Talk:Hannah (biblical figure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Critical Theory[edit]

I removed the paragraph below pending citation of a source. The information provided, "See article on Saul is not adequate. Note that the Saul link goes to a disambiguation page and a verifier has no way of knowing which of the many listings on that page was intended. Please supply an actual source or sources with author(s), title, journal title if applicapble, etc. for this theory, sufficient to permit an outsider to determine how notable it is, and particularly whether "most" scholars believe it as claimed, or the opinion of only a few or one, or [[WP:OR|original research).

Though the text currently seems to describe Samuel as the child, the reason given for Hannah naming him as Samuel is considered to be quite awkward by textual scholars, particularly when Saul fits the reasoning very easily, and most see it as having originally referred to Saul (being censored by a later anti-monarchist editor)[1]. Eli, also, has been argued to be not what he at first seems - Eli (meaning El or my El or my God) instead being considered to be El himself (either the Canaanite deity or the monotheistic God of the later Israelite religion), since Hannah prays with him nearby, at a doorpost (argued to be a symbolic pole representing the deity), he responds to her prayer, she refers to herself as Eli's handmaiden (1 Samuel 1:16) when she had only just described herself as God's handmaiden (1 Samuel 1:11), and when Eli wishes for her to have children she is straight away able to.

Thanks, --Shirahadasha 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for claims that e.g. "most" scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah really refers to Saul. The source is identified in the King Saul article as the personal web site of Rabbi Moshe Reiss, [1], a self-published source. Per WP:RS,

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that this content is not reliably sourced and should be deleted. The claim that "most" scholars hold this view appears particularly unevidenced. --Shirahadasha 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is well sourced. Shirahadasha's claim as to what my source is is totally inaccurate, and disingenous to say the least. I have been through this argument elsewhere that Shirahadasha has raised it. To save duplicating it again and again, please see Talk:Samuel. --User talk:FDuffy 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed an additional source user:FDuffy provided, Peake's Biblical Commentary and the version I found (Mathew Black, Peake's Commentary on the Bible. Routledge, 2001. ISBN 0415263557) says the following at p. 319:

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.

I agree this commentary is a reliable source to support mention of the idea as a hypothesis. However, a plain reading suggests it describes the theory as a suggestion ("it has been suggested..."). This tentative statement of the view does not appear consistent with the use of emphatic language or claims that the idea is established among "most" academic scholars or with anything like the degree of evidence or support comparable to evolution. A lot of explanation (e.g. a later anti-monarchist author etc.) which does not appear to be in this source's commentary on the Hannah story (It may be elsewhere). The Hannah article (and others) need to be signifcantly toned down, to state only what the sources can support. It is the making of statements beyond what the sources can support, as well as Wikipedia's policy shouldering editors with the responsibility for supplying sources, that is at issue. If sources can simply be supplied in accordance with policy, they could be quietly checked without all this fuss and bother. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My first name is hanna -Mariah Helms

The dagesh in Hannah[edit]

In the Hebrew version of the name ( ַחנָה), I am not seeing a dagesh. Is this just something wrong with my computer or is it something wrong with the article? Alephb (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm not sure why the problem existed, but I've found a way to fix it by using a template. Alephb (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)