Spirit Transfer and ŠMŠ in Ancient Israel
"And he said, "Consult a spirit for me, and bring up for me the one whom I name to you."
1 Samuel 28:8
The following discussion on the practice of necromancy in
Israel will focus on 1 Samuel 28 (the "Witch" of Endor event)
which has been considered the primary biblical attestation of this
practice. Particular interest will be given to the work of B. Schmidt
(1994) which was the author's doctoral dissertation at Oxford
University. Schmidt conducted a detailed survey of Near Eastern
sources, searching for signs of the beneficent dead and the
practice of necromancy in order to contextualize corresponding
Israelite practice. His pedantic methodology and determined
thoroughness have been widely praised, and in this, the author is
persuasive; his conclusions may surprise the reader. In essential
they are:
i) West Semitic people did not believe in the supernatural powers
of the dead, and ii) Necromancy as it is attested to in 1 Samuel 28
does not represent an indigenous West Semitic practice, but late
Mesopotamian influence.
Offering what is a rare and, in some ways, exceptional move
towards the contextualization of the Endor story, Schmidt's work
should be given due consideration even from a position of dissent.
Despite this, it is hoped that the following discussion of the
author's treatment of 1 Samuel 28 and it's ANE context, together
with a consideration of alternative proposals from the field, will
help suggest a continued validity in researching early necromancy
in Israel.
1.0 The issue of "deafening silence" from Syrio-Palestine
and similar obeservations abroad
Essential for Schmidt's argument that necromancy was a late
transfer from Mesopotamia (post Assyrian invasion) is his late
dating of the story of the Witch of Endor. Thus one of the
author's main arguments is his interpretation of an absence of
necromanctic practice in sourrounding regions up until mid-first
millennium Mesopotamia. He states: "The deafening silence from
some two millennia of Syria-Palestine with regard to the practice
of necromancy together with its well-attested observance in
Mesopotamia from the mid-first millennium onwards supports a
late compositional setting for 1 Sam. 28:3-25."1 This
conviction is not confined to the Syria-Palestinian region; on
pg.242, the author further ascribes a total absence of
necromantic practice to "Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Anatolian
religions before the mid-first millennium." In the below, an effort
to soften some of this rhetoric has been made.
1.1 On the treatment of Syria-Palestine: Ugarit
Connected with his view that necromancy is unattested in Syrio-
Palestine has been Schmidt's assessment of the power of the
dead in these places. His summary of the Ugaritic material on
p.121 reads: "The belief in the supernatural beneficent power of
the dead as expressed in ancestor worship or veneration and
necromancy is not documented in the texts from Ugarit."2
However, reactions to this work have stressed the need for
caution here. Mark S. Smith,3 for example, remarks "[Schmidt]
convincingly shows the general lack of explicit evidence for the
dead's supernatural powers, but his conclusion that they had
none is unpersuasive, given his own demonstration that the
record does not provide enough information." Dennis Pardee
in his 1997 review4, focuses on Schmidt's treatment of
Ugaritic material and presents a substantial list of philological
disagreements "some of them rather important for Schmidt's
views on Ugaritic religion." He further cautions the reader that
"both Mari studies and Ugaritic studies are in a constant state of
flux...the nature of the texts is such that controversies regarding
interpretation continue." Given these conditions, Schmidt's
argument of silence from these sources should perhaps be
carefully considered.
1.2 The evidence from abroad: Egypt
While the "deafening silence" expression itself has not
brought to bear against the evidence from Egypt or Early
Mesopotamia, evidence from these sources has nonetheless been
dismissed. Schmidt argues that "while contact with the ghost was
practiced in ancient Egypt, necromancy like that reflected in 1
Samuel 28 remains unattested."5 This seems largely
based on a consideration of the Egyptian letters of the
dead, while other mediums are left unconsidered.6
Robert Ritner, writing in 2002, reacts to this treatment of the
Egyptian material7, coming to a different conclusion.
He notes that unambiguous examples of necromancy exist from
late sources: "The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leidon
contains a prescription for enchanting a vessel so that a deceased
spirit (akh) comes in and 'answers truthfully.'"8
The author feels that this practice has clear reflections in sources
as early as the Old Kingdom in which devotions were made to the
deceased kings in order to obtain favors or knowledge; questions
were directed at them which would request not only "hidden
knowledge" but "knowledge of future events."9
These and other attestations of necromantic practice lead the
author to state that "despite their late date, the practices of the
Demotic papyri are not foreign, but the culmination of native
beliefs and acts regarding the empowered dead,"10
and his conclusion is in firm support of the presence of
necromantic rites in early as well as late Egyptian practice.
1.3 The evidence from abroad: Early Mesopotamia
In that his argument is for a late transfer from Mesopotamia
(not an early one) Schmidt seems interested in demonstrating
that necromancy and the beneficent dead are not a part of early
Mesopotamian belief – concern may be raised in noting that
while Schmidt may dismiss some lexical evidence (for example, his
treatment of mušēlû etemmi11), he leaves the
Sumerian terms lu2-gidim-ma and lu-saĝ-bulug-ga
entirely unaddressed, and these are words which have been
translated "necromancer."12
While the author is astute in positing the debatable
relevance of the event in Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld
(in which the possibly dead Enkidu is risen up to speak with
Gilgamesh), the discussion is done a disservice by Schmidt's
objection that "Enkidu is identified not as ghost, or etemmu,
but as shubur-a-ni, 'servant'..."13 The relevant line is
reliably translated as "Utu opened a hole in the nether world and
brought up his servant with his breeze (?) from the nether
world."14 It should be noted that in the context of
necromancy, key discussions in Mesopotamian scholarship are
focused on Utu and specifically what is meant by the term "his
breeze", and not on whether Enkidu is referred to as a servant or
not.15
Finally, Theodore J. Lewis16 has pointed out that
Schmidt's "narrowly defined death cult" has caused him to omit
from consideration certain key exorcistic passages and here we
are referred to the work of Scurlock. Contrary to Schmidt's finding
that "the benevolence of the dead is nowhere in view [in early
Mesopotamia]"17, Scurlock has treated both ghost
assistance prescriptions (where a friendly ghost may be called
upon to act against a hostile ghost18) and ghost
substitute prescriptions (where ghosts are called upon to bring an
evil or illness down to the netherworld with them19).
In fact, were they to be considered, these texts would provide
ample argument against any notion that "weak ghosts" cannot
affect the living beneficially.20
2.0 The Circumstances of the Witch of Endor and the
Question of Redaction
The following is meant to contextualize Schmidt's finding for
the late composition of 1 Samuel 28. David Tsumuru's 2007
commentary on 1 Samuel gives a good working definition of the
major themes in the relevant source material: "The books of
Samuel deal with a transitional period in the history of ancient
Israel – the transition, first, from the priest Eli to the judge
Samuel, then from the judge Samuel to the king Saul, then from
Saul to David, who founded the dynasty which would last as
long as the kingdom of Judah. The prophet Samuel thus functions
as the link between judgeship and kingship. The kingdom of Saul
was "transitional."21
An essential consideration for the question of necromantic
practice in early Israel is the date and setting of 1 Samuel and
especially the so called "witch of Endor" event which occurs in 1
Samuel 28. As scholars are unable to isolate a definite author
for 1 Samuel, the question of early necromancy can in some
arguments be made largely subservient to the interpretational
model of dating applied to this book. Attention must be given to
these issues therefore.
2.1 Dating 1 Samuel 28
While the general issue of Samuel's authorship is a non-issue (as
his death is mentioned in the book, he could not have written it),
some estimates maintain an early compositional date for 1
Samuel. Tsumura, for example, has suggested the following: "The
"Story of Samuel" (1 Samuel 1-7), the chapter on the introduction
of the monarchy (ch.8), the "Story of Saul" (chs 9-15), the story of
David and Saul (16-31)...existed during the era of the United
Monarchy before the entire book was edited into a unified
whole."22 This editing, Tsumura believes, can also be
be considered very early, not later than the 10th century in fact,
and here he refers to 1 Samuel 27:6 which reads "therefore Zilag
has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day," (after the
Pharaoh Shishak's campaign (925 BCE), the city would not have
belonged to Judah.)23
Even if the sources alone are held to be genuinely early
there is hardly any consensus on the date of their final editing;
thus, Thomas Römer's recent work counters Tsumura sharply. 24
Römer feels that the editorial hand in 1 Samuel belonged to
scribes attempting to bolster King Josiah, the 'new David,' at the
expense of Saul: "After the collapse of the Northern kingdom in
722 BCE, the scribes of Jerusalem transformed the traditions
about its first king Saul into an introduction for the story about the
rise of David, the 'real' chosen king of Israel. The great HDR
[history of David's rise]...was conceived as propaganda and
legitimation for the reign of Josiah, the 'new David.'"25
Römer's estimation places the date of final editing considerably
later than that of Tsumura.
2.2 "Sequels" and Deuteronomistic Language in 1 Samuel
While an attempt to champion one of the above positions over the
other is beyond the scope of this paper, it's worth noting that a
major hinging point on the problem of final editing is the
assessment of Dtr language. Despite his position, Römer admits
that Dtr language is "sparse" in 1 Samuel 16-31.26 To Schmidt,
the same paucity of Dtr phraseology was a stumbling block,27
and yet one that could be reconciled with his line of investigation
in the following way: unlike the second half of 1 Samuel,
chapter 15 does in fact demonstrate the features typically
classified as Dtr language. Schmidt then notes that 15:35
anticipates the event of 1 Samuel 28 when it states "Samuel did
not see Saul again until the day of his death." This connection he
terms a "sequel" and comments "if this connection holds, then it is
safe to conclude that whatever date one assigns to chapter 15,
the same or later can be proffered for 28:3-25."28
At this juncture, the soundness of this conclusion may
be questioned. Is it not plausible to imagine that a
deuteronomistic editor working on 1 Samuel 15 could have written
his anticipating line in order to conform his insertion to an older
text? Sequel or not, it seems hasty to rule this possibility out on
the grounds given. What's more, it's possible to call into question
the very significance of so called deuteronomistic language as
Tsumura has done; he states "that a phrase occurs in certain
unquestionably later passages does not automatically mean it
could not have been used earlier." He argues for the plausibility of
the early use of Dtr terms such as "to this day," and points out
that some of these stock expressions have been observed in
much earlier literature from the ANE (supporting again the
plausibility of their early use.)29
On encountering this level of academic entrenchment, with
excellent scholarship arguing from either side of the fence, the
historical religious situation may offer much needed perspective
and impetus for the researcher.
3.0 Sun, Solar Cult and Spirit Travel in the Ancient WorldThe woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being [elohim] coming up out of the ground."
1 Samuel 28:13
Because the above line is rather opaque or even esoteric in
nature, the occurrence of the rising elohim has resulted in a flood
of interpretational conjecture. In noting that the Neo-Assyrian
necromantic texts (the first explicit texts for these rites from
Mesopotamia) rely on the aid of certain netherworld gods, but
above all the sun god Shamash, Schmidt has tentatively
interpreted that "elohim" in 1 Samuel 28 refers in fact to the god
Shamash, who is acting as retriever of the spirit.30
His equation is reinforced further by the suggestion that Saul
having "not eaten all day or night" implies that the time of the
necromantic rite was in the morning (at the rising of the sun)
which would be in line with the Mesopotamian rite as well.31 A
look at Shamash in his natural environment will help weigh these
suggestions as well as those of other scholars (to follow below).
3.1 Shamash in the Netherworld
Walton, who comments on necromancy in its Semitic context,
captured the essential by stating: "Shamash, the sun god who
travels nightly through the netherworld, is requested (through
magical incantations) to bring up the ghost of a particular
person."32 That Shamash was the one who
descended to the netherworld and rose again each day is a key in
understanding his unique association with divination broadly
and with necromancy specifically. The significance of this, is that
as the emerging day, Shamash is the future; and the future each
night was gestated in the netherworld to be born each morning
with the rising of the sun.
Steinkeller has insightfully observed in this regard: "The idea
that the future is born in the nether world finds confirmation in the
Babylonian understanding of the nature of dreams....[dreams]
were also thought to be created in and to emanate from the
nether world. And, like the "coming of days" dreams too are
directly linked to the sun god.."33 Just as he was the
transmitter of dreams, so in similar manner "he brings up ghosts
in necromantic rites," Steinkeller says.34 Shamash
and his son, the dream god Sisig, are often said enigmatically to
"make light in dark places," and here Steinkeller explains the
meaning behind this is essentially that the sun god, who knows
and encompasses the future, "elucidates (in the netherworld)
what is obscure/unknown."35 With this in mind, the
following lines from one of the Neo-Assyrian necromantic rites are
interesting:
"3. May he bring up a ghost from the darkness for me! May he [put life back(?)] into the dead man's limbs!
4. I call [upon you], O skull of skulls:
5. May he who is within the skull answer [me!],
6. O Samaš, who brings light in (lit. who opens) the darkne[ss! (EN2)]"36
3.2 The sun god in the Levant and Israel
J.F. Healey has studied Ugaritic sources and found
attestation of the female sun god, Shapshu, who despite her sex
shares much in common with Shamash; common to both Shamash
and the Ugaritic Shapshu, he says, is the “characteristic
knowledge, wisdom, and justice of both deities”. 37
Shapshu is known in one Ugaritic myth to be assigned the duty of
searching for the dead Baal in the netherworld. Healey's brief
treatment suggests "a shared Canaanite-Mesopotamian
tradition".38 On this note, Tsumura likewise
comments that "like [Shamash], the Ugaritic solar goddess
Shapshu played the important role of psychopompe, that is, the
one who brings the spirit of the dead up or down. In text 1.161, a
Ugaritic text for the funeral of king Niqmaddu, it is very likely that
she went down to the underworld with the dead king, as she
does in the Baal myth." (Tsumura, 2007:631).
The potential for further analogy in ancient Palestine
is significant with pre-Israelite place names such as Beth-
Shemesh known from the Bible. The cosmology of the Hebrew
sun god Shemesh (masc. though sometimes fem.) cannot be fully
discerned however, as van der Toorn explains, "the OT writings
do not attest to an elaborate cosmology, shared by all
Israelites."39 While Eccl 1:5 may depict the
subterranean passage of the sun (as in the general ANE model)
Ps. 19:5-7 seem to suggest the sun spent the night in a tent in
the heavens; the OT writers were therefore not concerned with
establishing a unified cosmology.40
Whats interesting here is the extent to which the
persistence of sun cult may be interpreted in Israel – the
polemical references in Deut 4:19; 17:3; Jer 8:2 and Job
31:26-28 may indicate that many Israelites were still attracted to
the worship of the sun41 and against suggestions that this was
an Assyrian influence van der Toorn states "the cult of the sun
was traditionally well established in Syria and Palestine, so there
is no need to assume that it was a 7th-century innovation on the
part of the Assyrian overlords."42 The story of the
ark's stay in Beth-shemesh (1 Sam 6:7-21) may have preserved
the memory of how the Yahwistic cult supplanted the sun
cult43and this may be taken as indicative of the
presence of the sun cult at the time. J.G. Taylor's work on this
topic is very interesting, he has explored a plethora of
archaeological and biblical evidence that bear witness to an
"association between Yahweh and the sun [which] was not
limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well
integrated into the religion of ancient Israel."44 In this way,
Taylor is able to state "at least in the vast majority of cases,
biblical passages which refer to the worship of the sun in Israel do
not refer to a foreign phenomenon idolatrous Israelites, but to a
Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to
look upon as idolatrous."45
3.3 The Sun God(dess) at Endor?
At this point it is interesting to ask, given the presence of the sun
cult in the Levant and even in early Israel (to an extent), would
Shamash be more likely to facilitate a necromantic rite at Endor
than the local sun god? Might it be possibly to suggest the
involvement of the native sun god at Endor? In his 2007
commentary on Samuel, Tsumura has done just that. Adopting a
standard interpretation for the rising elohim in 1 Samuel 28:13 as
"spirits of the dead,"46 Tsumura instead focuses on 1
Samuel 28:7, where Saul makes the request which is typically
translated "Seek out for me a woman who is a medium."
47 By making a careful reading of underlying text 'ēšet
ba'ǎ lat 'ôb48, Tsumura proposes the following
translation: "a woman who serves ba'ǎlat 'ôb". In turn, balat'ob
translates to "Lady of the 'ôb-spirits" in Tsumura's reading,
and this refers "to the sun goddess in her infernal phase, that is,
during the night, for it is similar to the phrases bel etimmi (GIDIM)
"the lord of the spirits of the dead" and bel miti (LU2.UGx) "the
lord of the dead," which are epithets of Shamash." This brings
Tsumura to a final suggestion: "ēšet ba'ǎ lat 'ôb means a
"women who serves the Lady of the dead spirits," "the Lady"
referring to the sun goddess as ruler or guide of the spirits of the
netherworld."49 In this way, the suggestion is made
that Saul is paying a visit to a female necromancer who brings up
spirits by means of her ritual contact with Shemesh. Henceforth,
Saul's visit to the necromancer is placed in its monarchic era
context, as an Israelite practice involving a local goddess.
Conclusion:
In considering Brian Schmidt's position that necromancy was not a
part of early Israelite practice, the material from Ugarit, Egypt and
early Mesopotamia was discussed; while one may agree with
Schmidt in finding the testimony in these exemplars opaque, it is
perhaps suggestible to avoid strong dismissals (such as the
author's argument for a "deafening silence.") In some cases, the
evidence may simply be obscure or even esoteric. Much of what
one interprets in the Endor event is likely to hinge on the dating
of the book itself and so this effort takes a top priority; and yet,
experts can come to no consensus on the authors or editors or
even on the importance of deuteronomistic language. The
preference for one or another explanation could plausibly be said
to correlate directly with ones own thesis agenda. Turning to the
matter of divine intervention in the necromantic rite at Endor,
while Schmidt has suggested the involvement of a Mesopotamian
sun god (in line with his thesis issue, the late transfer of
necromancy from mid-first millennium Mesopotamia to Israel), the
above discussion on sun deity in the Semitic world was meant
suggest a continued feasibility in examining necromancy in Israel
as a native practice, possibly involving native deity. In conclusion,
Schmidt's work remains an excellent example of erudition and
scholarly investigation which will continue as a resource for these
studies; against the specific implication of his thesis statement,
the study of necromancy in Israel may continue to interest
researchers.
Notes:
1. Schmidt, 1994 p. 206
2. Schmidt, 1994 p. 121
3. Smith, 1996 p. 724
4. Pardee, 1997 p. 367
5. Schmidt, 1994, p. 157 . The significance for this denial for Schmidt's direction is further indicated by his statement on pg. 219: "..the absence of necromancy in contemporary Syro-Palestinian, Anatolian, and Egyptian religions otherwise, point to the late eastern provenance of this text [1 Samuel 28]."
6. See Schmidt 1994, p. 156
7. Ritner explains: "During the 1992 conference on "Magic in the Ancient World: held in Lawrence, Kansas, Brian B. Schmidt presented an intriguing lecture on 1 Samuel 28, in which he denied the existence of comparable necromancy in ancient Egypt. Our ensuing discussions and correspondence have stimulated my own research and the following brief note."
8. Ritner, 2002 p.90
9. Ritner, 2002 p. 93
10. Ritner, 2002 p.90
11. Schmidt, 1994 p.215
12. for lu2-gidim-ma and lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga as "necromancer" one may refer to the Online Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary project (ePSD):
psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html13. Schmidt, 1994 p. 215
14. See ETCSL entry
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4#15. A complex problem. The Sumerian behind "his breeze" here is si-si-ig-ni-ta. Dina Katz has stated about this: "In si-si-ig-ni-ta we probably have the possessive third-person singular and the ablative, which apart from direction denotes 'by means of.'" (Dina Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian Sources, 2004, p.31 n.80). The god Sisig was the son of Utu (or an aspect of him) and significantly he was a god of dreams. In lexical texts, the name Sisig is paired with it's Akkadian equivalent zaqiqu and this again with the incorporeal concept lil2; In addition to their relevance to dreams, all terms may possess equally the connotation of wind or spirit (compare Heb. ruach) . Thus S.A.L. Butler observers that in the Akkadian text of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld, Enkidu's ghost rises from the netherworld "like a zaqiqu." (S.A.L. Butler 1998 Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals. AOAT 258.). The question of necromancy has to do with this understanding, that Enkidu may have been risen from the netherworld by means of his zaqiqu spirit (or like a zaqiqu spirit; or like a dream vision).
16. Lewis, 1999 p.513
17. Schmidt, 1994 p. 216
18. Scurlock, 1988 p. 112
19. Scurlock, 1988 p. 116
20. Schmidt 1994 p. 10 states "Care for or feeding of the dead typically carries with it the implicit notion that the dead are weak; they have no power to affect the living in a beneficial way." John H. Walton has used Scurlock's material to make the opposite point, noting that in these same texts which ask for help from the ghost, offerrings are made to the ghost in order to secure that aid: "..I have poured you (a libation of) water. I have honored you; I have made you proud.." Henceforth the notion that dependence on offering rendered a ghost incapable of beneficent intervention is erroneous. Walton cites Tzvi Abusch ("Ghost and God" p.373): "If, then, ancient Mesopotamian ghosts were pitiably weak, helpless, and silent, and if they required offerings to keep them literally from eating mud in the Netherworld, it by no means followed that there was no point in seeking their assistance or that there was no reason to fear their wrath." See Walter, 2006:324)
21. Tsumura, 2007 p. 18 and 33
22. Tsumura, 2007 p. 31
23. Tsumura, 2007 p. 32
24. Römer, 2007 "The So-Called Deuteronomistic History" (see bibliography)
25. Römer, 2007 p. 97
26. Römer, 2007 p. 95
27. The reason for the importance of an early dating of 1 Samuel 28 for Schmidt's direction are clear – unless this story dates to a later time as he says, necromancy is not a late transfer from Mesopotamia.
28. Schmidt, 1994 p. 202
29. Tsumura, 2007 p. 18
30. Schmidt, 1994 p. 219
31. ibid.
32. Walton, 2006 p. 322
33. Steinkeller, Biblica et Orientalia 48, 34-37. Steinkeller justifies the association of Utu/Shamash with dreams by noting that the principal dream gods, including Sisig/Zaqiqu are his offspring; an additional dream god, Anzaqar, he equates with Utu himself, following the lexical texts: An-za^za-ga-ar3^gar3 = (d)Utu ma-mu2-da-ke4 (SpTU 3 107:171) See also (d)Mash2-gi6 = SHU (=(d)Utu ma-mu2-da-ke4)
34. Steinkeller takes dreams to be reminiscent of, or even to be, ghosts. This is largely due to his preference for interpreting an applicable connotation of Zaqiqu (Wind/Spirit/Dream). "The connection between dreams and the sun god is further underscored by that fact that the Akkadian name of Anzaqar is Zaqiqu (Ziqiqu), that is, "ghost, phantom." This means that dreams are merely a variety of ghosts." A study of dream incubation as a form of necromancy may prove fruitful. For correlating information, see note 15 above.
35. Steinkeller, n.56
36. Finkel, 1983/4 p. 9
37. Healey 1980, p. 240
38. Healey, ibid. Tsumura (2007) agrees, pg. 42 states "The solar deity. Ugar. Shpsh = Ak. (d)Shmash(UTU), is also among the Ugaritic pantheon.." He notes the appearance of Shapshu in myth, cult and personal names in Ugarit.
39. van der Toorn, 1992 p. 237
40. ibid.
41. van der Toorn, 1992 p. 238
42. ibid.
43. ibid.
44. Taylor, 1993 p. 257. Particularly interesting in this regard is the authors examination of a possible Gibeonite sun cult (pg. 107) . "Continuity between Yahweh and the sun was probably enhanced by the historical influence of the cult of Yahweh-in-Gibeon (that is, the sun), and by several points of commonality between Yahweh and the sun.."
45. ibid.
46. Tsumura 2007, p. 43 . He compares elohim here to "Ugaritic rpim- ilnym and ilm – mtm (KTU 1:6LVI46-48) "or ilu, which refers to the deceased, in the ancient Near Eastern texts."
47. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, College addition, 2010 p. 440
48. Tsumura, 2007 p.630 Excursus: After surveying similar translations ("A Woman who has an 'ôb-spirit" ; "A Woman of an 'ôb-spirit" etc) Tsumura explains that his own translation ("A Woman who serves the Lady of the dead spirits") is arrived at in the following way: he treats "the syntax of the two noun phrases ēšet (cdtr.) and ba'ǎ lat 'ôb... differently. According to this, the latter noun phrase is an objective genitive, that is, "a woman for ba'ǎ lat 'ôb," like 'ebed YHWH "servant of the Lord"..... hence the phrase may be translated as "a woman who serves ba'ǎ lat 'ôb."
49. Tsumura, 2007 p. 631
Bibliography
Finkel, Irving "Necromancy in Ancient Mesopotamia". Achiv fur Orientforschung 29/30 (1983/4): 1-17
Healey, J. F. “The Sun Deity and the Underworld: Mesopotamia and Ugarit” in Death in Mesopotamia, Papers read at the XXVI Rencontre Assyriologique International, ed. Bendt Alster (Akademisk Forlag Copenhagen. 1980) Pp. 239-242
Lewis, Theodore J. Review of "Israel's beneficent dead: ancester cult and necromancy in ancient Israelite religions and tradition." Journal of the American Oriental Society 3 (1999): 512-514
Pardee, Dennis. Review of "Israel's beneficent dead: ancester cult and necromancy in ancient Israelite religions and tradition." Journal of Semitic Studies, 42.2 (1997): 362-368
Ritner, Robert. “Necromancy in Ancient Egypt,” in Magic and Divination in the Ancient World eds. Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel, Brill Press (Leiden) 2002, pp. 89-96
Römer, Thomas. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2007
Schmidt, Brian. Israel's Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cults and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 11. Hrsg. von B. Janowski und H. Spieckermann. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen, 1994
Scurlock, Joann. Magical Means of Dealing with Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia Vol.1. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation, U. of Chicago 1988).
Smith, Mark. Review of "Israel's beneficent dead: ancester cult and necromancy in ancient Israelite religions and tradition." The Catholic Biblical Quaterly 58 (1996): 724-725
Steinkeller, P., 'Of stars and men: the conceptual and mythological setup of Babylonian extispicy', in Biblical and Oriental essays in memory of William L. Moran ed. A. Gianto (Biblica et Orientalia 48), Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005, pp. 11-47
Taylor, J. G. Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup No. 111; Sheffield, England : JSOT Press, 1993.
van der Toorn, Karl "Sun" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary ed. David Noel Freedman. New York : Doubleday, 1992, pp. 237-239
Tsumura, David T. The First Book of Samuel (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament) Grand Rapids, Mich. : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007
Walton, John. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Academic, 2006
[/center]
