Abstract
This article argues that Pseudo-Philo carefully crafted the sequence of events and the speeches in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) 49 so as to create connections with Hannah’s story. Through this, the reader is invited to compare the various reactions of the people with those of Hannah, so that Hannah’s role as an exemplar for the people is highlighted. The two stories follow a similar trajectory of disappointments and encouragements but show a marked contrast in protagonists’ attitudes and relationships to God. Faced with similar trials, Hannah succeeds where the people fail. The article also shows that the elements of L.A.B.’s version of Hannah’s story that are not found in the biblical text are nonetheless inspired by hints present in it, showing that Pseudo-Philo grounded his retelling of the story in a close reading of the text.
Introduction
Hannah’s story as told in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) 49–51 has gathered a significant amount of interest. 1 Surprisingly, however, I am not aware of any discussion that takes L.A.B. 49 seriously into account. A few studies mention it in passing, but no scholar seems to have dealt with it in depth. This is striking, because chapter 49 clearly belongs to the same literary unit as chapters 50–51. 2 As far as I am aware, Brown—who devotes a mere three pages to L.A.B. 49—is the commentator who goes deepest in her analysis of this chapter. She concludes that it places “the birth of Samuel in a larger context; he is the answer to the whole nation’s prayer for a leader, not just to Hannah’s prayer for a son. It is not one woman’s story, but one nation’s story.” 3 In the pages that follow, I would like to substantiate her affirmation and show precisely in what ways Hannah’s situation mirrors that of the people. I will argue that Pseudo-Philo carefully crafted the sequence of events and speeches in L.A.B. 49 to create connections with Hannah’s story, thus inviting the reader to compare the various reactions of the people with those of Hannah.
Invitation to see Hannah’s story and the story of the people as interconnected
The stories of Hannah and the people are connected in several ways. First, Pseudo-Philo brackets Hannah’s story with two accounts about the people. The section opens with the people looking for a new leader (L.A.B. 49) and closes with them rejoicing as the long-awaited leader is appointed (L.A.B. 51:7). This bracketing not only stresses the fact that Samuel’s birth is a matter of national interest, it also invites the reader to compare Hannah’s story with that of the people. The priest Eli makes this connection between Hannah and the people explicit in L.A.B. 51:2: “You have not asked alone, but the people have prayed for this. This is not your request alone, but it was promised previously to the tribes.” 4
The words accompanying these prayers further strengthen the connection between the two stories. This is especially significant given that L.A.B. 49 has no parallel in Scripture, so Pseudo-Philo is unconstrained in the plot and expressions he chooses to use in this section. It is safe to assume, therefore, that identical expressions are no mere accident. When we read that “the people were not worthy to be heard by the LORD” (Non fuit dignus populus exaudiri de Domino; L.A.B. 49:2) and that Hannah thought “perhaps I am not worthy to be heard” (Ne forte non sim digna exaudiri; L.A.B. 50:5), we are clearly meant to understand that the position of the people and of Hannah mirror each other. The observation that both were sad (tristis, in 49:2 and 50:3) as a result of God’s silence strengthens the comparison between Hannah and the people. These connections are strong enough to warrant a deeper look at the ways in which these two stories influence each other, and at the literary effect of commingling them.
Summary of the plot
In L.A.B. 49, the people cast lots to find a new ruler, mimicking the process that led to the appointment of their first leader, Kenaz (L.A.B. 49:1; cf. L.A.B. 25:1–2). In L.A.B., Kenaz is “a paragon of leadership,” 5 so the people’s hopes are high, but God does not respond to their inquiry. The people then decide to cast lots tribe by tribe, but no tribes is designated. 6 Faced with God’s silence, the people quickly conclude that God has abandoned them. 7 It takes the intervention of an otherwise unknown man named Nethez to convince them that they should keep asking. Nethez tells the people that God’s silence is a result of their sinfulness, but he also encourages them to trust in God’s mercy. The people then cast lots city by city, and Ramathaim is chosen. Eventually, Elkanah is designated by the lot. When he refuses to be appointed leader, however, the people again accuse God of abandoning and neglecting them. This time, God answers more clearly and tells them that Elkanah’s son will be their leader—an answer the people accept only reluctantly.
At first sight, this story looks quite different from the story of the rivalry between Hannah and Peninnah and Hannah’s prayer for a child. 8 However, Pseudo-Philo tells Hannah’s story in such a way that the key themes of L.A.B. 49 and its structure are echoed in L.A.B. 50, his own version of 1 Sam 1. I want to argue that when one looks at the two chapters side-by-side, the plot is nearly identical. While the object of the request is different in each story (the people ask for a leader and Hannah for a son), the challenges are not. Hannah finds herself in the same situation as the people: both have to deal with God’s silence. Hannah and the people go through similar processes before reaching a resolution, but they react differently at many stages. In short, Hannah succeeds where the people fail. Her identity as a positive role model is thus strengthened through the contrast between her ready faith and the people’s half-hearted response.
Abandonment
The text of the MT states that Peninnah provokes Hannah about her childlessness, but does not give any details.
9
In L.A.B.’s retelling, however, Peninnah’s taunts are made explicit. Unlike most other Jewish commentaries, Pseudo-Philo’s narrative does not primarily focus on taunts about Hannah’s childlessness.
10
Instead, Pseudo-Philo gives Peninnah a speech that disparages Elkanah’s love for Hannah and suggests that God has abandoned her.
11
Peninnah’s sneer is dense and needs to be unpacked:
What does it profit you that Elkanah your husband loves you, for you are a dry tree? And I know that my husband will love me, because he delights in the sight of my sons standing around him like a plantation of olive trees.
12
(L.A.B. 50:1)
Peninnah’s intention is clear enough: she wants to rob Hannah of all that is left to her, the love of her husband. Peninnah refers to childlessness primarily as a rationale for her claim that Elkanah’s love for Hannah will not survive the challenge of time. This is further supported by her second jibe: “A wife is not really loved even if her husband loves her or her beauty. . . And when among women the fruit of her womb is not so, love will be in vain” (L.A.B. 50:2).
Peninnah is clearly seeking to increase Hannah’s feeling of isolation, but there is more to her statement than meets the eye. She libels Hannah as being “a dry tree” while comparing her own sons to “a plantation of olive trees” (L.A.B. 50:1). Each of these phrases echoes a specific scriptural text (Isa 56:3 and Ps 128:3, respectively) and so conveys more than its straightforward meaning. 13
Psalm 128 is a short poem describing the blessing of “the man who fears the Lord” (Ps 128:1). He will be blessed with abundant harvests (Ps 128:2), with a wife who is like “a fruitful vine,” and with sons like “olive shoots around [his] table” (Ps 128:3). Cheryl Anne Brown reads these allusions as a challenge to the traditional theology expressed in Ps 128. According to her, Peninnah questions Hannah’s piety, suggesting that “Hannah is barren because she does not ‘fear the Lord’ or ‘walk in His ways’ (Ps. 128:1).” 14 Since Pseudo-Philo mentions that Hannah in fact “had been fearing God from her youth” (L.A.B. 50:2), his point would then be that this kind of theology is inadequate, for God may reward his servants with blessings other than children.
This reading is indeed possible, and it has some value. Pseudo-Philo does at times challenge the notion that righteousness always leads to material blessing. Later in the chapter, Hannah herself will state: “I know that neither she who has many sons is rich nor she who has few is poor, but whoever abounds in the will of God is rich” (L.A.B. 50:5). There are also difficulties with Brown’s reading, however. If Peninnah is challenging Hannah’s piety on the basis of Ps 128, this would suggest that she sees her own fertility as an affirmation of her piety. Yet the rest of Pseudo-Philo’s depiction of Peninnah renders this very unlikely.
Another reading seems more plausible to me. By juxtaposing Ps 128 with a statement about Hannah’s piety, Pseudo-Philo indeed suggests that Peninnah sees a link between Hannah’s barrenness and her piety. What she questions, however, is not Hannah’s piety (as Brown proposes), but the validity of God’s promises. That Hannah is barren despite her piety suggests to Peninnah that God is not trustworthy. In other words, Peninnah uses Hannah’s barrenness to ridicule her faith and to raise the idea that God’s promises have no substance.
This reading makes sense of Hannah’s fear: she is reluctant to pray out loud for a child because she wants to avoid giving skeptics additional grounds for blaspheming (blasphemare; L.A.B. 50:5) if her prayer is not answered. 15 Her sadness springs not only from Peninnah’s questioning of her piety, but also from the knowledge that her barrenness fuels Peninnah’s doubts in God’s faithfulness.
This is further substantiated by Penninah’s daily question, “Where is your God in whom you trust?” (L.A.B. 50:5). This question is found several times in the Jewish Scriptures and represents the archetypal cynic’s question to the faithful. 16 It thus expresses Peninnah’s deep skepticism about the worth of leading a pious life.
All three biblical verses that Peninnah alludes to (Isa 56:3; Ps 128:3, and the question “where is your God”) can be understood in a similar way. The image of “a dry tree” can be understood as an image of rejection: Peninnah is comparing Hannah to a eunuch (compared with a “dry tree” in Isa 56:3) who is forbidden to serve God, at least according to a strict reading of the law (see Lev 21:16–24). 17
Similarly, if we take the whole of Ps 128 into account, Peninnah’s allusion may have a further meaning. The psalm functions not only as a blessing on the righteous man, but also as an invitation to see the blessing of the individual as a specific instantiation of God’s blessing on the whole nation. Verses 5 and 6 move from individual flourishing to the prosperity of Jerusalem. If Pseudo-Philo has this in mind, then Peninnah’s allusion may suggest that Hannah cannot participate in God’s blessing of the people or in building its future. This reading may be a stretch, but if Pseudo-Philo’s audience was still marked by the liturgy at the temple, they would associate Ps 128 with times of festival, so it would make good sense to find it in Peninnah’s mouth at this occasion.
It is noteworthy that the biblical text may be understood to imply that Peninnah’s taunt calls God’s faithfulness into question. The idea of blasphemy may be suggested in 1 Sam 1:6. 18 Peninnah’s mockery is slightly ambiguous in the MT, and the precise meaning depends on one’s understanding of the verb רעם. The verb can be understood as “to irritate,” in which case Peninnah taunts Hannah because God has closed her womb. If, however, one understands רעם as “to complain aloud,” the verse can also be read as Peninnah trying to cause Hannah to complain aloud about God. 19 In that case, Peninnah is presented as trying to subvert Hannah’s faith. The fact that Peninnah only sneers at Hannah during festivals, but does so consistently every time they went up to a festival (see 1 Sam 1:7: “every time she went up to the house of the LORD,” מִדֵּ֤י עֲלֹתָהּ֙ בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֔ה) supports the latter reading, suggesting that Peninnah taunted Hannah particularly at times of religious fervor. Moreover, the singular verb “she went” suggests that Peninnah would go up to Bethel but was not very interested in entering the sanctuary.
Moreover, Peninnah is introduced as Hannah’s rival (צָרָה, from the verb צָרַר). The feminine form of the word is quite rare, but the masculine form is not. It appears mostly in the psalms to describe those who profess slanderous accusations against the righteous. 20 Hence, the MT leads the reader to “suspect that, like many adversaries in the psalms, and like Job’s friends, Peninnah falsely accuses Hannah of some personal failing as the reason for her plight.” 21 Peninnah’s question—“Where is your God?”—is found the mouth of the psalmist’s “adversaries” (צוֹרְרָי, the masculine participle of צָרַר) in Ps 42:10, where it leads the psalmist to feel forgotten (שָׁכַח) by God (Ps 42:9; cf. Ps 42:3). 22 Although 1 Samuel never states that Hannah had been forgotten by God, it does note that she conceives as soon as God “remembers” (זָכַר) her (1 Sam 1:19).
Furthermore, Hannes Bezzel has shown that the use of the verb “to provoke” (כָּעַס) in 1 Sam 1:6 leads to the same conclusion. The verbs suggest a kind of mockery that, in the Psalms, is typically “the work of the wicked enemies of the supplicant or the result of their evildoing (see Pss 6:8; 10:14; 31:8).” 23 Consequently, the text suggests that “Hannah’s grief . . . is due not only to her seeming barrenness but also to the hostilities she has to endure at the hands of her enemy.” 24
In short, Pseudo-Philo finds good reasons in the biblical text to understand Peninnah’s taunt as a direct attack on Hannah’s faith, or even as an invitation to blaspheme. He appears to be developing a line of thought that is already present in the Hebrew—indeed, his reworking of the story manifests a close enough attention to the biblical text that his work may aptly be called an exegesis of the text, albeit a fairly free and creative one. 25
If the reading proposed above is correct, then we have a straightforward parallel between the situation of the people in L.A.B. 49 and that of Hannah in L.A.B. 50. Although their desires are different (the people want a leader and Hannah wants a son), they both have to face God’s silence, as well as the suggestion that this silence reflects God’s abandonment. There are also close parallels in language between the two stories. In L.A.B. 49:2, the people say, “For we know (Scimus enim) that God has hated his people and his soul has detested us.” Nethez answers, “For I know (Scio enim) that God will not reject us forever, nor will he hate his people for all generations.” 26 In the dialogue between Peninnah and Hannah in L.A.B. 50, Peninnah declares, “And I know (Et ego scio) that my husband will love me” (L.A.B. 50:1). Hannah responds with another “I know” statement: “And I know (Et ego scio) that neither she who has many sons is rich nor she who has few is poor, but whoever abounds in the will of God is rich” (L.A.B. 50:5). In both instances, someone makes a wrong affirmation based on the circumstances, and someone else responds with a declaration grounded in faith in God.
There are, to be sure, significant differences between Hannah’s situation and that of the people. For instance, the idea of God’s abandonment is mentioned in each chapter, but with opposite effects. In the first scene, the people who conclude that they have been abandoned by God are right! The reader is told that God had indeed abandoned the people because they “walked in [their] evil ways” and “have not known him who created [them]” (L.A.B. 49:3). In that situation, the people are encouraged to continue trusting God. In contrast, Peninnah’s suggestion that Hannah is abandoned by God is not endorsed by the author. Indeed, Pseudo-Philo twice emphasizes her righteousness, noting that she “fear[ed] God from her youth” (L.A.B. 50:2) and “walked before [him] from the day of [her] youth” (L.A.B. 50:4). 27
We see here that Hannah’s role as an example is highlighted by the stories’ differences as much as their similarities. Peninnah’s claim that God has abandoned Hannah makes Hannah’s perseverance all the more difficult and praiseworthy. Hannah bears God’s silence and Peninnah’s attack for years, and her trust in God is still much stronger than that of the people, who are quick to conclude that God has abandoned them.
Encouraged by seeing beyond the appearances
The stories continue to parallel each other in their middle sections. After Nethez’s encouragement, the people turn to God again in prayer. Similarly, Hannah, who was initially crushed by Peninnah’s taunts, receives new strength from Elkanah’s words and gathers the courage to come once more before God. This detail sheds further light on Hannah’s exemplary role in L.A.B..
Just as in 1 Sam 1:8 (MT and LXX), Elkanah’s speech to Hannah in L.A.B. 50:3 is composed of four questions. Whereas the first three are identical to the biblical text, the last question is phrased differently and focuses on Hannah’s righteousness. Instead of asking “Am I not more to you than ten sons?,” Elkanah asks “Are not your ways of behaving (mores) better than the ten sons of Peninnah?”
The shift away from Elkanah and toward Hannah’s “way of behaving” is more significant that it may appear. 28 Some have been surprised by this transformation of 1 Sam 1:8. Cook confesses it is “a curious substitution,” while Harrington proposes emending the Latin text to amores (love) in order to restore the idea of love present in 1 Sam 1:8. 29 If, however, one sees in this substitution a theological point that continues the line of thought introduced by the allusion to Isa 56:3, the question makes complete sense. Isaiah 56:4–5 explains that eunuchs who keep God’s commands should not despise themselves as “dry trees,” because God will eventually give them a glory greater than progeny. In the same way, Elkanah implies that Hannah should not be devastated by her childlessness because God values her righteousness and will ultimately reward her. Seen in this light, Elkanah’s question is a transparent reference to the significance of Isaiah’s prophecy that fits nicely with the rest of Pseudo-Philo’s theology. 30 Moreover, this reading offers an anticipation of the claims found in Hannah’s songs.
The narrative shows that Hannah got the point. Elkanah’s words restore Hannah’s courage, as Hannah participates in the sacrificial meal before going up to the sanctuary. 31 There, after asking for a child (L.A.B. 50:4), she reminds herself of Elkanah’s remark: “I know that neither she who has many sons is rich nor she who has few is poor, but whoever abounds in the will of God is rich” (L.A.B. 50:5). Hannah is now able to recognize that things are not what they seem. Although Peninnah claims to be full, having born ten sons, Hannah confesses that she lives by—or at least aims to live by—the standard of her faith, according to which one’s riches are defined by one’s love for God. On this scale of values, she is richer than Peninnah.
This idea is repeated in L.A.B. 51:4 with a slight twist. People should not boast about anything that is theirs, because once God shines his light on our reality it will become evident to all that “not those who possess many things will be said to be rich, nor those who have borne in abundance will be called mothers” (cf. 1 Sam 2:5). Consequently, Hannah issues a warning: “Do not hurry to say great things or to bring forth from your mouth lofty words, but delight in glorifying God” (L.A.B. 51:4; cf. 1 Sam 2:3). 32
In short, Hannah recognizes that reality is not always what it seems, choosing to live in accordance with an unseen reality that has more substance than Peninnah’s world. Hannah’s life, wealth and poverty, fertility and barrenness are relativized and redefined. Only obedience to God has genuine value: one’s relationship to God, the real source of wealth and offspring, is more important than the gifts he provides. Such tangible gifts are no guarantee of one’s standing before God, and those who forget this will be thoroughly disappointed in the end.
Here lies another point of contrast between the people and Hannah. Whereas the people are unable to see beyond their immediate circumstances, and thus despair, Hannah finds strength by seeing her situation in God’s light. Her faith in God enables her to gather strength and courage even before God answers her prayer. The L.A.B. theme of reversal is not confined to Hannah’s song—she lives by the hope of reversal even before she sees it happening.
Final challenge and positive answer
The last parallel between Hannah and the people comes when both meet a final challenge before receiving their longed-for answer. The people must come to terms with the fact that Elkanah refuses to assume leadership (L.A.B. 49:5), while Hannah is faced with a priest who takes her for a drunkard (L.A.B. 50:6). Here again, the stories’ differences prove as important as their similarities.
The pattern we have come to expect is repeated here. The people are further distressed by this turn of events and reiterate their lament that God has abandoned them. This time, they go as far as accusing God of misleading them with false promises. In Murphy’s words, “They come close to calling God a liar.” 33 They even call into question things they have already received. Despite “being at rest” (quiescere, L.A.B. 48:4) at the outset of chapter 49, they now complain of having no “place of rest” (requietio, a noun derived from requiescere, L.A.B. 49:6), asserting that God “abandoned [them] in the victory of their enemies.” 34 Moreover, their speech reeks of resentment toward Nethez, who exhorted them to flee (fugere) to the Lord (L.A.B. 49:3)—they now tell each other that they have nowhere to flee (confugere, L.A.B. 49:6). At this point, God himself responds in harsh terms, at least initially. He tells them that he will remain faithful and bless the people despite having good reasons not to respond to them (L.A.B. 49:7). God then explains that the leader for the nation will not be Elkanah, but Elkanah’s son. Even so, the people are not fully convinced of God’s care: “Behold perhaps (forsitan) now God has remembered us so as to free us from the hand of those who hate us” (L.A.B. 49:8). 35
Hannah’s attitude is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. When Eli—a representative of God who is given fairly high status in L.A.B.—rebukes her, she is swift to defend herself. 36 After his initial rebuke, Eli becomes more responsive and inquires about Hannah’s suffering. Learning who she is, and being aware of the prophecy that this women will give birth to the leader of the nation, he sends her away with a promise that her prayer had been heard (L.A.B. 50:7), though he does not tell her about the prophecy regarding her son (L.A.B. 50:8). Hannah receives Eli’s words as coming from God, showing no sign of doubt or hesitation. Hannah goes back home, “and she was consoled of her sorrow” (L.A.B. 50:8).
In short, Hannah proves much more ready than the people to receive words of consolation. She readily accept a promise from God that is mediated by a priest who could not even distinguish between absorption in prayer and drunkenness, while the people struggle to accept a much clearer promise received directly from God.
Conclusion
In this article, I have demonstrated that Pseudo-Philo crafted the stories of Hannah and the people in L.A.B. 49–51 to parallel each other. Both Hannah and the people face God’s silence. The people are quick to interpret this silence as a sign of abandonment, while Hannah must contend with Peninnah’s insinuations that God has abandoned her. Both Hannah and the people receive encouragement and pray again, and both face a challenge after doing so. Here, they respond very differently: Eli’s rebuke of Hannah leads her to assert her righteousness, but Elkanah’s refusal to be appointed leader plunges the people back into despair. Both Hannah and the people then receive a promise from God that their prayer will be answered, but Hannah receives the promise much more readily than the people do. Throughout these passages, Pseudo-Philo often makes more explicit elements that were implicitly present in the biblical text.
These observations lead to three conclusions. First, the craftsmanship we see in this text highlights Pseudo-Philo’s literary skill—an aspect of his work that has not yet received enough attention. This has an important methodological repercussion for our interpretation of L.A.B.. In light of what we have seen here, scholars should pay greater attention to the L.A.B.’s literary patterns and the inner logic of each textual unit than they generally have in the past. Careful literary analyses of Pseudo-Philo (and of other Pseudepigrapha) is still too rare. 37 In addition, this study demonstrates that an examination of biblical verses inserted into the text can provide important clues to the meaning of the passage. Thus, consideration of the whole literary unit and attention to the meaning added by biblical allusions are two essential elements on which any interpretation of passages of L.A.B. should rest.
Second, the parallels between Hannah and the people suggests that Pseudo-Philo presents Hannah as a great exemplar of faith not only in her own right, but also in contrast to the people. The whole narrative is designed to strengthen the contrast between Hannah’s faithfulness and the half-heartedness of the people. We have here a concrete instance of Pseudo-Philo’s invitation to the reader to take personal piety with utter seriousness.
The final observation derives from the second, for this intentional contrast between Hannah and the people complexifies Pseudo-Philo’s assessment of leadership. It seems that Pseudo-Philo intends to remind his audience that while looking for a leader is a good thing, the ultimate leader and savior of the people is God himself, and failing to trust God in times of weak leadership is tantamount to doubting God. Rather than giving into discouragement or doubt in such times, Pseudo-Philo invites his audience to look at Hannah as someone who endured a similar situation and was carried by God through that difficult time. Moreover, he reminds them that God’s deliverance comes not only from leaders, but also from the faithfulness of individuals who hold fast to God’s covenant and trust him in all circumstances. Ultimately, the continuation of Israel’s story depended in large part on Hannah’s perseverance in faith. One should remember that L.A.B. was likely written during the first century, a time without strong leadership, a time in which people longed to see a strong figure take charge—someone like the ancient leaders whose stories were found in the Torah or the prophets. The various “messiahs” that appeared in this period testify to this longing. A figure like Hannah, who remained steadfast in a time of weak leadership, must have resonated powerfully with first-century Jews.
Finally, one is even tempted to wonder whether Pseudo-Philo presents Hannah as a type of the people. Perhaps Israel was tempted to see other nations as better cared for by God than themselves. Perhaps other nations’ disdain for Israel hurt first-century Jews the same way Peninnah’s taunts hurt Hannah. Perhaps. This would be a fascinating insight from Pseudo-Philo. But here we enter the realm of speculation—the question remains open.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1.
See for instance Marc Philonenko, “Une paraphrase du cantique d’Anne,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 42 (1962): 157–68; Joan E. Cook, “Pseudo-Philo’s Song of Hannah: Testament of a Mother in Israel,” JSP 9 (1991): 103–14; Benjamin J. Lappenga, “‘Speak, Hannah, and Do Not Be Silent’: Pseudo-Philo’s Deconstruction of Violence in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 50–51,” JSP 25 (2015): 91–110; Hannes Bezzel, “Hannah’s Prayer(s) in 1 Samuel 1–2 and in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Prayers and the Construction of Israelite Identity (ed. Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher and Maria Häusl; Ancient Israel and Its Literature 35; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019), 147–64.
2.
Those who at least mention that the literary unit includes L.A.B. 49 include Cheryl Anne Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women: Studies in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, Gender and the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 141–44; Joan E. Cook, Hannah’s Desire, God’s Design: Early Interpretations of the Story of Hannah, JSOTSup 282 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 60–61; and Tavis A. Bohlinger, “Framing a Composition: Pseudo-Philo and Romans in Comparison” (PhD diss., Durham University, 2019), 103. None of them, however, make much of it. Chapter 49 is being seen mainly as setting the general context (Brown), as emphasizing “Samuel’s bridge position between the judges and the kings” (Cook), or as providing a smooth way to introduce Elkanah (Bohlinger).
3.
Brown, No Longer Be Silent, 144.
4.
Non tu sola petisti, sed populus oravit pro hoc. Non est petitio tue solius, sed in tribus antea promissum erat. Unless stated otherwise, all English citations of L.A.B. are taken from Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo–Philo: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 2:297–378. The Latin text corresponds to the critical text prepared by Harrington in Daniel J. Harrington and Jacques Cazeaux, eds., Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques, Vol. 1: Introduction et texte critiques, SC 229 (Paris: Cerf, 1976).
5.
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg and John C. Collins; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 54.
6.
The exact order of things is not understood the same way by everyone. Cazeaux understands that the people cast lots on the people as a whole first, and then tribe by tribe, while Jacobson believes that “the initial lottery was targetted [sic] at individuals; this one will be directed towards the group (the tribe).” Each reading has its difficulties, but the exact sequence has no import for our purpose. See Harrington and Cazeaux, Les Antiquités Bibliques, vol. 1, 323; Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 vols., Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 2:1069.
7.
Israel’s failure to understand God properly and trust in his faithfulness is a recurrent theme in L.A.B. See the list of examples given in Frederick James Murphy, “God in Pseudo-Philo,” JSJ 19 (1988): 13–17.
8.
L.A.B.’s version of the story is similar enough to the one found in Scripture that it is unnecessary to provide a summary of it here.
9.
The LXX makes no mention of Peninnah’s taunt whatsoever, neither in 1 Kgdms 1:6, nor in 1:16. Hence, it may well represent another Vorlage of 1 Samuel, especially since it usually translates the Hebrew text very literally in most of the books of Samuel. Josephus (Ant. 5.10.2 §343) seems to base his account of Hannah’s story on a text akin to the LXX. On the differences between the MT and the LXX, see Stanley D. Walters, “Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1,” JBL 107 (1988): 385–412. On the version of the biblical text Pseudo-Philo seems to have had at his disposal, see Daniel J. Harrington, “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” CBQ 33 (1971): 1–17.
10.
For a list of the possible comments made by Peninnah in other texts, see Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Volumes 1 and 2 (ed. Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin; Philadelphia: JPS, 2003), 2:887.
11.
Peninnah’s mockery of Hannah’s barrenness must have been made even more painful by the fact that Peninnah’s presence in the family was likely due to Hannah’s inability to bear an heir to Elkanah. See Pete Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 58. Pseudo-Philo probably hints at this when he has God describe Hannah as the “sterile woman whom I have given to him [Elkanah] as a wife” (L.A.B. 49:8), which implies the marriage between Elkanah and Peninnah is not sanctioned by God. This would be reminiscent of God’s answer to Abraham (in Gen 17:19) that the blessing would come through the son that Sarah would bear him. Jacobson notes that the connection with Abraham and Sarah is reinforced by the mention of Isaac that directly follows. See Jacobson, Commentary, 2:1083.
12.
Quid tibi prodest quod te diligit Elchana vir tuus, tu vero es lignum siccum? Et ego scio quia dilecturus est me, delectatus in conspectu filiorum meorum astantium in circuitu eius tamquam plantatio oliveti.
13.
Jacobson and Fisk demonstrated the importance of inserted biblical allusions. See Howard Jacobson, “Biblical Quotation and Editorial Function in Pseudo-Philo’s LAB,” JSP 5 (1989): 47–64; Bruce Norman Fisk, “Scripture Shaping Scripture: The Interpretive Role of Biblical Citations in Pseudo-Philo’s Episode of the Golden Calf,” JSP 9, no. 17 (1998): 3–23; Bruce Norman Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo, JSPSup 37 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001).
14.
Brown, No Longer be Silent, 147.
15.
The verbal form “blasphemabunt” should be rendered here in the strong sense of blaspheming—of uttering words offensive to God—and not in the sense of reproach against Hannah (contra Cazeaux, Les Antiquités Bibliques, 1:331, who translates it “me dirait des injures”). So also Harrington’s translation in OTP; Jacobson, Commentary, 2:1092.
16.
Cf. Pss 42:3, 10; 79:10; 115:2; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10; Mal 2:17. See Jacobson, Commentary, 1091; Frederick James Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 190.
17.
Isaiah 56 mentions eunuchs because of their inability to serve, as the parallel with foreigners who cannot take part in the assembly makes clear.
18.
Interestingly, the Targum Jonathan also speaks of blasphemy in its expansion of Hannah’s song. The Targum pairs the “boastful things” of 1 Sam 2:3 with blasphemy. Since L.A.B. has Peninnah include a comment about Hannah not boasting (a phrase influenced by the addition to 1 Sam 2:10 found in the LXX and, probably, in 4QSama), it is possible that connecting Hannah’s song, boasting, and blasphemy was a traditional motif.
19.
On these two options, see McCarter, 1 Samuel, 49–53.
20.
For instance, it is the psalmist’s adversaries (צוֹרְרָי) who ask the question “Where is your God?” in Psalm 42:10.
21.
J. Gerald Janzen, “Prayer and/as Self-Address: The Case of Hannah,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 124.
22.
Brown sees the question as an allusion to Ps 42 (No Longer be Silent, 150–51).
23.
Bezzel, “Hannah’s Prayer(s),” 151.
24.
Bezzel, “Hannah’s Prayer(s),” 151. On the use of the verb כָּעַס in 1 Sam 1 and its relationship to the psalm of lament, see also Mary Callaway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash, SBLDS 91 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 69–71.
25.
Bezzel approaches L.A.B.’s version of the story in terms of the evolution of Hannah’s story as manifested by textual criticism, but he also concludes that Pseudo-Philo works exegetically. See Bezzel, “Hannah’s Prayer(s),” 160–61.
26.
I owe the observation that Pseudo-Philo plays with the question of right and wrong knowledge of what God expects to Murphy (Rewriting the Bible, 186–89). He does not, however, see the parallels between chapters 49 and 50.
27.
Her prayer also opens with a statement of God as creator: “Did you not, LORD, search out the heart of all generations before you formed the world?” This may be just a coincidence, but it may also be one more connecting point between the two stories.
28.
It is also a part of L.A.B.’s larger agenda to present Elkanah in a very positive light. In the MT, Elkanah does not really grasp the depth of Hannah’s distress. For a discussion on Elkanah in the MT, see David Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998), 131–34.
29.
Cook, Hannah’s Desire, 62; Perrot, Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2:214; see also Harrington’s note in OTP, 2:364. Most commentators reject the proposal of emendation due to a lack of evidence in the manuscripts and because mores fits L.A.B.’s context by contributing to the image of Hannah’s piety. The reading I follow here is accepted by Jacobson, Commentary, 1088; Murphy, Rewriting the Bible, 189.
30.
Jacobson also points to Sir 16:1-4 as a parallel (Commentary, 1088).
31.
The MT has her eat only after she receives Eli’s promise (1 Sam 1:18).
32.
This phrase may be an indication that Pseudo-Philo knows of a text similar to the LXX, since the logic of the verse is the same. In 1 Kgdms 2:10, boasting about one’s own ability is also contrasted with “knowing the Lord” and “practising justice.”
33.
Murphy, Rewriting the Bible, 188.
34.
Bohlinger also sees that “the people’s plea to God for ‘rest’ in 49.6 is remarkable” (“Framing a Composition,” 103).
35.
Murphy sees this as a sign that the people have “for the moment learned the lessons of presumption” (Rewriting the Bible, 188). However, given that the text records a clear promise given directly by God immediately prior to this statement of the people, I cannot see how accepting it fully would be a sign of presumption. Rather, I take this as a clear indication of the people’s lack of trust.
36.
Pseudo-Philo does everything he can to improve the reader’s appreciation of Eli. He is repeatedly presented as the priest directly appointed by Phineas (L.A.B. 48:2; 50:3), and he appears much more sensitive to the spiritual world in L.A.B. 53 that in 1 Sam 3. Moreover, Pseudo-Philo strengthens the speech of Eli to his sons so as to exonerate him from their sins (L.A.B. 51:2-3).
37.
Murphy’s Rewriting the Bible is the only sustained literary commentary on L.A.B. Unfortunately, Murphy does not explore in sufficient depth the meaning of Pseudo-Philo’s insertion of biblical allusions.