id="ulink_4fac5eff-7b80-5ba7-b2ad-67b2720a5e80">11. Frick, Formation of State, 26, 66, 138, 191–204.
12. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 655–58.
13. Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Political Aspects,” 21; Finkelstein, “Emergence . . . Socio-Economic Aspects,” 59.
14. Stager, “Archaeology,” 25–27.
15. McKenzie, King David, 22.
16. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 255–56; Wellhausen, Israelitische, 51, 197, 280; Wellhausen, Die Composition, 240.
17. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 184.
18. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-’emunah, 371–73 (Hebrew).
19. In contrast according to Garsiel, the rejection of the monarchy originated from the opposition to change in the existing rules reflected in 1 Sam 8:7–8; 8:11–18, “the law of the king,” and in 1 Sam 10:17–19; 12. He believes that “the law of the king” was written during or after Solomon’s reign. See Garsiel, “Dispute,” 325–27.
20. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, 151–59.
21. Tsevat, “Emergence,” 67.
22. Givati, “הכולמה טפשמו ךלמה טפשמ,” 220–27.
23. Ibid., 224.
24. Elat, Samuel, 60 (Hebrew).
25. Garsiel, “Dispute,” 341.
26. McCarter, I Samuel, 218.
27. Weiser, Samuel, 40. There are some similarities here to Moses’s speech. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram challenged Moses leadership. In his response, Moses said: “I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them,” (Num 16:15). For Hittite parallels see Hoffner, “Crossing,” 184.
28. Wildberger, “Sage,” 1641–44; Fohrer, “Die Sage,” 60.
29. Midr. Sam. 11.1; Midr. Pss. Soh.er Tov 32.
30. Birch, “Development,” 55–68; Miller, “Saul,” 157–61; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 80–98; Klein, 1 Samuel, 84.
31. Schunck, Benjamin, 86–89; Schmidt, Menschlicher, 58–102.
32. Klein, 1 Samuel, 84.
33. Ibid.
34. Birch thus points to the existence of the “call form” that includes the following elements: divine confrontation, (9:15), an introductory word (9:16–17), commission, (10:1), objection (9:21), reassurance (10:7b), and sign (10:1b 5–7a). Habel points out that there is a different order in the Saul episode from the standard “call form.” He explains this discrepancy by asserting that the call was attached to the pre-existing story of the search for the donkeys. In addition, he points to the function of Samuel who serves as the human mediator of the call. None of this is attested in the Bible. In contrast to Habel, Richter sees parallels between the call of Saul to the calls of Gideon and Moses. He points to the following elements: 1. I have seen the affliction, 9:16, Exod 3:7; 2. Their cry has come to me, 9:16, Exod 3:9; 3. The Sending, 9:16, Judg 6:14–15; Exod 3:10, 15; 4.The anointing as prince, 9:16; 10:1; 5. Savior formula 9:16, Judg 6:14–15; 6. Objection, 9:21, Judg 6:15, Exod 3:11; 4:1, 10; 7. The formula God is with you, 10:7b, Judg 6:16, Exod 3:12; 4:12. 8. Giving of the spirit, 10:6, Judg 6:34. See Richter, Die sogenannten, 50; Birch, “Development,” 55–68; Klein, 1 Samuel, 84; Habel, “Form and Significance,” 297–323.
35. Richter, Berufungsberichte, 30.
36. Sot.ah 10a.
37. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition, 7.
38. In the Koran (2:248), the name that was given to Saul was T.alut, which is an allusion to his exceptional height. This name was probably influenced by the name given to Goliath, Jalut.
39. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 202.
40. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible, 229.
41. Paul, “I Samuel 9:7,” 542–44.
42. C. H. Gordon, Before the Bible, 272–73; Homer, Od. 11:355–61.
43. The word for gift here is tešurah—a hapax legomenon. It probably comes from the verb šwr, to see. Thus tešurah is a “gift of greetings.” Interestingly, the man of God is called ro’eh, which was an old name for the word prophet. Ro’eh means seer, and is a participial form of the Hebrew verb “to see.” Thus, there is a link between the gift and the prophet. For more information, see Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena, 24.
44. Ber. 48b
45. R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 115.
46. Judg 10:4; 12:9; 14:11–13, 19; 20:31, 39; 1 Sam 19:21.
47. Josephus, Ant. 6.52.
48. Milgrom, “Alleged Wave Offering,”
