israel (1 Sam. 17:45).¹⁶ In this regard, it is suggested that the name may reflect an ancient cultic epithet of the high god El in his aspects as warrior and creator.¹⁷ It is also of interest to note that the text appears to draw a distinction between to worship and to sacrifice, whereas a common understanding is that sacrifice is itself an act of worship. Indeed, some rabbis inferred from the order of the wording in this text that, in the biblical view, worship clearly takes priority over sacrifice, the term translated as ‘worship’ being lehishtahavot, meaning ‘to prostrate oneself,’ that is to physically affirm one’s absolute submission to the will of God.¹⁸ Worship is thus considered an intensely and entirely personal act, demanding an inner commitment, whereas offering a sacrifice is an essentially impersonal ritual act carried out in conjunction with an officiating priest.

¹.⁴ And it came to pass upon a day, when Elkanah sacrificed, that he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions; ¹.⁵ but unto Hannah he gave a double portion; for he loved Hannah, but the Lord had shut up her womb. ¹.⁶ And her rival vexed her sore, to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb. ¹.⁷ And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of the Lord, so she vexed her; therefore she wept, and would not eat. ¹.⁸ And Elkanah her husband said unto her: ‘Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? And why is thy heart grieved? Am not I better to thee than ten sons?

It is clear from the text that at this annual pilgrimage Elkanah provided for the sacrifice of a thanksgiving offering from which certain parts of the animal were given to the priests as their due, some parts completely immolated on the altar, with the remainder being consumed by the offerer and his guests at a sacramental meal (Lev. 7:11-15).

The text then depicts an unwholesome and probably dysfunctional family situation. Elkanah clearly loved Hannah, who was unable to bear children, and therefore presumably took a second wife, Peninnah, for this purpose, while remaining devoted to his first wife. As suggested above, this aspect of the story is a virtual parallel to that of the patriarch Jacob and his wives Rachel, his beloved, and Leah, who bore him many children, the resulting rivalries between the siblings of both still reverberating in the inter-tribal rivalries that prevailed in the days of Elkanah and long afterward.

It seems reasonable to assume that Peninnah clearly resented the affection that Elkanah showed for childless Hannah, and that the lack of warmth between the two women kept them apart as much as possible. However, the occasion of the annual pilgrimage to Shiloh, at which time Elkanah brought his entire family with him, the women could not avoid coming in contact with one another. Elkanah poured fuel on the flames of their discontent by being extra-solicitous of Hannah, giving her a double portion; for he loved Hannah, notwithstanding her failure to bear children, thereby infuriating Penninah who used the annual occasion to ridicule her rival and to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb. It should be noted that the meaning of the Hebrew phrase manah ahat apayim, translated as a double portion, has been the subject of a good deal of controversy, which I will not discuss here because it has little relevance to the substance of the narrative. Regardless of the actual meaning of the phrase, it is clear that the barbs hurled at her by her rival struck deep and caused Hannah great distress. The annual pilgrimage, which was supposed to be an occasion of family joy, was quite the opposite for Hannah because when she went up to the house of the Lord, that is, to the Tabernacle, so she vexed her.

The wording of the text suggests that Hannah tolerated the verbal abuse from Penninah year after year until it came to pass upon a day that Hannah could bear it no longer and therefore she wept, and would not eat,¹⁹ an act that upset the feigned harmony of the occasion, an act that deeply disturbed Elkanah because of his love for Hannah, a point the text implicitly affirms by referring to him as Hannah’s husband, using the Hebrew term ish instead of baal, the latter referring to mastery or lordship, whereas the former term implies love and attachment.²⁰ Well aware of what was troubling her, he sought to placate Hannah by emphasizing his enduring love for her, regardless of her inability to have children, saying, Am not I better to thee than ten sons? The double-edged poignancy of these words is that they at once express Elkanah’s deep and solicitous love for Hannah and his inability to understand how inconsolable she feels about her affliction of barrenness.²¹ He thus urged her to take part in the joy of the occasion, but he evidently failed to be persuasive; he could not dispel the bitterness of her existential situation. Moreover, Elkanah does not tell his beloved wife that he has unsuccessfully prayed for her to conceive, it evidently not being important to him since he has many children from Peninnah. In effect, his implicit indifference with regard to her having children of her own may have been what spurred her to take such an initiative herself at the sanctuary,²² evidently not having done so previously, perhaps because there was no biblical tradition of women publicly praying to God, although it seems likely that Hannah did so privately throughout the years.

¹.⁹ So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk—now Eli the priest sat upon his seat by the doorpost of the temple of the Lord; ¹.¹⁰ and she was in bitterness of soul—and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore. ¹.¹¹ And she vowed a vow, and said: ‘O Lord of hosts, if Thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of Thy handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Thy handmaid, but wilt give unto Thy handmaid a man-child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.’

On this occasion, after Elkanah’s attempt at conciliation failed, indeed it may have even worsened the situation by inadvertently and insensitively emphasizing his consciousness of her inability to have children, Hannah experienced an especially poignant bitterness of soul. Refusing to accept her situation with equanimity, despite the love shown her by her husband, she, perhaps for the first time, undertook to make a direct heartbroken plea to God for assistance and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore. Although we are not told what she actually said in her prayer, it was suggested, Said Hannah before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, of all the hosts and hosts that Thou hast created in Thy world, is it so hard in Thy eyes to give me one son?²³ In her desperation, she made a solemn vow to God that, if He granted her a man-child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. This is the first instance in the biblical writings where a prayer is intermingled with a vow.²⁴

Hannah’s vow was extraordinary in the sense that she had always wanted to give her husband a child to nurture, but this was not the point of the vow since its fulfillment would not accomplish that end because the vow stipulated that the child would be given away. It would thus appear that the issue was no longer the rivalry with Penninah but rather a contention between Hannah and God, in which her husband only played a peripheral part. If God would grant her the opportunity to fulfill her maternal role, she would gladly give up the child to the service of the Lord all the days of his life. In this regard it should be noted that, as a Levite, her son would in any case be committed to the service of God, but only from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the service in the work of the tent of meeting; and from the age of fifty years they shall return from the service of the work, and shall serve no more; but shall minister with their brethren in the tent of meeting (Num. 8:24-26). Hannah vows to commit her prospective son to divine service for all the days of his life, notwithstanding the inconsistency of the terms of such a vow with the biblical regulation.

She even went a step farther and vowed that there shall no razor come upon his head, that is, she would commit herself to assuring that her son would undertake the vow of a Nazirite that, presumably in addition to the other biblically stipulated restrictions applicable to the Nazirite,²⁵ all the days of his vow of Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled, in which he consecrateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of his head grow long (Num. 6:5). Nonetheless, it has also been argued that Hannah intended to limit her commitment regarding Samuel becoming a Nazirite to not cutting his hair, and not to the other biblical requirements applicable to the Nazirite, as evidenced by the specificity of her vow in this regard.²⁶ In other words, she wanted Samuel to devote his life to the service of God, but not to the extent of becoming an ascetic divorced from the world.²⁷ Although we are told nothing further about Samuel as a Nazirite, the fact that he eventually married and had children of his own suggests strongly that if he remained a Nazirite in later life it could only have been in a rather limited manner, perhaps only with respect to not cutting his hair.

It was observed with regard to the special emphasis given to the matter of his hair: The hair was regarded as the symbol of the vital power at its full natural development; and the free growth of the hair on the head of the Nazirite represented the dedication of the man with all his strength and powers to the service of God.²⁸ The problem, of course, is that the Nazirite vow could only be undertaken by the maker of the vow, and not by a third party committing another to become a Nazirite, which makes this sincere vow by Hannah invalid from the outset. As the text makes clear, When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the Lord (Num. 6:2); it clearly specifies consecrate himself, and not someone else. It is noteworthy that the sages subsequently ruled that a man might impose a Nazirite vow upon his minor son, but not his daughter, that could remain in effect until he reached the age of majority. However, they specifically precluded a woman from so doing, offering no rationale for the restriction other than it was so proscribed by tradition.²⁹

It is tempting to suggest that Hannah may have wished, in some inexplicable manner, to replicate the experience of the mother of Samson who also was barren, but who nonetheless was told by an angel, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines (Judg. 13:5). The Philistines were still pressing upon the Israelites and perhaps Hannah’s son, if she were to be permitted to give birth to one, might succeed in achieving that which Samson failed to accomplish.

The text also provides two items of information that are important to what follows. First we are told that Eli the priest sat upon his seat by the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. That is, the aging high priest Eli was seated near the entrance to the Tabernacle and was thus in a position to observe Hannah offering her prayer nearby since she would not have been allowed to enter the sanctuary itself. Second, we are told that her prayer was offered after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. That is, she prayed after they, but not she, had concluded the sacramental meal and had imbibed wine, the smell of which might still have emanated from her clothing or hair, even though she did not drink any wine, and might possibly have been detectable by Eli, perhaps helping to account for his misjudgment of her sobriety. In this regard, it should come as no surprise that among those who would come to the sanctuary on pilgrimage would be some that might drink more than they should. The biblical rule concerning those who come to bring the yearly tithe, which was often done in conjunction with one of the pilgrim festivals, is that those that are unable to bring the actual increase of the land may exchange it for money, and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink . . . and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household (Deut. 14:26). Some undoubtedly may have rejoiced a bit too much.

¹.¹² And it came to pass, as she prayed long before the Lord, that Eli watched her mouth. ¹.¹³ Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard; therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. ¹.¹⁴ And Eli said unto her: ‘How long wilt thou be drunken? Put away thy wine from thee.’ ¹.¹⁵ And Hannah answered and said: ‘No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before the Lord. ¹.¹⁶ Count not thy handmaid (amah) for a wicked woman: for out of the abundance of my complaint and my vexation have I spoken hitherto.’ ¹.¹⁷ Then Eli answered and said: ‘Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant thy petition that thou hast asked of Him.’ ¹.¹⁸ And she said: ‘Let thy servant (shifhah) find favor in thy sight.’ So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.

Curious about the woman who appeared transfixed before the sanctuary, Eli observed her intently as she appeared to be praying, but she spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. Noticing that her lips were moving but emitted no sound, Eli suspected that she was inebriated and speaking to herself. The implication that may be drawn from this is that at the time prayer was normally expressed vocally, uttering a silent prayer being an innovation in worship introduced by Hannah.³⁰ Eli confronted her and accused her of public drunkenness, a charge she vehemently denied, explaining her demeanor as a reflection of her sorrow and anguish. Perceiving that he had misjudged her, Eli then blessed her, expressing his wish that her plea to God be granted, an expression that gave her a sense of relief and renewed hope, enabling her to return to her husband and finally to take some nourishment.

It has been suggested that this text may be better understood when considered in a broader context. It has already been established that Elkanah made the annual pilgrimage with his entire family, a move that went beyond the biblical requirement, and that it seems reasonable to assume that Eli took notice of the fact and may have even harbored some satisfaction as well as fondness for the family, seeing them appear at the sanctuary year after year. Although it was traditional for women to appear at the sanctuary alone on certain occasions, such as after giving birth, it also seems reasonable to assume that this was the first time that Hannah stood at the entrance to the sanctuary not bringing an offering but simply praying. Moreover, she seemed to be mumbling to herself, suggesting that she may have been intoxicated and thereby arousing the concern of Eli that whatever troubled her had reached the point where it drove her to drink. It was therefore in this context that Eli, who had never witnessed such behavior from her previously and was concerned for her welfare, reprimanded her, How long wilt thou be drunken? That is, he was not suggesting that she had been drunk before but rather that getting drunk would not solve whatever problem troubled her, and he therefore admonished her, Put away thy wine from thee, for it will not help but harm her.³¹ Taken aback by Eli’s misperception of what she was doing, she immediately responded in a manner that made it evident that he was mistaken, and Eli promptly acknowledged that the heartfelt piety of her prayer merited a favorable divine response, even though there is no indication that he had any notion of what she was praying for or about.

This passage has had a great deal of influence on the modes of Judaic worship as well as basic principles of Judaic ethics that evolved since antiquity. The statement that she spoke in her heart has been understood as asserting that true prayer must come from the heart. That in praying, only her lips moved, has been understood as indicating that the words of prayer must be clearly articulated, but her voice could not be heard forms the basis for the main group of daily prayers in Judaism being offered as a silent devotion. That Eli thought she had been drunken has been taken as an assertion that one is prohibited from reciting the silent devotion when inebriated. Moreover, Eli’s challenge, How long wilt thou be drunken? Put away thy wine from thee has been understood as exemplifying the principle that one who sees in his neighbor something unseemly must reprove him. But, when Eli perceived that he had been mistaken, he said Go in peace. "From this we learn that one who suspects his neighbor of a fault which he has not committed must beg his pardon; nay more, he must bless him, as it says, and the God of Israel grant thy petition."³²

It is noteworthy that in her remarks to Eli, Hannah first refers to herself as an amah or handmaid, and then as a shifhah or female servant. Why the change in self-description? It has been pointed out that shifhah is a term of opprobrium, whereas amah is considered a more positive designation for a servant.³³ In this regard, the term shifhah is generally used in the Torah to refer to a non-Israelite female servant or slave, whereas a female Israelite indentured servant is always referred to as an amah or maidservant. In the present text it would seem that Hannah first referred to herself appropriately as an amah, as courtesy required. However, it would appear that after Eli gave her his blessing she evidently felt it appropriate to denigrate herself further by referring to herself as a shifhah, indicating her deep appreciation for the consideration that Eli showed her. Alternatively, and perhaps more plausibly, it has been asserted that Hannah’s plea, Let thy servant (shifhah) find favor in thy sight, was directed to God rather than to Eli.³⁴ It was God’s favor that she sought in her prayers, not that of Eli who did not know what she was praying for, and before God it was appropriate to refer to oneself more disparagingly than before a mere mortal.

¹.¹⁹ And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah; and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her. ¹.²⁰ And it came to pass, when the time was come about, that Hannah conceived, and bore a son; and she called his name Samuel: ‘because I have asked him of the Lord.’

Although not mentioned in the text, it seems clear that Hannah recounted to her husband all that occurred in her interaction with Eli at the entrance to the temple of the Lord. Concluding their pilgrimage to the sanctuary at Shiloh, they arose early the following morning, worshipped before the Lord, presumably reciting some set prayers the content of which we have no certain knowledge, and then returned to their home in Ramah. Perhaps inspired by Eli’s blessing, Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her, the latter statement an evident response to her earlier prayer, remember me, and not forget Thy handmaid, but wilt give unto Thy handmaid a man-child.

The construction of the next verse in this passage is awkward because the opening statements And it came to pass, when the time was come about seems to relate more to the following passage than to Hannah’s pregnancy and the birth of a son. Accepting this to be the case, the statement regarding the conception and birth of Samuel would be a parenthetical note.³⁵ That is, the text might be read as saying, And it came to pass, when the time was come about for the annual pilgrimage to Shiloh, it was already after Hannah conceived, and bore a son; and she called his name Samuel: ‘because I have asked him of the Lord.’ It is noteworthy that the connection between the name and the request is not at all self-evident and the numerous attempts to find a plausible correlation have not been persuasive. One such dubious effort argues, "The derivation of the name is by way of assonance rather than of etymology, as if Shemuel were a contraction of sha’ul me’el (asked of God)."³⁶ Alternatively, it has been suggested that Shemuel is a composite of shem and el or ‘Name of God,’ although some assert that such a construction does not register well as a personal name.³⁷

¹.²¹ And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. ¹.²² But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband: ‘Until the child be weaned, when I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide forever.’ ¹.²³ And Elkanah her husband said unto her: ‘Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the Lord establish His word.’ So the woman tarried and gave her son suck, until she weaned him.

As was his usual practice, when the time was come about for the annual pilgrimage to Shiloh, Elkanah took all his house . . . to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. The latter vow, presumably of an offering to be brought to the sanctuary, probably refers to one that Elkanah took on the occasion of the birth of Samuel.³⁸ However, Hannah demurred from joining the pilgrimage this time, preferring to remain at home until the child be weaned. Mindful of her own vow, she told Elkanah, once the child was weaned I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide forever. In antiquity, weaning generally took between two to three years, and it would appear that Hannah wanted to spend every waking moment with her child, not exposing him to the rigors of travel, until that fateful day arrived. Evidently sympathetic to her concerns and wishes, Elkanah told her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him, ending with the curious statement, only the Lord establish His word, the meaning of which is unclear and has long been the subject of speculation. One suggestion is that what Elkanah meant was that with God’s help the child would survive to fulfill her pledge of lifelong service.³⁹ But perhaps most problematic and difficult to comprehend is Hannah’s pledge that Samuel would serve God for the rest of his life, something that she could not possibly obligate him to do once he reached maturity. Moreover, even during her son’s infancy she could not make such a vow without the consent of Elkanah, who was the child’s father, notwithstanding that it now appeared that he would assent to it. Accordingly, what Elkanah may be understood as saying to her was that, speaking realistically, her pledge would be fulfilled only if God so wished and therefore imbued Samuel with the desire to devote his life to such full-time service, because once the child reaches the age of maturity he would be free to choose his own course in life.⁴⁰ In this regard, Elkanah may have been concerned about the possible consequences for Samuel if he did not choose to fulfill her vow, concerning which he had no voice whatever.⁴¹

¹.²⁴ And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of meal, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh; and the child was young. ¹.²⁵ And when the bullock was slain, the child was brought to Eli. ¹.²⁶ And she said: ‘Oh, my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the Lord. ¹.²⁷ For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath granted me my petition which I asked of Him; ¹.²⁸ therefore I also have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he is lent to the Lord.’ And he worshipped the Lord there.

When the child was weaned, Hannah felt obligated to fulfill her vow and she took him to Shiloh unto the house of the Lord, to place him in Eli’s charge. Enigmatically, the text states that the child was young, thus evading the actual specification of his age which, if he was in fact delivered to Eli immediately following the completion of his weaning, would make him between two and three years old, a matter of no obvious importance. However, it has been argued the Hebrew phrase vehanaar naar does not mean the child was young, as the translation suggests, a rendition that makes little sense, but rather that the word naar should be understood in the sense that it is employed by the prophet in the statement, ki neor mimeon kodsho, or, for He is aroused out of His holy habitation (Zech. 2:17). That is, vehanaar naar should be understood as saying that the child was already displaying signs of intellectual arousal from infancy; in other words, it was already evident that the child was a prodigy.⁴²

Hannah also brought with her, presumably accompanied by her husband, three bullocks, and one ephah of meal, and a bottle of wine. The purpose of these items is left unstated, although it seems clear that at least one of the bullocks was to be offered as a sacrifice because we are told that when the bullock was slain, the child was brought to Eli. It is noteworthy that the phrase vayishhatu et hapar, translated as when the bullock was slain, would better be rendered as when the bullock was slaughtered, the verb used in connection with the slaying of an animal for an offering on the altar. Presumably, the bullock was being sacrificed either as a thanksgiving offering or in fulfillment of a vow in connection with the dedication of Samuel. It may therefore be assumed that the other two bullocks, the meal, and the wine were intended as a gift to Eli, who would in effect become the foster parent of the child. Alternatively, it is possible that all three animals were sacrificed as thanksgiving offerings for Hannah, Elkanah, and Samuel.⁴³

In presenting Samuel to Eli, Hannah recalled to him that she was the woman who pledged, should she be granted the child she prayed for, to lend him to God for as long as he lived, and that she was now fulfilling that pledge: therefore I also have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he is lent to the Lord. It has been suggested that the significance of Hannah’s specification that her child is lent to the Lord is that it was in effect a caution to Eli that he was not free to do as pleased with the child because it is God, the recipient of the loan, that is responsible for the well being of that entrusted to His care for as long as He has use for him.⁴⁴ In other words, Hannah could not accept the idea that the fulfillment of her vow was equivalent to giving her child away to be adopted by Eli. She chose to conceive of it only as a long-term loan to God, with Eli serving as his caretaker. Conspicuous by its absence in the narrative is any mention by Hannah to Eli regarding the matter of her vow that Samuel would be a Nazirite, something that Eli surely should have been told if he were to raise the child as such correctly. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that Hannah may have had a change of heart, recognizing that her vow was made while in a state of desperation rather than as the conclusion of carefully considered deliberation. Indeed, there is nothing in the later texts to suggest that Samuel was in fact a Nazirite.⁴⁵

A critical question that this story evokes is why Eli, already an old man, would undertake the responsibility of raising and caring for Hannah’s child for an indeterminate period. In explanation of this seemingly odd decision on his part, it has been suggested, "In character, Eli was a man of compassion. When Hannah shared her burden for a son with