Samuelʼs Birth Legend and the Sanctuary of Shiloh, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 43/1, 51-61

JOURNAL OF NORTHWEST SEMITIC LANGUAGES VOLUME 43/1 2017 EDITORS: J COOK I CORNELIUS G R KOTZÉ C H J VAN DER MERWE VOLUME EDITOR: I CORNELIUS at Stellenbosch University South Africa Editorial Board: Jan Joosten (Oxford), Meir Malul (Haifa), Cynthia Miller-Naudé (Bloemfontein), Jacobus Naudé (Bloemfontein), Herbert Niehr (Tübingen), Hermann-Josef Stipp (München), Ernst Wendland (Lusaka), Arie van der Kooij (Leiden) Department of Ancient Studies Stellenbosch University The Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages (ISSN 0259-0131) is published half-yearly JNSL is an accredited South African journal. It publishes peer reviewed research articles on the Ancient Near East. As part of the peer review policy all contributions are refereed before publication by scholars who are recognised as experts in the particular field of study. Contributions and books for review should be sent to The Editor: JNSL Department of Ancient Studies Stellenbosch University Private Bag X1, Matieland, ZA-7602 SOUTH AFRICA e-mail: ancient7@sun.ac.za Subscriptions should be sent to the same address but marked as Subscription: JNSL Copyright Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, SOUTH AFRICA House rules Articles submitted for publication must be according to the house rules on the homepage JNSL homepage (house rules, contents, subscription) http://academic.sun.ac.za/jnsl/ TO ORDER: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Per Invoice $ 70.00 Send an e-mail to Ms L C Swanepoel (ancient7@sun.ac.za) € 55.00 Booksellers - 30% For further subscription information: e-mail Ms L C Swanepoel (ancient7@sun.ac.za) Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 43/1 (2017), pp. 51-61 Nadav Na’aman (Tel Aviv University) SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND AND THE SANCTUARY OF SHILOH ABSTRACT Since the early 19th century, scholars have debated the implication of the seven references to the root ‫ שאל‬in Samuelʼs birth legend (1 Sam 1). Some interpreted the root as a literary allusion to King Saul, the original hero of the story, whereas others understood it as an imprecise etymology of the name Samuel, the hero of the story in its present form. In this article, I suggest that the root ‫ שאל‬is a name etymology of Shiloh, the place where the narrative took place and whose name means “(place of) oracular inquiry”. The author implanted the root into his story so as to fasten the connection between the plot and the sacred site in which it takes place. 1. INTRODUCTION The root ‫ שאל‬appears seven times in the birth legend of Samuel (1 Sam 1), always in reference to the young hero of the story. Eli addressed Hannah with the encouraging words, “Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your request which you have asked to him (‫( ”) ֶאת ֵשׁ ָל ֵתְך ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׁ ַא ְל ְתּ ֵמ ִעמּוֹ‬v. 17). Hannah called her son ‫שמואל‬, “for I have asked him (‫)שׁ ִא ְל ִתּיו‬ ְ of YHWH” (v. 20). When Hannah returned with her young son to the temple, she solemnly declared (vv. 27-28a), “For this child I prayed; and YHWH has granted me my request which I have asked of him ( ‫ת־שׁ ֵא ָל ִתי ֲא ֶשׁר ָשׁ ַא ְל ִתּי‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ֵ Therefore, I have lent/dedicated him (‫)ה ְשׁ ִא ְל ִתּהוּ‬ ‫)מ ִעמּוֹ‬. ִ to YHWH. For as long as he lives, he is lent/dedicated (‫)שׁאוּל‬ָ to YHWH”. The repetition of the root ‫ שאל‬in association with Samuel is puzzling. Although the name ‫ שמואל‬includes the rootʼs three letters, his nameʼs etymology (“name/scion of El”) does not fit the above root. Rather, it fits the name ‫שאול‬, but the latter does not belong to the story. The discord between the hero’s name and the name etymology raised a hot debate among scholars. Some suggested that the seven references to the root ‫שאל‬ comprise imprecise etymologies of the name Samuel, and others hypothesized that the story originally referred to Saul but was later reworked, so that Samuel replaced the original hero. In what follows, I first present the scholarly debate over the original hero of the birth legend and then suggest my own solution to the problem.     52 NADAV NA’AMAN  2. HISTORY OF THE RESEARCH Jastrow (1900:63-64) was the first scholar to mention the hypothesis that the story of Samuelʼs birth (1 Sam 1) was originally told of Saul. According to Jastrow, this suggestion was made by Bernstein, who observed the frequent use of the root ‫ שאל‬in the birth story and posited that it fits the name of Saul, not that of Samuel. Jastrow dismissed the hypothesis by emphasizing that the history of Saul as related in 1 Sam 9-14 is alien to Samuelʼs birth story, and concluded that “the proof brought by Bernstein will not stand the test of criticism”. Unfortunately, Jastrow failed to reference the journal/book in which Bernsteinʼs article was published, so the latter’s claims cannot be examined directly. Budde (1902:10) dismissed the hypothesis that the story referred originally to Saul and was transferred later to Samuel (“unmöglich ist Bernsteinʼs Annahme, dass die Geschichte aus der Sauls hierher verschlagen oder versetzt sei”). Driver (1913:16) examined the frequent mention of the root ‫ שאל‬in the birth story and suggested that “[w]hat the writer means to express must be (as often in the OT) an assonance, not an etymology, i.e., the name ‫ שמואל‬recalled to his mind the word ‫ שאול‬asked, though in no sense derived from it”. The seven occurrences of the root ‫ שאל‬in the Samuel birth legend and the fact that the root provides a better etymological basis for Saulʼs name than for that of Samuel serve as the point of departure for all scholars who analyzed the birth legend. Thus, Hempel (1930:91) observed that the motif of a Nazirite, known from the Samson story, also appears in the birth legend of Samuel; but the fulfilment of the divine promise to Hannah refers to Saul rather than to Samuel. Lods (1932:411) suggested that the frequent use of the root ‫שאל‬, in particular in v. 28a (‫)הוא שאול ליהוה‬, indicates that the “primitive” text referred to Saul. The work of Hylander (1932:11-39) marked the first effort to establish a detailed hypothesis of the assumed original birth legend of Saul. On the basis of the Samson story, Hylander reconstructed the putative original legend (1932:30-35), suggesting that it later developed into two independent birth stories – that of Samson (Judg 13) and that of Samuel (1 Sam 1-2). Thirty-seven years later, Dus (1969:163-194) presented a complete tradition-historical reconstruction of the development of 1 Sam 1 from the original legend of Saulʼs birth to the present story of Samuelʼs birth. Since all elements in Hylanderʼs and Dusʼ textual reconstructions are extremely speculative, I agree with Willis (1972:38) that their views, SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND 53  [R]eflect such ingenuity in reconstructing the original story lying behind the birth legend of Samuel that if these scholars had not “discovered” this story (and note that their two analyses are widely disparate), it is most unlikely that it would ever have been. The main characters are not the same sorts of people in the “original story” and in the “final form”. Indeed, the two scholars’ textual reconstructions are so subjective that no scholar ever followed in their footsteps and suggested a similar detailed reconstruction of the putative original story. Blenkinsopp (1975:92-93) posited that underlying the story of Samuelʼs birth and early career (1 Sam 1-2) is an early story about the consecration of Saul as a Nazirite. The motif of the Nazirite is inconsistent with the story of Samuel as a sanctuary attendant (1 Sam 1:22; 2:18-19; 3:1), but corresponds with the careers of both Samson and Saul, who moved to deliver Israel by the spirit of YHWH. Like Blenkinsopp, McCarter (1980:62-63, 65-66) claimed Samuelʼs birth legend corresponds with that of Samson in Judg 13. The assumed correspondence gave rise to the hypothesis that, originally, the former also introduced the figure of a hero. McCarter further suggested that the element of a Nazirite is common to the histories of Samuel and Samson (an argument that Hylander and Dus already suggested).1 Since Samson was a warrior and a Nazirite, Samuelʼs birth legend must originally have described the figure of a hero and a Nazirite, which fits Saul, not Samuel. This early story was later reworked and transferred to Samuel, but some elements of it remained in the story in its final form. Gordon (1994:264-266) criticized McCarterʼs literary reconstruction (and, by inference, that of Blenkinsopp) – in particular the assumed common role of the Nazirite motif in the stories of Samson and Samuel. Whereas the motif is central to the story of Samson, it plays no role in the history of Saul. Thus, its attribution to Saul on the basis of the Samson legend is arbitrary. The genealogies of Samuel (1 Sam 1:1) and Saul (9:1) are wholly different; moreover, Saul is nowhere connected to the city of Shiloh and its sanctuary. In this light, Gordon (1994:266) concluded that “[t]here is thus no reason to dispossess Samuel of the narrative of dedication as it now stands in 1 Samuel 1”. The new element in Schleyʼs discussion (1989:152-157, 233-234) is his emphasis on Saulʼs origin from Shiloh and the latterʼs connection to Eli and                                                         1 For a dismissal of the idea that Samuel was a Nazirite, see Tsevat (1992). 54 NADAV NA’AMAN  the sanctuary of Shiloh. Schley suggested that both the reference to Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Sam 14:3) and the inclusion of a Shilonite priest and the ark in Saulʼs camp (14:18) indicate that originally, Saul was connected to Shiloh. Afterwards, a late pro-Davidic author reworked Saulʼs birth legend, introducing Samuel to the story and disconnecting Saul from Shiloh and the Shilonite priests. Gordon (1994:266-269) criticized Schleyʼs literary and historical reconstructions and argued that Saul has no place in the original story of 1 Sam 1-2 and that the birth legend binds Samuel to the cult-centre of Shiloh. The excavations of Tel Shiloh introduced a sense of reality to the literary and theological discussions of 1 Sam 1. Finkelstein, who excavated the site, demonstrated that the early Iron Age city of Shiloh (Stratum V) was destroyed in the mid-11th century, so that at the time of Saul, about half century later, Shiloh was lying in ruins.2 Thus, the absence of Shiloh from the biblical accounts of the establishment of the monarchy fits well the concrete situation on the ground. White (2000:287-288; 2006:120-128) also analysed the seven references to the root ‫ שאל‬and suggested that, originally, the birth legend was about Saul and was adapted to Samuel by a late author. She further observed that the Nazirite dedication from the moment of birth and the rushing of the YHWH spirit are common elements to Samson and Saul. The new element in her study is the emphasis on the roots ‫ שאל‬and ‫נתן‬, each repeated seven times in the story, which she considered to be keywords in the birth legend. White suggested that the former root alludes to Saul and the latter to Jonathan, his son. Hence, she concluded that “Samuelʼs birth narrative does not merely allude to Saul and Jonathan; it is actually all about Saul and Jonathan, with the concluding keyword [v. 28a] stress on Saul” (White 2006:126). In this light, she posited that Saulʼs original birth narrative (1 Sam 1) was the first in a series of seven scenes, which built the apologetic history of Saulʼs kingship (White 2000:288-292; 2001; 2006:126-136). Yet, White did not address some major problems that confront her thesis. These include Saulʼs Benjaminite origin and the fact that he is never associated with the Ephraimite city of Shiloh and its priests; in addition – contrary to the figure of Samuel – Saul never appears as a priest. Moreover, although the root ‫ נתן‬appears seven times in the story (vv. 4, 5, 11 [2x], 16, 17, 27), it never alludes (either directly or indirectly) to the name Jonathan.                                                         2 For the date of Shilohʼs destruction, see Finkelstein, Bunimovitz & Lederman (1993:371-393); Finkelstein (2005); Finkelstein & Piasezky (2006). SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND 55  Thus, Whiteʼs hypothesis that the birth legend originally introduced the history of Saul (1 Sam 1-14) and alludes to Jonathan is not convincing. Milstein (2010:225-257; see Fleming 2012:154-156) suggested that in the framework of a pre-Masoretic literary stage, Saulʼs assumed birth legend in 1 Sam 1 formed a chain that connected the story of Benjaminʼs war with Israel (Judg 20*-21*) to Saulʼs rescue of the inhabitants of Jabesh- gilead (1 Sam 11:1-11). Proceeding from the assumption that 1 Sam 1 was originally the birth legend of Saul, Milstein (2010:235-236) suggested that “if 1 Samuel 1 indeed preserves traces of Saulʼs old birth narrative, it appears that at least in some circles, Saul was thought to be an Ephraimite from Ramah who was connected to the House of Yahweh at Shiloh”. She hypothesized that an early version of Judg 20 and the episode of Benjamin and the daughters of Shiloh (Judg 21:15-24) formed an introduction to the Saul story in 1 Sam 1 and 11:1-11. As noted above, Saul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin; moreover, Shilohʼs destruction antedated his reign by about half a century. Hence, it is highly unlikely that Saul was ever connected to the Ephraimite city of Shiloh. Moreover, Edenburg (2016) recently demonstrated that the story of the Outrage of Gibeah (Judg 19-21) is a late post-exilic work. Thus, Milsteinʼs reconstruction of a hypothetical early Saulide work that includes parts of the Gibeah story (Judg 20-21) and the original Samuelʼs birth legend (1 Sam 1) must be rejected. Many other scholars accepted the idea that the birth legend in 1 Sam 1 originally related the birth of Saul, but avoided suggesting detailed reconstructions of the shift from an original Saulide to a Samuel birth story. Among them are Press (1938:189); Buber (1939:8-9); Seeligmann (1952:199-200; 1961:156); Ackerman (1991:3-4); Brettler (1995:109; 1997:602); Fuhs (2004:261-262); Römer (2005:94); Davies (2007:107- 108); and Lemardelé (2008:48-49; 2012:58-59). Other scholars explicitly dismissed the idea of an original Saulide birth legend and emphasized that Samuelʼs birth legend should be accepted as is. Noth (1963:394) dismissed the replacement hypothesis because Saul was Benjaminite and because his history as related in 1 Sam 9-11 does not correspond with that of a young man raised, and having served, in the temple. Hertzberg (1964:26) also dismissed the above hypothesis, but nevertheless suggested that “such a narrative about the longed-for Saul … was current in the pre-literary period”. Stoebe (1973:98) emphasized the existence of other instances in which the name etymology is imprecise. Saul does not fit the role of a boy dedicated to the temple. The tension between 56 NADAV NA’AMAN  the name and root is explained by the development of the story and the central place of the root ‫ שאל‬in the Saul narrative. Zakovitch (1980:41-42) dismissed the idea that the legend has been transferred from one hero to the other. He explained the seven references to the root ‫ שאל‬by the assumption that precision in name-derivation is a late phenomenon. In his opinion, “[t]he ancients viewed the root ‫ שאל‬as most fitting for the derivation of Samuel, which name containing all three root letters” (1980:42). Tsevat (1987) emphasized that the issue under discussion is presented erroneously, since the author did not intend to name etymology or phonetic proximity, but rather to create association of more or less phonetic accord (as Driver already suggested). Like Zakovitch, Tsevat offered numerous parallels to this kind of imperfect phonetic accord between names and seeming etymologies. He then dismissed the substitution of names theory and concluded (1987:253) thus: Die Annahme einer Unstimmigkeit in (der Namendeutung von) 1 Sam 1,28, welche Unstimmigkeit mit der Theorie der Substitution einer supponierten ursprünglichen Saulerzählung erklärt werden soll, ist falsch; also ist die Theorie falsch. Und selbst wenn die Annahme richtig wäre, ist die Theorie dennoch aufzugeben, denn sie ist an einer Kette fragwürdiger Hypothesen aufgehängt. However, Tsevatʼs suggestion does not explain well the seven-fold repetitions of the root ‫ שאל‬in conjunction with the name ‫שמואל‬. A single or double imprecise name-derivation may be found on occasion, but the inclusion of seven imprecise name-derivations in the framework of a single story is unusual. These inaccurate name-derivations contribute very little to the literary quality, plot or message of the story. So why did the author create so many indistinct phonetic associations to the name ‫ שמואל‬when this feature does not actually fit it and contributes so little to the story he composed? Dietrich (2007:255) also dismissed the substitution theory. He emphasized that the name etymology would have been fully acceptable to the ancient readers/hearers, but admitted the possibility that the original narrator might have intended the reference to the name Saul. Amit (1982) put forward an exceptional theory. On the one hand, she accepted the idea that the root ‫שאל‬, in particular in v. 28a, refers to Saul, but on the other hand, she supported the originality of the figure of Samuel in the narrative. In her opinion, the references to Saul are deliberate and should be considered an editorial technique by which the editor implants SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND 57  literary allusions so as to fasten the connection between the different parts of his composition. Samuel holds a central place in the history of Saul, and since the three root letters ‫ שאל‬in the two names are identical, the editor hinted already in Samuelʼs birth story at the phonetic association between the two names.3 3. SHILOH AS THE PLACE OF ORACULAR INQUIRY The above discussion demonstrated that all efforts to reconstruct an assumed original story of Saulʼs birth have failed. Scholars rightly criticized these textual reconstructions and showed their inadequacy. If the original story of Saulʼs birth was ever written, it is impossible to extract it from Samuelʼs birth story in its present form. Yet, the seven-fold appearance of the root ‫שאל‬, which contribute so little to the fashioning of Samuelʼs figure or the derivation of his name, also remain unexplained. Similar imprecise derivations are indeed attested in the Bible, but the occurrence of seven imprecise repetitions of the derivations in a single story is equally unlikely. No wonder that many scholars have adhered to the assumption that the birth story – in either an oral or written form – originally referred to Saul rather than Samuel. Thus, discussion of the significance of the root ‫ שאל‬in the story reached an impasse; neither supporters of the substitute nor advocates of the imprecise name-derivation theories offered any convincing explanation for the emergence of the birth legend in its present form. I hereby attempt to offer a new solution that might solve the textual problem. In his discussion of the place name Eshtaol,4 Bauer (1930:77) noted that “[s]o könnte auch das alte Heiligtum ‫ ְשׁ ֵא ָלה < ִשׁילוֹ‬sein, mit Elision des ‫ א‬und dialektischer Erhöhung des ē zu ī”. Zadok (1977:267; 1980/81:109) further suggested that the place name  ‫( ִשֹׁלה‬Šîlō) is a qitl formation of the root ‫ שאל‬plus a suffix –ō, common in toponyms. Apparently, the form is contracted as attested in other biblical names and toponyms derived from the same verbal root (e.g., Shelah [Gen 38:5, 11], Shaltiel [Hag 1:12, 14; 2:2], and Mishal [1 Chr 6:59]) and in various                                                         3 For criticism of Amitʼs proposal, see Tsevat (1987:253). 4 Bauer (1930:77; see HALOT 100) interpreted the place name Eshtaol as a place of oracular inquiry and translated it “wo man Bescheid holt (*ištaʼal)”, in parallel to the name Eshtemoh, “wo man hört” (*ištimāʻ). 58 NADAV NA’AMAN  cuneiform renderings (Zadok 1977:267 notes 11-15). The name Shiloh probably means “(place of) oracular inquiry”, as indeed its temple was.5 In this light, I suggest that the seven references of the root ‫ שאל‬in Samuelʼs birth story refer to Shiloh, the site at which the episode took place and which plays a major role in the plot. Shiloh is mentioned three times in the story (vv. 3, 9, 24), and the author fastened the connection between the plot and the sacred place by the addition of seven indirect references to its name. Thereby, he created an attractive play of words between Hannahʼs request of a child from YHWH (vv. 17, 20, 27-28a) and the place where the request took place, and emphasized the central place of the Shiloh temple in the related story. White (2006:124-125) is correct in suggesting that the root ‫ שאל‬functions as a keyword in the narrative; however, the root is not directed to Saul, but rather to the sanctuary located in the place where oracular inquiries were made regularly. The question whether the half-verse ‫“( הוּא ָשׁאוּל ַליהוָ ה‬he is lent/dedicated to YHWH”) in v. 28a alludes to Shiloh, or to both Samuel and Saul, must remain open. It might have alluded to Shiloh, like all other references to the root ‫שאל‬, or it may have been intended to fasten the connection between the Samuel and Saul stories (as Amit suggested). In sum, the implication of the seven references to the root ‫ שאל‬in Samuelʼs birth story (1 Sam 1) was debated among scholars since the early 19th century onward. The root was interpreted as either a literary allusion to King Saul (understood to be the original hero of the story), or an imprecise etymology of the name Samuel, the hero of the story in its present form. In this article, I suggest that these discussions rest on erroneous foundations. The root ‫ שאל‬is a name etymology of Shiloh, the place where the narrative took place and whose name means “(place of) oracular inquiry”. The author implanted this root into his story so as to fasten the connection between the plot and the sacred site in which it takes place, thereby emphasizing the importance of Shiloh, which was presented as the major cult centre of the highlands at that time.                                                         5 In light of Zadokʼs derivation of the place name Shiloh, I suggested interpreting the biblical place name Taanath-shiloh (Josh 16:6) as “the fig tree of an oracular inquiry” (Naʼaman 1986:154). Parallels to this name are known from two other toponyms located in the highlands: Elon-meonenim (“the Divinersʼ Oak” – Judg 9:37) and Elon-moreh (“the Oak of Moreh/Worship” – Gen 12:6; Deut 11:30). The three toponyms were probably called after sacred trees located in these places. SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND 59  BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, J S 1991. Who Can Stand before YHWH, This Holy God? A Reading of 1 Samuel 1–15. Prooftexts 11, 1-24. Amit, Y 1982. '‫הוא שאול לה‬: A Unifying Allusion – Some Methods of Literary Editing. Beth Mikra 27, 238-243 (Hebrew). Bauer, H 1930. Die hebräischen Eigennamen als sprachliche Erkenntnisquelle. ZAW 48, 73-80. Blenkinsopp, J 1975. The Quest for the Historical Saul, in: Flanagan, J W & Robinson, A W (eds). No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. Mackenzie. Missoula: Scholars Press, 75-99. Brettler, M 1995. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London / New York: Routledge. Brettler, M 1997. The Composition of 1 Samuel 1-2. JBL 116, 601-612. Buber, M 1939. Samuel and the Evolution of Authority in Israel. Zion 4, 1-29 (Hebrew). Budde, K 1902. Die Bücher Samuel erklärt (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 8). Tübingen / Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr. Davies, P R 2007. The Trouble with Benjamin, in: Rezetko, R et al. (eds). Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VTS 113). Leiden: Brill, 93-111. Dietrich, W 2007. The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E. (Biblical Encyclopedia 3). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Driver, S R 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2nd revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dus, J 1969. Die Geburtslegende Samuels. I Sam. 1 (Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu I Sam 1-3). RSO 43, 163-194. Edenburg, C 2016. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19- 21 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 24). Atlanta: SBL Press. Finkelstein, I 2005. Iron I Shiloh: Twenty Years Later, in: Müller, M & Thompson, T L (eds). Historie og konstruktion: Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche i anledning af 60 års fødselsdagen. Copenhagen: Dansk teologisk tidsskrift, 142-152. Finkelstein, I & Piasetzky, E 2006. The Iron I-IIA in the Highlands and Beyond: 14C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign. Levant 38, 45-61. 60 NADAV NA’AMAN  Finkelstein, I, Bunimovitz, S & Lederman, Z 1993. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Nr. 10). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Fleming, D E 2012. The Legacy of Israel in Judahʼs Bible: History, Politics, and Reinscribing of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fuhs, H F 2004. ‫ שאל‬šāʼal; ‫ שאלה‬šeʼlā; ‫ משאלה‬mišʼālâ; ‫ שאול‬šāʼûl, in: Botterweck, G J, Ringgren, H & Fabry, H-J (eds). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 249-264. Gordon, R P 1994. Who Made the Kingmaker? Reflections on Samuel and the Institution of the Monarchy, in: Millard, A R, Hoffmeier, J K & Baker, D W (eds). Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 255-269. HALOT = Koehler, L, Baumgartner, W & Stamm, J J 1994. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. I. Leiden: Brill. Hempel, J 1930. Die althebräische Literatur und ihr hellenistisch-jüdisches Nachleben. Wildpark-Potsdam: Athenaion. Hertzberg, H W 1964. I & II Samuel: A Commentary (OTL). London: SCM Press. Hylander, I 1932. Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (1. Sam. 1-15) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Uppsala / Leipzig: Almquist & Wiksell / Otto Harrassowitz. Jastrow, M 1900. The Name of Samuel and the Stem ‫שאל‬. JBL 19, 82-105. Lemardelé, C 2008. Saül le nazir ou la légende dʼun roi. SJOT 22, 47-62. Lemardelé, C 2012. À la recherche du “récite de lʻarcheʼ”: à la recherche de Saül. De Shilo à Gibea. SJOT 26/1, 55-76. Lods, A 1932. Israël des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle. Paris: La Renaissance du Livre. McCarter, P K 1980. I Samuel (AB 8). Garden City: Doubleday & Company. Milstein, S 2010. Reworking Ancient Texts: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature. PhD Dissertation, New York University. Na’aman, N 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem: Simor. Noth, M 1963. Samuel und Silo. VT 13, 390-400. Press, R 1938. Der Prophet Samuel: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. ZAW 56, 177-225. SAMUELʼS BIRTH LEGEND 61  Römer, T 2005. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London / New York: T & T Clark. Schley, D G 1989. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History (JSOTSup 63). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Seeligmann, I L 1952. Review of U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis I: From Adam to Noah. BiOr 9, 195-200. Seeligmann, I L 1961. Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography. Zion 26, 141- 169 (Hebrew). Stoebe, H J 1973. Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT VIII/1). Stuttgart: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. Tsevat, M 1987. Die Namengebung Samuels und die Substitutionstheorie. ZAW 99, 250- 254. Tsevat, M 1992. Was Samuel a Nazirite? in: Fishbane, M & Tov, E (eds). “Shaʻarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 199-204. White, M C 2000. “The History of Saulʼs Rise”: Saulide State Propaganda in 1 Samuel 1-14, in: Olyan, S M & Culley, R C (eds). “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (Brown Judaic Studies 325). Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 271-292. White, M C 2001. Searching for Saul: What We Really Know About Israelʼs First King. Bible Review 17/2, 22-29, 52-53. White, M C 2006. Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14, in: Ehrlich, C S (ed.). Saul in Story and Tradition (FRLANT 47). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 119-138. Willis J T 1972. Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuelʼs Birth and Dedication. Studia Theologica 26, 33-61. Zadok, R 1977. On Five Biblical Names. ZAW 89, 266-268. Zadok, R 1980/81. Notes on the Biblical and Extra Biblical Onomasticon. JQR 71, 107- 117. Zakovitch, Y 1980. A Study of the Precise and Partial Derivations in Biblical Etymology. JSOT 15, 31-50.