Hannah (Bible) - in Contemporary Biblical Criticism

In Contemporary Biblical Criticism

It has been suggested among biblical critical commentaries that the name "Samuel" in the story of Samuel is a better etymological reference to the name Saul, and because of this it has been posited that the stories may have been displaced at one time in the narrative's transmission history. Peake's Commentary on the Bible explains:

Hannah named her son Samuel. The name, in the narrative, is interpreted as meaning "I have asked him of the Lord," but this interpretation belongs, etymologically, to the name Saul. It has therefore been suggested that the etymology, and probably the whole birth story with it, has been displaced from Saul to Samuel in the course of compilation or transmission.

The editors of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia presented but disputed this view, arguing that interpreting Hannah's "asked of God" answer as referring to the etymology of Samuel's name, the basis of the displacement theory, is "not tenable":

The name "Shemu'el" is interpreted "asked of Yhwh," and, as Khimih suggests, represents a contraction of "M'El Shaul", an opinion which Ewald is inclined to accept ("Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache," p. 275, 3). But it is not tenable. The story of Samuel's birth, indeed, is worked out on the theory of this construction of the name (i. 1 et seq., 17, 20, 27, 28; ii. 20). But even with this etymology the value of the elements would be "priest of El" (Jastrow, in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xix. 92 et seq.). Ch. iii. supports the theory that the name implies "heard by El" or "hearer of El." The fact that "alef" and "'ayin" are confounded in this interpretation does not constitute an objection; for assonance and not etymology is the decisive factor in the biblical name-legends, and of this class are both the first and the second chapter. The first of the two elements represents the Hebrew term "shem" (= "name"); but in this connection it as often means "son." "Shemu'el," or "Samuel," thus signifies "son of God" (see Jastrow, l.c.).

Vows were made by both men and women, especially in extreme circumstances to ask for God's intervention, as is the case with Hannah. In Leviticus, provisions were made for redeeming vows or pledges in money that would go to the support of the priests and the sanctuary. So Hannah could have chosen that option to fulfill her vow, if on calm reflection, once she had her son, she felt unable to part with him. It is measure of her great devotion to God that she honored the literal terms of her vow. She stands over and against Jephthah (Judges 11:29-30) who vowed to sacrifice whatever comes out of his house—and it is his daughter, whom he kills rather than back down in front of his men. Jepthah is about pride (a sin), and Hannah is about self-sacrifice done in faith. Hannah is mouthing her prayer silently in the sanctuary because of a Leviticus limitation on her vow as a woman: if her husband should hear about it, he can nullify her vow if he does so on the very day he hears of it. Hannah is making sure that nobody, not even the priest, would hear her vow, taking no chance that anyone could nullify it. This power of nullification stems from the husband's ownership of the woman's property in marriage, including her children. Hannah is doing something rather daring in treating her future child and her vow as her own, between her and the Lord alone. Hannah apparently tells her husband about her vow later during the pregnancy, and Elkanah acquiesces, because the scripture says that Hannah tells him she will not part with her son until he is weaned. Elkanah agrees "As long as God's word is fulfilled". This refers to a Leviticus provision that if God does not answer the prayer then one does not fulfil one's vow. If he had nullified her vow, he would have had to make an offering for his guilt in breaking her vow. So by Elkanah's inaction, Hannah's vow defacto becomes his obligation also. The commentary also notes that children so dedicated could not be given until they were at least a month old, probably because of high infant mortality rates. That Hannah does not render her son at one month old is the subject of her discussion with Elkanah. By the time the child was weaned, usually around three years old, it was likely to survive to adulthood, so Hannah serves the soundness of her promise by bringing a viable child to serve in the sanctuary. The quality of one's sacrifice reflected the quality of one's faith. Only perfect animals were used in sacrifice. Hannah's sacrifice, her son, also will be of a quality pleasing to God.