Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Samuel"

See other formats 


iiiii:<.y>i'>iiHtt.^>Wi«r>»"  '> 


hWa^i^finnAYiiVii'iTi'i^  '' 


» 


SAMUEL 

HENRY   PRESERVED   SMITH 


PRINTED    IN    GREAT    BRITAIN   BV 
MORRISON     AND     GIBB     LIMITED 

FOR 

T.    &    T.    CLARK,    EDINBURGH 

MEW     YORK:      CHARLES     SCRIBNEr'S     SONS 


First  Tmpressiok  ,  ,  1899 

Second  Impression  ,  .  1904 

Third  Impression  .  .  1912 

Fourth  Impression  .  .  1951 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


CRITICAL  AND   EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE   BOOKS    OF   SAMUEL 


BY 


HENRY   PRESERVED   SMITH 

PROFESSOR   OF  BIBLICAL    HISTORY   AND   INTERPRETATION 
IN   AMHERST  COLLEGE 


Edinburgh:   T.  &  T.  GLARK,  38.  George  Street 


TO    MY    WIFE 

Snna  illlnrnfalf  Smitl) 

WHOSE   CONFIDENCE   AND   AFFECTION    HAVE   BEEN   MY    HELP 
IN   THIS   AS   IN  ALL   MY   WORK 

AND   TO   THE    MEMORY   OF   OUR    BELOVED 

so   EARLY   CALLED   TO    HIGHER    SERVICE   THAN  WE 
ARE    YET    PERMITTED    TO    RENDER 


MAY  16 1964 


PREFACE. 


The  plan  and  purpose  of  this  series  of  commentaries  are  so 
well  illustrated  by  the  volumes  that  have  preceded  this  —  the  one 
on  Deuteronomy  by  Professor  Driver  and  the  one  on  Judges  by 
Professor  Moore  —  that  further  statement  would  be  superfluous. 
In  preparing  the  present  number  of  the  series  I  have  constantly 
had  occasion  to  admire  the  work  of  these  predecessors,  and  1 
shall  be  gratified  if  the  present  volume  shall  be  found  worthy 
of  a  place  by  the  side  of  theirs. 

The  historical  importance  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  must  be 
evident  to  the  least  attentive  reader.  In  them  we  have  the  only 
sources  of  information  concerning  the  origin  of  the  monarchy  in 
Israel.  How  much  this  implies  will  be  seen  if  we  suppose  the 
names  of  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David  blotted  out  of  our  history  of 
Israel.  Besides  the  direct  information  which  we  receive  from 
their  narrative,  these  books  throw  great  light  upon  the  manners, 
customs,  and  religion  of  Israel,  not  only  for  the  period  of  which 
they  professedly  treat,  but  also  for  the  times  in  which  the  various 
authors  lived  and  wrote. 

An  understanding  of  these  books  is  therefore  a  first  necessity 
to  the  scholar  who  would  correctly  apprehend  the  history  of 
Israel.  Such  an  understanding  is  not  so  easy  to  attain  as  appears 
upon  the  surface.  For  one  thing,  the  Hebrew  text  has  come 
to  us  much  corrupted  in  transmission  —  imperfect  to  a  greater 
degree  than  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  with 
perhaps  one  exception.  The  difficult  and  delicate  task  thus 
thrown  upon  the  exegete  will   appear  to  the  careful  student  of 


Vll 


•  •« 


Vlll  PREFACE 

this  volume.  In  the  second  place,  these  books  present  peculiar 
problems  for  the  so-called  higher  criticism.  Nowhere  are  the 
phenomena  of  a  complex  literary  process  more  obvious,  and  yet 
nowhere  are  these  phenomena  more  difficult  to  interpret. 

The  expositor  is  encouraged  in  the  face  of  these  difficulties 
by  the  fact  that  excellent  work  has  already  been  done  in  both 
these  departments  of  study.  The  criticism  of  the  text  was 
seriously  undertaken  (though  with  inadequate  apparatus)  by 
Thenius  in  1S42,  and  since  that  time  the  problem  has  been 
attacked  by  Wellhausen,  Klostermann,  Driver,  and  Budde.  In 
the  department  of  the  higher  criticism  so  much  cannot  be  said. 
Yet  even  here  the  books  before  us  have  had  as  much  attention 
as  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  except  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  Book  of  Isaiah. 

Originality  can  hardly  be  claimed  by  one  who  follows  in  such 
a  train.  I  can  only  claim  that  I  have  carefully  considered  every 
suggestion  of  my  predecessors  and  have  tried  to  judge  it  on  its 
merits.  With  regard  to  the  text,  the  emendations  of  Thenius  and 
Wellhausen  have  become  a  part  of  exegetical  tradition. 

In  my  anxiety  to  be  helpful  to  the  beginner  I  have  sometimes 
explained  that  which  the  more  advanced  student  will  find  to  be 
sufficiendy  clear  in  itself  So  far  as  I  know,  I  have  passed  no 
difficulty  by  in  silence.  That  the  consideration  of  many  passages 
results  in  a  non  liquet  will  probably  not  be  found  surprising. 

The  preparation  of  the  commentary,  after  being  begun,  was 
interrupted  for  about  two  years  by  causes  beyond  my  control. 
For  the  greater  part  of  the  time  in  which  I  was  engaged  upon 
it,  no  good  library  was  within  my  reach.  My  friend  Professor 
Briggs  and  the  librarians  of  Union,  Lane,  and  Hartford  Theo- 
logical Seminaries  generously  relieved  this  difficulty  by  granting 
me  the  use  of  a  number  of  volumes  —  a  courtesy  which  it  gives 
me  pleasure  here  to  acknowledge. 

Amhkkst,  Mass.,  July  20,  1898. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction xi-xxxix 

§  I.    The  Title xi 

§  2.   Contents xii 

§  3.   Composition  of  the  Book xv 

§  4.    Analysis  of  i  Sam.  i.-xv xvi 

§  5.   Analysis  of  i  Sam.  xvi.-2  Sam.  i xxii 

§  6.   Analysis  of  2  Sam.  ii.-xxiv xxvi 

§  7.    The  Text  and  Versions xxix 

§  8.   Religious  Ideas ,     .  xxxiii 

§  9.   Commetttaries xxxvii 

Commentary 1-393 

Appendix    395-410 

Index 411-416 

Abbreviations 416-421 

ix 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  I.  The  Title. 


The  two  books  are  one  book  in  Hebrew  manuscripts.  The 
division  into  two  was  first  made  by  the  Greek  translators  or  by 
the  Greek  copyists.  As  we  know  from  classic  writers,  the  rolls  on 
which  Greek  and  Latin  works  were  written  were  of  certain  con- 
ventional sizes.  Biblical  books  (Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles)  were 
divided  into  two  in  order  to  conform  to  this  rule  of  the  trade. 
The  division  passed  over  into  the  Latin  Bible,  but  invaded  the 
Hebrew  copies  only  with  the  first  Rabbinical  Bible  of  Bomberg.* 
The  original  state  of  the  case  is  still  indicated,  in  editions  of 
the  Hebrew,  by  the  Massoretic  summary  which  gives  the  number 
of  verses  only  at  the  end  of  the  second  book,  thus  treating  the 
two  as  one.  In  this  summary  we  find  also  the  phrase  Book  of 
Samuel  used,  and  are  told  that  the  middle  verse  is  the  one  num- 
bered by  us  I  S.  28^.  Origen  is  quoted  by  Eusebiusf  as  affirm- 
ing specifically  that  the  first  and  second  Books  of  the  Kingdoms 
form  one  book  among  the  Hebrews,  and  that  this  bears  the  name 
of  Samuel.  A  Greek  MS.  also  remarks  \  at  the  close  of  i  S,  that 
A<\\x\\z  following  the  Hebrews  does  not  divide  but  makes  the  two 
one  book.  Jerome  in  the  Prologus  Galeatus  (printed  in  the 
authorized  editions  of  the  Vulgate)  names  as  third  in  the  list  of 
the  Prophets,  Samuel,  quern  nos  Regum  pri7num  et  secundum  dici- 
mus.  With  this  agrees  the  Talmud,  which  names  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  §  as  though  each  were  but  a  single  book. 


*  Published  at  Venice,  1516.  Cf.  Ginsburg,  Introduction  to  the  Massoretico- 
Critical  Edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  (1897). 

t  Hist.  Eccles.  VI.  25,  as  cited  by  Kl. 

X  Field,  Hexap.  Orig.  I.  p.  543. 

§  The  passage  {Baba  Bathra,  14  a)  is  translated  in  Briggs,  Biblical  Study  (1883), 
p.  175  ff.,  and  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  (1899), 
p-  252  f. 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

The  title  of  the  book  (or  books)  is  m  the  Hebrew  Canon 
Samuel,  apparently  because  Samuel  is  the  leading  character  in 
the  earlier  chapters.  The  name  is  unfortunate,  as  Samuel  ceases 
to  be  prominent  after  the  middle  of  the  first  book,  and  David 
occupies  the  narrator's  whole  attention  from  that  point  on.  The 
infelicity  is  removed  by  the  Greek  translators  who  count  the  two 
books  as  First  and  Second  Books  of  the  Kingdoms,  the  two  fol- 
lowing counting  Third  and  Fourth  of  the  series.  The  Latin 
adopted  a  modification  of  this  form,  counting  four  books  of  Kings 
{Regum).  In  at  least  one  printed  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
this  name  has  been  introduced  by  the  side  of  the  other. 

In  the  more  accurate  editions  of  the  Hebrew  text  2  S.  has  no  heading,  and 
is  separated  only  by  a  space  of  three  words'  breadth  from  the  preceding  book. 
The  note  at  the  end  of  2  S.  begins  Sxistt'  iadt  ipiDij  Di;D,  the  verses  of  the 
two  books  together  being  reckoned  1506.  The  edition  which  introduces 
DijScnD  (^jtt')  ptt'NT  -iDD  along  with  ('3)  'N  Snidu'  is  the  edition  of  Plantin, 
1680.  In  @  we  find  jSaatAeicSv  -npwTr),  Sevrepa,  represented  in  some  Latin 
MSS.  by  Regtiorum  instead  of  Regum.     In  S  Kethhbha  dashmvUil  7iebhiya. 

§  2.   Contents. 

The  Books  of  Samuel  form  a  part  of  the  continuous  history  of 
Israel  which  begins  with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  ends  with 
the  Exile,  or,  if  we  include  the  Pentateuch  as  is  apparently  the 
design  of  the  collectors  of  the  books,  which  begins  with  the  Crea- 
tion and  ends  with  the  Exile,  This  part  of  the  history  is,  how- 
ever, less  closely  connected  with  the  Book  of  Judges,  which 
precedes,  than  with  the  First  Book  of  Kings,  which  follows.  For, 
while  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Philistine  oppres- 
sion, from  which  Samson  began  to  deliver  Israel,  is  the  same 
which  afflicted  the  people  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  we  have  no 
certain  means  of  deciding  how  long  a  time  had  elapsed  from  the 
death  of  Samson  until  the  events  narrated  in  i  S.  i  ;  while  at  the 
conclusion  of  2  S.  the  unfinished  life  of  David  is  immediately 
continued  in  the  opening  chapters  of  i  K. 

The  period  covered  by  these  books  may  be  estimated  at  about 
a  hundred  years.  It  was  evidently  one  of  the  most  important 
centuries  in  the  life  of  Israel,  for  in  it  was  effected  the  transition 
from  the  tribal  form  of  government  (if  government  it  may  be 


CONTENTS  xiii 

called)  to  the  settled  monarchy  of  David.  At  the  opening  of  the 
period  the  prominent  figures  (Eli,  Samuel)  are  classed  by  the 
author  with  the  heroes  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  Saul  is  the  first 
who  attempts  to  cement  the  people  together  by  the  monarchy. 
Although  his  experiment  ended  in  disaster,  there  is  no  reason  to  i 
doubt  that  his  failure  paved  the  way  for  David's  success.  In  the 
long  struggle  against  the  Philistine  oppressor  the  nation  realized 
its  own  unity,  learned  its  own  strength,  and  prepared  to  play  its 
part  in  the  history  of  the  world.  What  light  we  have  upon  this 
time  of  storm  and  stress,  of  heroic  struggle  and  high  achievement, 
comes  from  the  Books  of  Samuel. 

In  accordance  with  what  has  just  been  said,  the  subject-matter 
divides  itself  readily  under  the  three  heads :  Samuel,  Saul,  and 
David.  But  as  the  three  are  contemporaneous  for  some  years,  the 
sections  overlap,  and  the  transition  period  of  Saul  falls  within 
the  time  allotted  to  Samuel  on  the  one  hand  or  to  David  on  the 
other.  Such  seems  to  have  been  the  mind  of  the  author  (or  final 
redactor)  of  the  Books,  to  whom  Saul  was  of  minor  importance. 
This  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  fact  that  Samuel  is  the  real 
authority  after  Saul  is  anointed,  and  that  so  soon  as  Saul  is 
rejected  David  is  anointed.  To  the  theocratic  view,  the  history 
belongs  to  Samuel  and  to  David,  and  its  two  sections  are  i  S.  1-15, 
the  life  of  Samuel;  and  i  S.  16-2  S.  24,  the  hfe  of  David.  The 
life  of  David,  however,  consists  of  two  well-marked  sections,  the 
first,  the  period  of  struggle,  is  described  in  i  S.  16-2  S.  i ; 
the  second,  his  reign  over  Israel,  occupies  2  S.  2-24. 

The  plan  of  the  Book  is  of  course  the  plan  of  the  final  editor.  The  remarks 
just  made  concerning  the  minor  importance  of  Saul  apply  to  the  view  of  this 
editor  alone.  For  it  is  evident  that  the  work  embodies  documents  whose  view 
of  Saul  is  much  more  favourable.  To  the  earlier  writer  Saul  is  one  of  the 
heroic  figures  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and  this  writer  would  doubtless  have 
made  the  story  of  Saul  equally  important  with  the  story  of  David.  The  manner 
in  which  his  work  is  now  interrupted  by  sections  of  a  different  tenor  makes  it 
difficult  to  form  a  distinct  scheme  of  the  Book.  But  the  following  schedule 
will  show  the  subjects  treated : 

A.    I  Samuel  1-15.  The  Life  of  Samuel. 

j-7.    Samuel  as  JtiJge. 

1^-4^".   Birth,  consecration,  and  call. 
4»'>-22.   The  house  of  Eli. 


XIV  INTRODUCTION 

5^-7'.  The  capture  and  return  of  the  Ark. 
72-1".    Deliverance  from  the  Philistines. 

8— 12.   Election  of  a  King. 

8.  The  people's  demand. 

9,  10.    Saul  is  secretly  anointed  and  then  publicly  chosen. 

11.  Saul's  victory  over  Ammon. 

12.  Samuel's  farewell  address. 

13-1  J-    Saul's  Early  Reign. 

13.  14.   Defeat  of  the  Philistines. 
15.   Disobedience  and  rejection. 

B.  I  Samuel  16-2  Samuel  i.   Saul  and  David. 

16^21^.   David  at  the  Court. 
16^"^''.   The  secret  unction. 
1514-23,    xhe  service  of  Saul. 
1 7^-1 8^  The  encounter  with  Goliath. 
l86-30_   Saul's  jealousy. 
19.   Attempts  upon  David's  life. 
20'-2li.    David's  flight. 

2i'-2b.   David  an  Outlaw  Captain. 
2i2-io_   The  help  of  the  priest. 
2 1 11-22^.  The  escape  made  good. 
226-23.    Murder  of  the  priests. 

23.  Saul  seeks  David. 

24.  David  spares  Saul. 

25.  David  and  Nabal. 

26.  David  spares  Saul. 

3^-2  S.  I.    David  as  Vassal  of  Achish. 

27.  David  takes  service. 

28.  Saul's,  extremity. 

29.  David's  rejection  from  the  Philistine  army. 

30.  Burning  of  Ziklag. 

31.  The  battle  of  Gilboa. 

2  S.  I.   Information  of  Saul's  death. 

C.  2  Samuel  2-24.  David  the  King. 

2-4.   In  Hebron. 

2^3^.   The  civil  war. 
3*"^.    David's  family. 
36-3».   Death  of  Abner. 
4.   Assassination  of  Isbbaal. 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOOK  XV 

^-24.   In  Jerusalem. 

5.  Capture  of  Jerusalem. 

6.  Transfer  of  the  Ark. 

7.  The  Messianic  promise. 

8.  Sundry  wars. 

9.  Meribbaal. 

10-12.  The  Ammonite  war  and  David's  adultery. 

13.  Amnon's  crime  and  Absalom's  revenge. 

14.  Absalom's  recall. 
15-19.  The  usurpation. 
20.    Sheba's  revolt. 

21 1-1*.   The  Gibeonites  avenged. 

21IS-22    Sundry  exploits. 

22I-23''.   Two  Psalms. 

23*-^.   Catalogue  of  the  chief  warriors. 

24.  The  pestilence. 

§  3.   Composition  of  the  Book. 

As  is  now  well  known,  the  Hebrew  historians  whose  works  have 
come  down  to  us  made  free  use  of  previously  existing  documents. 
Their  method  is  abundantly  exemplified  in  the  Books  of  Chroni- 
cles, where  we  are  able  to  compare  the  result  and  the  sources. 
Where  the  earlier  documents,  or  sources  of  compilation,  have 
perished,  as  is  the  case  in  the  books  we  are  now  considering,  the 
demonstration  is  not  so  striking.  But  even  here  the  phenomena 
are  sufficiently  plain,  and  enable  us  to  say  with  practical  certainty 
that  the  method  was  the  same.  The  first  thing  that  attracts  our 
attention  in  reading  the  story  of  Samuel  and  David  is  the  obvious 
duplication  of  certain  incidents.  Two  denunciations  of  Eli's  course 
are  related,  either  one  of  which  abundantly  answers  the  author's 
purpose.  There  are  two  accounts  of  Saul's  rejection,  and  the 
second  makes  no  allusion  to  the  earlier.  The  two  (or  three) 
accounts  of  Saul's  appointment  as  king  are  probably  another 
example.  Two  accounts  of  David's  coming  to  court  have  long 
given  trouble  to  the  harmonist.  We  have  two  sets  of  negotiations 
for  Saul's  daughter,  the  later  being  ignorant  of  the  earlier  one. 
There  are  at  least  two  accounts  of  David's  flight  from  court,  two 
of  his  having  Saul  in  his  power,  two  of  his  seeking  refuge  with 
Achish,  two  of  the  death  of  Saul.  The  difficulty  of  working  these 
into  one  history  increases  with  each  additional  incident.     The 


XVI  INTRODUCTION 

simplest  way  to  account  for  them  is  to  suppose  that  they  are  real 
duplicates,  —  variant  accounts  of  the  same  series  of  events,  put 
together  by  a  compiler  who  wished  to  preserve  for  us  whatever 
he  found  of  interest  in  both  (or  all)  his  sources. 

Equally  convincing  is  the  difference  in  style  and  point  of  view, 
which  is  noticed  as  we  pass  from  one  section  to  another.  In  one 
place  Samuel  appears  as  the  theocratic  ruler  of  the  people,  com- 
parable to  Moses,  and  to  Moses  alone  among  the  heroes  of  Israel. 
He  administers  the  government  as  the  representative  of  Yahweh. 
The  whole  people  gather  at  his  call,  and  he  rebukes  and  com- 
mands with  more  than  kingly  authority.  In  another  place  he  is 
the  seer  of  a  small  town,  respected  as  one  who  blesses  the  sacrifice 
and  presides  at  the  local  festival,  but  known  only  as  a  clain^oyant, 
whose  information  concerning  lost  or  strayed  property  is  reliable. 
Even  thus  he  is  unknown  to  Saul,  whose  home  is  only  a  few  miles 
away.  With  this  difference  of  view  goes  a  difference  of  political 
theory.  In  one  account  Saul  is  chosen  as  king  by  God,  is  wel- 
comed by  Samuel,  is  assured  that  God  is  with  him  and  encour- 
aged to  act  as  he  finds  opportunity.  His  election  by  God  is  an 
act  of  grace ;  for  God  has  looked  upon  the  affliction  of  his  people, 
and  now  promises  that  Saul  shall  deliver  them  from  the  hand  of 
the  Philistines.  But  in  other  sections  of  the  narrative  the  desire 
of  the  people  for  a  king  is  an  act  of  rebellion  against  Yahweh. 
Their  act  is  an  act  of  apostasy  parallel  to  all  their  rebellions  of 
earlier  times.  No  wonder;  for  to  this  narrator  the  Philistine 
\\  oppression  has  already  been  relieved  by  Samuel.  By  spiritual 
weapons  these  enemies  have  been  vanquished  so  that  they  come 
no  more  into  the  territory  of  Israel,  and  even  surrender  the  terri- 
tory which  they  had  taken  away.  So  great  a  discrepancy,  not  in 
details  of  the  narrative  only,  but  also  in  the  whole  view  of  the 
same  period,  is  not  conceivable  in  one  author.  It  can  be  accounted 
for  only  on  the  hypothesis  that  various  works  have  been  combined 
in  one. 

§  4.    Analysis  of  i  Samuel  i.-xv. 

As  already  remarked,  these  chapters  form  a  distinctly  marked 
section  of  the  work  before  us.  Within  this  section  we  can  easily 
select  certain  paragraphs  which  have  a  common  tone.     In  these 


ANALYSIS  OF   i  SAMUEL  L-XV.  XVli 

Samuel  appears  as  the  theocratic  ruler  of  Israel.  The  most  strik- 
ing instance  is  chapter  7'"^-.  In  this  section  Samuel's  influence 
suffices  to  make  the  people  put  away  their  false  gods  as  by 
a  common  impulse.  At  his  command  they  gather  at  Mizpah. 
Their  assembly  is  a  religious  convocation.  The  Philistine  attack 
finds  the  people  apparently  undefended.  But  the  prevailing 
prayer  of  Samuel  is  stronger  than  earthly  weapons.  Throughout 
the  chapter,  Samuel  reminds  us  of  Moses.  Like  the  great  Law- 
giver, Samuel  rebukes  the  people,  judges  them,  intercedes  for 
them.  Their  victory  over  the  enemy  is  due  to  his  prayers,  as 
the  victory  over  Amalek  in  the  Wilderness  is  due  to  the  upraised 
hands  of  Moses. 

The  parallel  continues  in  the  next  chapter  (ch.  8).  Here  the 
people  rebel  against  their  prophet,  and  in  so  doing  rebel  against 
Yahweh  himself.  Their  action  is  as  ungrateful  as  was  their  mur- 
muring in  the  Wilderness.  Their  hearts  are  incorrigible.  Even 
the  fact  that  Samuel's  sons  do  not  walk  in  his  ways  is  not  allowed 
to  mitigate  their  guilt.  The  position  of  Samuel  as  Yahweh's 
vicegerent  is  impregnable. 

The  continuation  of  the  story  is  io^^"^\  The  choice  of  a  king 
by  lot  follows  immediately  on  the  people's  demand.  In  handling 
the  lot  Samuel  appears  not  exactly  as  another  Moses,  but  at  least 
as  another  Joshua.  Like  Joshua  also  he  delivers  a  farewell  address, 
now  contained  in  chapter  12.  This  originally  followed  at  once  on 
the  election  of  Saul.  Its  resemblance  to  Jos.  24  is  obvious.  In 
it  Samuel  still  appears  as  the  executive  officer  of  the  theocracy. 
He  holds  up  to  the  people  their  revolt  against  Yahweh,  and  con- 
vinces them  that  they  have  sinned  in  asking  a  king.  The  convic- 
tion leads  tc  no  attempt  to  undo  what  has  been  done,  and  people 
and  king  are  allowed  to  go  on  on  sufferance.  But  they  are  sol- 
emnly warned  that,  if  they  do  ill,  they  and  their  king  will  perish. 

The  forebodings  which  thus  cast  their  shadows  over  Saul's 
inauguration  are  realized  in  chapter  15.  Although  Samuel  has 
resigned  the  supreme  power,  the  king  is  still  subject  to  his  order; 
and  he  commands  Saul  to  exterminate  the  Amalekites.  Saul  obeys 
only  in  part,  and  for  his  sin  is  peremptorily  deposed  —  de  jurf 
deposed,  for  the  prophet  consents  to  pay  him  outward  honour. 
But  to  the  author's  view,  the  experiment  with  Saul  has  turned  out 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

a  failure;   and  Samuel  pronounces  the  divine  sentence  to  this 
effect. 

The  common  tone  of  these  chapters  will  be  admitted  by  the 
attentive  reader,  and  their  contrast  with  the  sections  now  inter- 
polated between  them  will  scarcely  be  denied.  And,  reading 
them  in  connexion,  we  discover  that  they  form  an  unbroken  nar- 
rative. Their  author  told  in  them  all  that  he  cared  to  tell  of  the 
life  of  Saul.  But  we  naturally  suppose  that  he  told  more  of  Samuel, 
who  was  to  him  the  important  figure.  And  it  is  altogether  likely 
that  he  introduced  him  at  an  earlier  stage  of  life  than  that  in  which 
he  here  appears  —  already  at  the  height  of  his  power.  It  is  not 
improbable,  therefore,  that  the  account  of  Samuel's  birth  and 
youth  form  part  of  the  same  document.  And  in  the  account  of 
this  which  we  find  in  i  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  sup- 
position that  it  is  a  part  of  the  same  history.  With  this  we 
naturally  take  the  call  of  the  prophet  as  narrated  in  3.  As  the 
text  now  stands,  chapter  4  belongs  in  the  same  connexion,  for  it 
is  the  sequel  of  3. 

Provisionally,  then,  we  may  restore  a  life  of  Samuel  which  was 
once  a  separate  document  and  which  embraced  what  we  now  read 
as  chapters  i,  3,  4,  7*"^',  8,  lo^'"^,  12,  15.  I  will  designate  it  Sm. 
We  next  examine  the  parts  which  do  not  belong  to  this  source, 
and  our  attention  is  attracted  by  9^-10'^.  This  is  a  continuous, 
and,  for  the  most  part,  homogeneous,  narrative,  contrasting  re- 
markably with  the  one  we  have  been  examining.  It  begins  like 
a  separate  book,  introducing  persons  hitherto  unknown.  When 
Samuel  appears,  it  is  in  a  very  different  character  from  the  one  he 
wears  in  Sm.  This  story  has  little  of  the  theological  character  of 
the  other  account,  though  the  author  shows  piety  of  another 
stamp.  Chapters  11,  13^-14^^  agree  so  well  in  their  tone  with 
9,  10,  that  we  have  little  difficulty  in  joining  them  together.  As 
in  the  other  case,  they  belong  to  a  single  document,  and  are 
apparently  continuous.*  This  document  is  a  life  of  Saul,  as  truly 
as  the  other  is  a  life  of  Samuel,  and  we  may  call  it  S/. 

There  are  considerable  portions  which  have  not  yet  been  as- 


*  Some  minor  sections,  which  do  not  at  first  sight  agree  with  the  context  in 
which  they  are  found,  will  be  considered  later. 


ANALYSIS   OF   i   SAMUEL  L-XV.  XIX 

signed  to  either  of  our  two  sources.  The  most  marked  in  its  indi- 
viduahty  is  the  account  of  the  Ark  in  the  country  of  the  Phihstines, 
5'-7^  It  contains  no  references  to  Samuel  or  Saul,  so  that  we  are 
quite  at  a  loss  to  place  it.  Our  only  clue  is  that  it  presupposes 
the  capture  of  the  Ark,  the  account  of  which  is  now  contained 
in  4.  We  therefore  put  it  in  Sm.,  but  its  individuahty  is  so 
marked  that  we  may  suspect  it  to  have  been  embodied  in  that 
document  from  some  source  now  lost  to  us.  Chapter  2,  which 
next  claims  our  attention,  is  made  up  of  several  distinct  para- 
graphs. First  is  Hannah's  Psalm.  This  is  now  universally  con- 
ceded to  be  an  independent  composition  inserted  in  the  text  from 
some  poetical  collection  like  our  own  Book  of  Psalms.  We  next 
find  an  account  of  the  wickedness  of  Eli's  sons,  2^-'",  followed 
by  a  panegyric  of  Samuel  ^^^^.  The  next  four  verses  take  up 
Eli's  sons  again,  while  v.^®  recurs  to  Samuel.  Finally,  we  have  a 
denunciation  of  Eli  (2^''^)  by  an  anonymous  man  of  God  who 
reminds  us  of  the  similar  character  in  i  K.  13^ 

By  experiment  we  discover  that  the  paragraphs  concerning  Eli's 
sons  and  the  weakness  of  their  father,  with  the  message  of  the 
man  of  God,  can  be  put  together  without  the  references  to  Samuel. 
But  the  references  to  Samuel  do  not  stand  together  (if  taken  by 
themselves),  and  seem  to  have  been  inserted  into  the  other 
account  when  it  was  already  complete.  The  case  is  not  like  that 
of  the  references  to  EU  in  chapter  i,  for  those  references  are  so 
wrought  into  the  narrative  that  we  cannot  suppose  them  ever  to 
have  been  independent  of  it,  nor  it  ever  to  have  existed  without 
them.  The  riddle  will  be  solved  if  we  suppose  that  Sm.  took 
from  an  earlier  source  the  account  of  the  wickedness  of  Eli's  sons, 
the  rebuke  of  the  anonymous  prophet,  and  the  account  of  the 
capture  and  restoration  of  the  Ark.  This  material  he  wrought 
into  his  life  of  Samuel  in  the  usual  method  of  the  Hebrew 
historiographer. 

The  analysis  given  above,  so  far  as  the  separation  of  the  documents  is  con- 
cerned, is  the  one  now  the  common  property  of  criticism.  The  only  point  at 
which  I  have  ventured  to  diverge  from  my  predecessors  is  in  regard  to  the 
denunciation  of  punishment  contained  in  a^^-^".  This  is  generally  taken  to  be 
a  sheer  intrusion  made  by  a  very  late  hand,  after  the  virtual  completion  of  our 
present  Book.    The  argument  is,  that  it  duplicates  chapter  3  and  takes  away 


XX  INTRODUCTION 

its  point.  The  truth  in  this  is  that  4  is  the  sequel  either  of  2^-^  or  of  3.  One 
of  the  two  denunciations  is  superfluous.  But  I  find  it  more  probable  that  an 
author  in  writing  the  life  of  Samuel  should  add  3  to  the  denunciation  already 
in  the  text,  than  that  one  should  put  2'-''-^^  into  a  text  which  already  has  the 
message  to  Samuel.  The  author  of  Sm.  must  give  the  honour  to  Samuel  even 
if  he  found  the  anonymous  already  there.  And  that  the  anonymous  is  pre- 
supposed is  evident  from  3^''^,  for  in  this  verse  Yahweh  says :  /«  iAat  day  I  will 
execute  ttpon  Eli  all  that  I  have  spoken  against  his  house.  The  palpable  refer- 
ence is  to  what  the  man  of  God  has  said  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

The  earlier  document  which  I  here  postulate  consists  of  2^2 17. 22-25. 27-36  4lb_yi 
It  also  contained  originally  some  further  account  of  Eli  and  of  Shiloh  which 
the  author  could  not  use.  One  indication  of  this  is  the  fact  that  Eli  steps 
upon  the  scene  in  i^  without  introduction.  As  a  Philistine  oppression  of  forty 
years  is  known  to  the  author  of  Judges  (13^),  from  which  Samson  only  began 
to  deliver  Israel  (Jd.  13^-  25),  it  is  not  unlikely  that  this  Eli  document  was  once 
read  in  that  connexion.  The  argument  that  a^-^^  is  of  later  date  than  the 
context  has  no  weight  in  the  face  of  the  difficulty  we  meet  in  assigning  a  defi- 
nite date  to  either  of  our  documents. 

So  far  as  Saul  is  concerned,  the  two  narratives  which  we  have 
separated  cover  the  same  ground.  Each  has  an  account  of  his 
election,  both  make  Samuel  the  instrument  of  his  anointing,  each 
gives  an  exploit  of  his,  each  narrates  his  rejection.  They  must 
have  existed  as  separate  histories  before  they  were  combined  in 
our  present  text.  Of  the  two,  SI.  is  evidently  the  older  document. 
It  is  more  primitive  in  its  religious  ideas.  It  has  a  near  and  clear 
view  of  the  personages  and  of  the  progress  of  events.  We  may 
class  it  with  the  stories  of  Gideon,  of  Jephthah,  and  of  Samson, 
which  form  the  groundwork  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  The  other 
account,  so  far  as  it  is  original  with  the  author  whom  we  call  Sm., 
is  less  concrete.  It  idealizes  persons  and  events.  It  is  dominated 
by  a  theological  idea.  It  is,  in  fact,  in  line  with  the  latest  redac- 
tor of  the  Book  of  Judges,  who  embodied  the  Deuteronomistic 
theory  of  history  in  the  framework  of  that  book.  There  is  reason 
to  suppose,  therefore,  that  Sm.  designed  to  replace  the  older  his- 
tory by  one  of  his  own  which  would  edify  his  generation.  This 
design  and  this  method  are  indications  of  a  comparatively  late 
date  —  perhaps  in  or  after  the  Exile. 

The  historical  method  which  joins  together  two  or  more  documents,  narrat- 
ing the  same  events  or  treating  the  same  subject,  is  so  well  illustrated  in  the 
Pentateuch  that  I  need  not  stop  to  argue  the  probabilities  in  its  favour  in  the 


ANALYSIS  OF  i  SAMUEL  L-XV.  XXI 

Books  of  Samuel.  The  oiiginal  independence  of  the  document  which  we 
have  called  SI.  accounts  for  the  insertion  of  one  section  which  has  puzzled  the 
critics.  I  refer  to  13^^^*,  the  first  account  of  Saul's  rejection  or  of  the  breach 
between  him  and  Samuel.  The  paragraph  is  an  evident  duplicate  of  15  and 
its  insertion  in  the  completed  book  is  unaccountable.  Yet  the  critics  generally 
assume  that  it  is  a  late  insertion  by  an  editor  or  scribe  to  whom  Saul's  rejection 
in  15  came  too  late.  As  the  reason  why  the  other  events  of  Saul's  life  are 
duplicated  is  that  they  are  narrated  once  in  each  document,  there  is  a  pre- 
sumption that  the  same  is  true  in  this  case.  The  section  138-158  ^,^5  Sl.'s 
account  of  Saul's  rejection  and  was  inserted  into  his  history  before  Sm.  was 
written.  The  argument  is  briefly:  (i)  that  this  section  was  closely  inwoven 
into  SI.  by  the  preparatory  verse  10^.  This  could  hardly  be  called  the  method 
of  a  mere  interpolator;  (2)  historical  fidelity  called  for  some  account  of  this 
kind.  The  fact  was  notorious  that  Saul's  kingdom  did  not  endure.  This  was 
as  well  known  to  the  writer  of  SI.  as  it  is  to  us.  Though  far  from  the  prag- 
matism of  Sm.  he  would  yet  find  the  reason  for  this  in  the  will  of  Yahweh  and 
-  his  prophet;  (3)  this  account  is  as  mild  as  it  well  could  be.  It  does  not  blame 
Saul  but  leaves  us  in  doubt  whether  he  was  really  at  fault.  In  this  respect, 
certainly,  the  paragraph  does  not  show  dependence  on  15,  where  a  high- 
handed act  of  disobedience  is  narrated.  The  gentler  treatment  of  Saul  would 
naturally  come  earlier  in  time;  (4)  only  by  supposing  this  to  have  preceded 
can  we  account  for  the  geographical  location  of  15.  As  is  well  known,  the 
centre  of  Samuel's  public  activity,  according  to  Sm.,  is  Mizpah.  It  is  here 
that  he  calls  the  people  together  on  solemn  occasions,  and  it  is  here  that  Saul 
would  most  naturally  bring  the  people  for  his  festivities.  Why  then  do  we 
find  the  festivities  and  the  rejection  of  15  at  Gilgal?  Only  because  the  author 
had  before  him  an  account  which  already  made  Gilgal  the  site."" 

It  remains  to  inquire  whether  either  of  the  two  documents  was 
complete  in  itself,  or  whether  one  or  the  other  contained  more 
than  the  life  of  a  single  hero.  The  probability  is  in  favour  of  each 
one's  being  part  of  a  larger  history.  The  life  of  David  was  so 
important  in  the  eyes  of  any  Israelitic  writer  (we  may  feel  sure) 
that  the  life  of  Saul  or  of  Samuel  would  be  treated  as  an  intro- 


*  In  order  to  show  the  state  of  the  discussion  I  have  here  assumed  that  the 
paragraph  in  question  is  exactly  13^1^8,  which  is  its  extent  according  to  the  analysis 
of  Wellhausen,  Budde,  and  others.  The  exact  boundaries  of  the  insertion  how- 
ever are  not  absolutely  certain,  as  the  reader  will  see  by  turning  to  the  exposition 
in  the  body  of  the  book.  I  myself  think  it  begins  with  v.4.  It  should  be  remarked 
also  that  though  the  section  was  in  the  history  of  SI.  before  it  was  joined  to  Sm.,  it 
is  nevertheless  an  addition  to  the  earliest  text  of  SI.  It  fits  so  badly  in  its  present 
context  that  it  shows  itself  to  be  an  insertion.  My  only  contention  is  that  it  is  an 
early  insertion. 


XXll  INTRODUCTION 

duction  to  the  story  of  David.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  phe- 
nomena before  us.  Chapter  15,  which  is  as  far  as  we  have  traced 
Sm.,  is  continued  in  16^"^',  while  14"  certainly  prepares  the  way 
for  le""'.  The  paragraph  14*'-^'  is  indeed  a  concluding  summary 
such  as  we  find  elsewhere  at  the  end  of  an  important  reign  or 
period.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  author  of  SI.  would  at  least 
give  us  some  account  of  his  hero's  death.  As  he  has  no  more 
exploits  to  tell,  it  is  not  improper  for  him  to  insert  his  summary 
here.  Still  it  is  possible  that  these  verses  are  a  later  insertion  or 
have  been  transferred  hither  from  some  other  place, 

Redactional  alterations,  made  to  fit  the  documents  together, 
are  not  numerous.  The  most  marked  is  1 1^^""  where  the  proposi- 
tion to  renetv  the  kingdom  is  a  concession  to  the  other  document. 
Some  other  minor  alterations  or  insertions  will  be  considered  in 
the  course  of  the  exposition. 

This  is  the  place  to  consider  whether  the  two  streams  of  narra- 
tive so  plainly  discernible  in  i  Sam.  1-15  belong  to  the  Penta- 
teuchal  (Hexateuchal)  authors  commonly  known  as  J  and  E. 
The  afiirmative  has  been  maintained  by  recent  critics.*  The 
document  which  I  have  called  Sm.  these  scholars  identify  with  E, 
and  the  other  history  they  attribute  to  J.  Repeated  examination 
of  the  points  of  resemblance  has  failed  to  convince  me  of  the 
identity  which  is  claimed.  Details  may  be  left  until  we  come  to 
the  exposition ;  but  here  it  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  Sm.  shows 
quite  as  many  resemblances  to  D,  or  the  Deuteronomic  school, 
as  it  shows  to  E.  For  SI.  it  seems  enough  to  say  that  its  affini- 
ties seem  to  be  with  the  stories  that  form  the  basis  of  the  Book 
of  Judges  rather  than  with  the  traditions  of  the  Patriarchs  told  us 
by  J. 

§  5.    Analysis  of  i  Samuel  xvi. -2  Samuel  i. 

The  problems  presented  by  this  section  of  the  history  are  more 
complicated  than  those  just  considered.     The  confusion  and  in- 

*  The  theory  that  the  Pentateuchal  sources  extend  into  the  historical  books  is  as 
old  as  Gramberg's  Kritische  Geschichte  (1830)  and  was  elaborated  by  Schrader  in 
the  eighth  edition  of  De  Wette's  Einleitung  (1869).  It  has  recently  been  revived 
by  Budde  and  Cornill,  with  the  qualified  approval  of  Professor  Moore  {Judges,  p. 
xxxiii  f.).  A  judicious  review  of  the  arguments  of  Bu.  and  Co.  is  given  by  Kittel, 
SK.  1891,  p.  44  ff. 


ANALYSIS   OF  I  SAMUEL  XVL-2  SAMUEL  L  XXlii 

consistencies  of  the  narrative,  and  the  evident  duplicates  which  it 
contains,  show  that  it  is  composite.  But  as  Saul  and  David  appear 
in  both  accounts,  and  as  Samuel  is  in  the  background,  it  is  more 
difficult  to  separate  the  documents.  Chapter  i6  encourages  us 
to  make  a  beginning,  for  it  introduces  David  to  us  twice.  In  the 
first  half  of  the  chapter  he  is  a  shepherd  boy  not  old  enough  to 
be  called  to  the  family  sacrifice.  In  the  second  half  he  is  a  war- 
rior of  experience  and  of  approved  valour.  The  two  sections 
cannot  come  from  the  same  hand,  and  each  of  them  fits  admirably 
to  one  of  the  two  documents  we  have  traced  hitherto.  For  vv.^"^^ 
are  the  logical  sequel  to  15  (Sm.)  ;  since  the  rejection  of  Saul 
must  be  followed  by  some  provision  for  his  successor.  The  other 
account  16'*"^  continues  14"  (SI.),  as  has  already  been  pointed 
out. 

The  first  definite  clue  in  what  follows  seems  to  be  18^^  where 
we  read  that  Saul  removed  David  from  his  presence  (lai'tt)  by 
giving  him  a  command  of  troops  engaged  in  service  away  from 
the  court.  This  points  back  to  16-^  where  David  had  been  made 
his  armour-bearer;  18^'^  therefore  belongs  with  16^'^^.  It  did 
not  follow  immediately  on  that  paragraph,  however,  because  the 
song  of  the  women  18"  which  is  the  occasion  of  Saul's  distrust 
must  have  been  preceded  by  some  exploit  of  David's  which  called 
forth  the  eulogy.  Such  an  exploit  is  indeed  found  in  17.  But 
that  chapter  agrees  more  nearly  (in  its  representation  of  David's 
youth)  with  the  other  document.  We  must  assume  that  the 
original  paragraph  has  been  omitted,  or  else  that  it  has  been 
worked  over  so  that  we  no  longer  recognize  it.* 

The  chapter  now  under  consideration  gives  an  account  of  two 
of  Saul's  daughters,  each  of  which  Saul  offers  to  David  as  a  wife. 
The  two  accounts  are  evidently  independent,  and  one  of  them 
shows  reference  to  Sm.  It  is  natural  to  find  in  the  other  18^^' 
a  continuation  of  SI.,  with  which  it  agrees  in  representing  Saul  as 
hoping  to  get  David  out  of  the  way  by  the  hand  of  the  Philistines. 
In  this  hope  he  is  disappointed  and  the  marriage  takes  place. 
The  account  concludes  with  the  statement  that  Saul  feared  David 

*  The  question  whether  the  recension  of  (5  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  I§  in  17 
and  18  will  be  discussed  in  the  commentary.  The  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the 
shorter  text,  which  is  that  of  ffi. 


XXIV  INTRODUCTION 

Still  more.  This  would  properly  introduce  one  of  the  attempts 
upon  David's  Hfe.  Among  several  that  offer  themselves,  the  one 
which  fits  most  naturally  in  the  story  is  19"""  where  Saul  sets 
guards  about  the  house  of  David.  The  night  in  which  this  took 
place  is  the  wedding  night,  a  time  when  David  would  be  least 
suspicious.  The  evident  sequel  is  the  flight  to  Nob,  2\^^^,  and 
the  conclusion  to  this  is  the  massacre  of  the  priests  22^  *®"^. 

The  most  striking  duplicate  in  what  follows  is  23^^-24^  com- 
pared with  26.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  one  of  these  should 
be  assigned  to  each  of  our  documents.  If  so,  26  is  the  one  which 
belongs  with  SI.  because  in  it  David  appears  as  the  daring  v/arrior 
who  invades  the  enemy's  camp.  The  intervening  matter  offers 
23^'"  which  seems  to  belong  in  the  same  stream.  The  story  of 
Nabal  in  25  and  the  account  of  David's  service  with  Achish  27. 
29.  30  also  go  well  in  this  connexion.  2  S.  i  seems  to  be  the 
continuation  of  the  same  document. 

Without  denying  the  subjective  nature  of  such  an  analysis,  I 
venture  to  think  that  we  have  a  consistent  narrative  in  the  sec- 
tions thus  put  together,  to  wit:  16^*-^  j  ge-w.  2o-29a  j^u-i:  ^^'in\K^ 
22I. 2.6-23  23I-"  25.  26.  27.  29.  30.  2  S.  I.  What  is  left  is  not  so 
homogeneous,  though  for  the  most  part  the  fragments  fit  together 
fairly  well.  It  makes  David,  the  shepherd  lad  secretly  anointed 
by  Samuel,  come  to  the  camp  of  Saul  where  he  slays  the  Philistine 
champion.  His  introduction  to  Saul  is  followed  by  Jonathan's 
pledge  of  friendship  (i8^-^).  Saul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  his 
enemy  at  once  and  tries  to  pin  him  to  the  wall  (18^*"^*)  — the  evi- 
dent reference  to  i6"'^  does  not  necessarily  prove  the  coherence 
of  the  two  paragraphs.  We  had  reason  to  believe  in  the  earlier 
period  that  Sm.  was  dependent  to  some  extent  on  SI.  The  same 
seems  to  be  true  here.  The  evil  spirit  which  SI.  made  the  occa- 
sion of  introducing  David  to  the  court,  becomes  in  Sm.  the  divine 
inciter  of  Saul  against  David.  Yahweh  is  with  David  to  protect 
him,  while  Saul  is  the  incarnation  of  all  villainy.  So  in  i8^'-'^ 
Merab  is  promised  to  David,  being  his  by  right  on  account  of  the 
defeat  of  Goliath,  but  taken  from  him  by  a  flagrant  breach  of 
faith,  and  given  to  another.  Soon  after,  Saul  orders  Jonathan  to 
slay  David,  but  a  temporary  reconciliation  is  effected,  I8*'-I9^ 
But  at  the  next  exhibition  of  prowess  Saul  tries  again  to  murder 


ANALYSIS   OF   I  SAMUEL   XVL-2  SAMUEL   I.  XXV 

David  with  his  own  hand,  19"'",  David  escapes  and  comes  to 
Samuel  at  Ramah,  where  he  is  miraculously  saved  from  Saul's 
various  attempts  to  take  him,  19'*"^*.  This,  it  should  be  noticed, 
is  a  duplicate  account  of  what  we  have  in  10"^'^,  and  as  that  be- 
longs to  SI.,  this  is  naturally  attributed  to  Sm.,  where  we  have 
already  placed  it.  The  natural  continuation  is  21"''^,  David's 
flight  to  Achish,  with  which  we  may  perhaps  connect  22^"^,  It 
has  already  been  pointed  out  that  23^^-24^^  belongs  in  this 
document.  Its  tone  agrees  with  this,  for  David  is  saved  by  an 
interposition  of  Providence,  23^®,  and  his  enemy  is  delivered 
into  his  hand  by  the  same  power.  The  distinct  recognition  of 
David's  kingly  future  on  the  part  of  Saul,  24^'"^^,  seems  to  point 
in  the  same  direction.  Further,  23'^'^'*  should  perhaps  be  taken 
with  this  narrative,  though  it  may  be  a  later  interpolation.  Samuel 
appears  for  the  last  time  in  28,  where,  although  dead,  he  plays  the 
part  assigned  to  him  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  source,  and  his 
message  is  vindicated  in  31,  the  story  of  Saul's  despair  and  suicide. 
Reading  continuously  i6'-'''  ly'-iS^  (in  the  text  of  (3)  18'^'^ 
i8'^-i9'«  i9»«-2*  2i"->«  22^'  23"-24«'  28.  31  we  shall  find  no  in- 
superable objection  to  considering  them  one  history.  We  have 
thus  accounted  for  all  our  text  except  20  (including  21^).  This 
seems  impossible  to  fit  into  either  of  our  sources.  It  is  the  ac- 
count of  Jonathan's  device  for  sounding  his  father  and  acquaint- 
ing David  with  the  result.  In  the  composite  text  it  comes  after 
Saul's  repeated  attempts  upon  David's  life,  when  it  is  simply  ludi- 
crous to  have  Jonathan  deny  that  David  is  in  danger.  But  it  is 
equally  out  of  place  in  either  of  the  separate  sources.  In  one  it 
comes  immediately  after  David's  flight  to  Samuel,  which,  with 
Saul's  pursuit,  must  have  been  known  to  all  the  world.  In  the 
other  it  would  follow  David's  escape  from  his  own  house,  in  con- 
nexion with  which  Saul's  animus  must  have  been  revealed  to  the 
court  and  to  his  own  immediate  family.  The  only  place  where  it 
would  seem  possible  is  after  Saul's  first  manifestation  of  hostility, 
which  is  the  first  attempt  with  the  spear,  i8^'".  But  when  we 
place  it  here  we  are  at  once  brought  into  difficulty  by  the  fact 
that  at  the  end  of  the  interview  David  leaves  the  court  for  good 
—  which  contradicts  the  subsequent  tenor  of  both  documents. 
There  seems  to  be  nothing  left  except  to  suppose  we  have  here 


XXVI  INTRODUCTION 

a  fragment  from  another  source.  The  obvious  purpose  of  the 
story  is  to  prepare  for  David's  treatment  of  Jonathan's  son  Merib- 
baal  (Mephibosheth)  in  2  S.^  and  it  is  possible  that  that  story  and 
this  originally  stood  in  connexion.  It  should  be  noted  that  in 
this  chapter  there  is  an  assumption  that  it  was  not  safe  for  David 
to  be  seen  with  Jonathan,  something  which  is  not  intimated  in 
either  of  our  sources. 

Here,  as  in  the  analysis  of  1-15,  I  cannot  claim  originality  in  discovering 
the  paragraphs  which  belong  together.  Earlier  critics,  however,  have  been 
obliged  to  assume  a  number  of  fragmentary  insertions  which  do  not  seem  to 
me  probable.  In  claiming  that  the  book  is  made  up  of  two  fairly  continuous 
histories,  I  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  these  are  not  themselves  composite. 
There  is  every  probability  in  favour  of  this  being  the  case.  It  is  perhaps  suf- 
ficient for  the  present  to  show  the  first  stage  of  the  critical  process.  There  is 
evidently  much  yet  to  be  done.  Some  minor  interpolations  will  be  discussed 
in  the  commentary. 

§  6.   Analysis  of  2  Samuel  ii.-xxiv. 

The  narrative  here  shows  few  duplicate  sections  such  as  we 
meet  in  the  earlier  book.  It  is  now  generally  conceded  that  we 
have  in  9-20  a  block  of  homogeneous  matter  from  an  old  and- 
well-informed  source.  It  reaches  a  period  with  the  description 
of  David's  court  in  20^^.  A  similar  description  is  given  in 
gi6-i8_  jj  seems  natural  to  suppose  that  in  the  latter  place  the 
paragraph  was  intended  to  serve  the  same  purpose  as  in  the 
earlier ;  and,  in  fact,  chapter  8  is  a  compendium  of  David's  wars, 
designed  to  take  the  place  of  the  more  extended  history  in  9-20. 
Chapters  5  and  7  seem  to  belong  with  8,  for  their  author  empha- 
sizes the  religious  ideas  of  Israel's  unity  and  of  David's  significance 
with  reference  to  the  Messianic  hope.  The  tone  of  these  chapters 
would  agree  with  Sm.,  while  there  seems  no  objection  to  making 
9-20  a  part  of  SI.  Chapters  2-4  will  then  belong  with  the  latter, 
while  6  represents  matter  belonging  to  both.  At  least,  it  is 
impossible  to  suppose  either  to  have  lacked  an  account  of  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  such  as  is  here  given. 

The  curious  appendix,  21-24,  contains  pieces  of  widely  different 
origin.  The  two  calamities  recounted  in  21^"^*  and  24  seem  to 
belong  together,  and  to  have  been  originally  continuous.    Between 


ANALYSIS   OF  2  SAMUEL  IL-XXIV.  XXVll 

them  was  first  inserted  an  old  catalogue  of  exploits  and  of  heroes, 
21I5-22  23*-33.  This  was  in  turn  rent  asunder  by  the  two  Psalms, 
22  and  23^"^  It  is  possible  that  some  of  this  material  belongs  to 
the  documents  already  separated,  and  there  seems  no  internal 
reason  why  we  should  not  make  21^""  and  24  a  part  of  the  history 
from  which  came  9-20.  But  how  they  came  to  be  dislocated 
from  the  main  body  is  difficult  to  say.  It  should  be  noted  that 
the  whole  section,  21-24,  separates  what  belongs  together,  for 
I  Kings  I  is  the  original  continuation  of  i  Sam.  20. 

Spinoza  in  the  Tractaiits  Theologico-Politicus  sets  forth  the  theory  that  all 
the  books  from  Genesis  to  Kings  are  the  work  of  a  single  historian.  He  does 
not  discuss  the  Books  of  Samuel  in  detail,  but  probably  held  that  they  (like 
the  Pentateuch)  contain  fragments  of  different  dates.  Richard  Simon  likewise 
does  not  discuss  the  composition  of  these  books  in  detail,  but  is  content  to 
assert  that  the  historical  books  of  the  Bible  are  all  compiled  from  ancient 
records  by  way  of  abridgment.  He  cites  the  opinion  of  Abarbanel  that 
Samuel  and  Kings  were  compiled  by  Jeremiah  out  of  the  records  of  Samuel, 
Nathan,  Gad,  and  other  prophets  or  public  writers  who  lived  before  him.  He 
also  quotes  other  opinions  to  the  same  effect,  and  remarks  that  there  are  in 
these  books  several  ways  of  speaking  which  clearly  demonstrate  that  the  last 
collection  was  not  made  until  a  long  time  after  most  of  these  prophets  had 
lived.* 

The  first  attempt  at  detailed  analysis  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  seems  to  have 
been  made  by  Eichhorn,  in  whose  Introduction  f  vve  find  a  comparison  of  the 
matter  common  to  2  Samuel  and  i  Chronicles.  This  he  supposes  to  be  taken 
from  a  common  source,  a  compendious  life  of  David.  He  further  points  out 
that  I  S.  24  and  26  are  duplicates,  and  that  161^23  and  17II-32  are  inconsistent. 
The  last-mentioned  paragraph  he  strikes  out  of  the  text,  on  the  ground  of  its 
omission  by  (5.  He  points  out  also  that  I  S.  1-3  and  7  are  later  than  the 
adjacent  matter. 

Eichhorn's  hypothesis  of  a  brief  life  of  David  which  furnished  the  matter 
common  to  Samuel  and  Chronicles  was  ably  refuted  by  De  Wette  in  his  Bei- 
tragi  (II.  p.  14  ff.).  The  same  scholar  J  gives  the  evidence  of  compilation, 
beginning  with  the  contradiction  between  i6i*-23  and  ly'Zff.  S5  He  adds  that 
these  last  are  not  consistent  with  1731-40. 54_  Besides  other  inconsistencies,  he 
points  out  the  duplicate  nature  of  231^-2428  and  26,  recognizes  that  2  S.  21-24 
is  an  appendix,  and  that  the  poetic  sections  are  inserted  from  a  book  of  songs. 

*  Richard  Simon,  A  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament,  translated  info 
English  by  H.  D.,  London,  1682;  pp.  4,  22,  62. 

\  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  Fiinfte  Auflage,  Gottingen,  1823,  IIL  pp. 
464-533. 

t  In  his  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  Vierte  Auflage,  Berlin,  1833. 


xwiii  INTRODUCriON 

He  does  not  make  a  thoroughgoing  analysis,  and  contents  himself  with  relat- 
ing Bertholdt,  whose  work  is  now  antiquated. 

Gramberg  *  with  genuine  critical  insight  calls  attention  to  the  resemblance 
between  the  pragmatism  of  i  S.  7  and  that  of  the  framework  of  the  Book  <>l 
Judges.  I  le  also  recognizes  that  I  S.  and  the  early  part  of  2  S.  consist  of  two 
narratives  which  relate  the  same  events  in  different  ways.  He  disentangles 
the  two  documents,  beginning  with  i  S.  9  and  following  them  through  lO. 
From  that  point  on,  his  analysis  is  not  so  successful. 

Ewald  t  divides  the  historical  books  Judges  to  2  Kings  among  six  different 
authors.  He  supposes  the  earliest  materials  to  have  been  statistical,  like  2  S. 
2^8-39^  and  that  these  were  taken  from  the  public  records  —  it  is  unfortunate 
that  he  should  class  with  them  i  Chr.  iiio-^^  and  iz^-''^^.  Next  to  these  was  a 
narrative,  near  the  events  in  point  of  time,  which  embraced  such  sections  as 

1  S.  13.  14  and  3026-31.  Then  came  an  extended  work,  the  Prophetical  Book 
of  Kings,  which  is  the  source  of  a  large  part  of  the  material  in  Samuel  and 
Kings  (down  to  2  K.  10).  Another  writer,  of  less  vigorous  style,  covered  the 
same  period  —  a  specimen  of  his  work  is  I  S.  5-8,  and  another  is  i  S.  31. 
Later  fragments  inserted  into  the  history  are  i  S.  12.  15-17.  24.  26.  28.  The 
work  thus  compiled  was  Deuteronomically  edited,  brief  insertions  indicating 
the  point  of  view  of  the  editor,  like  i  S.  8^-*  and  parts  of  12.  The  final 
redactor  lived  in  the  Exile,  but  the  changes  made  by  him  in  our  books  were 
slight,  the  insertion  of  I  S.  2^^-  being  the  only  one  mentioned. 

The  analysis  made  by  Schrader  J  assigns  the  greater  part  of  the  books  to 
two  writers  whom  he  distinguishes  as  the  theocratic  and  the  prophetic  narrator, 
and  whom  he  identifies  (as  already  mentioned)  with  the  two  authors  of  the 
Pentateuch  now  generally  known  as  E  and  J.  The  details  of  his  analysis 
however  do  not  bear  examination,  as  he  classes  together  sections  palpably 
inconsistent. 

The  problem  was  taken  in  hand  afresh  by  Wellhausen.  §  With  great  clear- 
ness of  vision  he  separates  the  two  main  sources  of  i  S.,  though  he  is  not 
always  positive  concerning  the  intricacies  of  19  and  20.  In  2  S.  he  makes  6. 
9-20  parts  of  a  life  of  David,  while  pointing  out  the  various  elements  which 
are  put  together  in  the  rest  of  the  Book,     His  conclusion  is  that  the  bulk  of 

2  S.  is  a  literary  unit,  and  that  i  S.  1452.2  s.  S^^  is  another  literary  unit,  "  in 
which  however  the  continuous  thread  is  frequently  interrupted  by  foreign 
matter.  These  later  insertions  are  doubtless  supplements  which  attach  them- 
selves to  the  older  connexion,  or  put  a  new  elaboration  in  the  place  of  a 


*  Kritische  Geschichte  der  Rellgionsideen  des  Alten  Testament,  Berlin,  1830, 
p.  71  ff- 

t  Gesck.  des  Volkes  Israel^,  I.  pp.  193-244;  ETr.  I.  pp.  133-168. 

+  In  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  Achte  Auflage,  1869. 

\  In  his  edition  of  Bleak's  Einleitiing,  the  fourth,  published  in  1878.  This  sec- 
tion is  not  contained  in  the  later  editions  of  Bleek,  but  is  reprinted  in  the  book 
entitled  Composition  des  Hexateuchs  und  der  historischen  Bucher,  Berlin,  1889. 


THE  TEXT  A\D    VERSIONS  xxix 

genuine  member  of  the  older  docmnent."  In  i  S.  1-14,  finally,  he  unites 
three  pieces  which  belong  to  each  other  but  which  have  not  sprung  from  the 
same  point  of  view  {Comp.  p.  265). 

Budde  *  marks  an  advance  by  showing  how  complete  each  of  the  two  docu- 
ments in  I  S.  I-14  is  in  itself.  He  seems  to  exaggerate  however  in  declaring 
that  neither  can  be  shown  to  be  dependent  on  the  other.  In  the  second  half 
of  I  S.  he  finds  the  continuation  of  the  same  two  histories  but  with  consider- 
able supplementary  insertions,  and  he  follows  the  two  documents  down  to 
2  S.  7.  As  already  remarked,  he  believed  them  to  be  identical  with  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  sources  E  and  J,  having  come  to  this  conclusion  independently  of 
Schrader.t  2  S.  8  he  supposes  to  be  a  compendious  conclusion  to  the  history 
of  David  designed  to  replace  9-20,  which  an  editor  sensitive  to  David's  repu- 
tation left  out  of  the  history,  but  which  one  with  more  historic  sense  afterwards 
reinserted.  This  scholar's  textual  and  higher  criticism  is  embodied  in  his 
edition  of  the  text.  %  The  student  will  readily  convince  himself  that  the  analy- 
sis in  this  book  is  not  always  correct,  that  the  colouring  is  sometimes  certainly 
wrong,  and  further,  that  his  rearrangement  of  the  chapters  in  2  S.  creates  a 
book  which  in  fact  never  had  any  earlier  existence.  But  the  work  is  never- 
theless indispensable,  and  a  distinct  advance  on  anything  which  had  been 
done  before. 

Kuenen  (^HCO^.)  comes  to  substantially  the  same  conclusion  with  Well- 
hausen.  A  careful  statement  of  the  phenomena  is  given  by  Driver,  LOV^. 
pp.  172-185.  While  agreeing  with  Budde  that  one  of  the  two  sources  shows 
affinity  with  E,  he  points  out  the  considerable  differences  between  the  other 
and  J.  Cornill  {EinUitung*)  seems  to  add  little  to  the  results  of  his  prede- 
cessors. 

§  7.   The  Text  and  Versions. 

All  existing  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  represent  a  single 
recension  of  the  text.  Extravagant  views  of  the  integrity  and 
perfection  of  this  text  prevailed  among  Jewish  scholars,  and 
passed  over  into  the  Church.  These  views  were  formulated  into 
a  dogma  in  at  least  one  instance ;  and,  with  iew  exceptions, 
Protestant  scholars  were  dominated  by  them  down  to  the  present 
century.     The  integrity  of  the  Massoretic  text  was  mildly  ques- 

*  Die  Backer  Richter  mid  Samuel,  1890. 

t  Budde's  book  was  preceded  by  a  study  entitled  "  Saul's  Konigswahl  und 
Verwerfung,"  7.A  TW.  1888.  Cornill  treated  the  same  subject  under  the  title  "  Ein 
Elohistischer  Bericht  iiber  die  Enfstehung  des  Israel.  Konigtums,"  ZKWKL. 
1885,  and  in  the  Konigsberger  Sfudien,  1887,  and  7.ATW.  1890.  His  discussion 
seems  to  liave  been  of  material  help  to  Budde. 

+  Part  8  of  Haupt's  SBOT,  Baltimore,  1894. 


XXX  INTRODUCTION 

tioned  by  Cappel,  and  roughly  attacked  by  Morin ;  but  these  are 
only  the  exceptions  that  prove  the  rule.  The  true  state  of  the 
case  with  reference  to  the  Books  of  Samuel  has  been  recognized 
for  about  half  a  century.  The  text  of  these  books  in  the  current 
Hebrew  recension  is  more  corrupt  than  the  text  of  any  other  part 
of  the  Old  Testament,  unless  it  be  the  Book  of  Ezekiel.  From 
what  has  been  said  of  Hebrew  MSS.  and  editions,  it  will  be  seen 
that  variations  of  these  among  themselves  give  little  help  in  the 
work  of  emendation.  In  some  few  instances,  however,  the  MSS. 
show  a  better  reading  than  is  found  in  the  printed  copies. 

The  greater  part  of  this  commentary  was  prepared  on  the  basis  of  Baer's 
edition  (Lipsiae,  1892),  with  frequent  reference  to  the  editions  of  Jablonski, 
1699,  and  Michaelis,  1720.  In  the  final  revision  I  have  carefully  gone  over  the 
edition  of  Ginsburg  (London,  1894).  I  have  also  noted  the  various  readings 
of  De  Rossi  in  his  Variae  Lectiones  Veteris  Testamenti,  Parma,  1785.  Gins- 
burg gives  a  large  number  of  corrections  in  his  margin,  taken  apparently 
from  the  versions.  I  have  in  no  case  depended  upon  these,  though  in  a  few 
instances  they  have  called  my  attention  to  a  reading  whose  possibility  had  not 
occurred  to  me. 

In  the  absence  of  light  from  the  MSS.,  we  must  seek  the  help 
of  the  ancient  versions.  And  among  these  the  Greek  easily  takes 
the  first  place,  owing  to  its  age  and  to  the  fact  that  it  had  a  Hebrew 
original  very  different  from  the  one  known  to  us.  If  we  had  (§  in 
its  earliest  form,  it  would  be  equivalent  to  a  Hebrew  codex  of  the 
first  Christian  century,  or  even  of  earlier  date.  Unfortunately  the 
copies  of  (g  now  in  our  possession  have  suffered  manifold  cor- 
ruption. Logically,  we  should  wait  until  their  faults  have  been 
removed,  and  the  uncorrupt  original  has  been  restored,  before 
proceeding  to  the  correction  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

For  this  we  cannot  wait,  as  such  an  edition  is  not  likely  to  be 
published  for  many  years  to  come.  Until  it  appears,  we  may  pro- 
visionally make  use  of  the  material  at  hand.  Various  editions  of 
(§  are  known  to  us,  and  with  due  care  they  may  help  us  to  valu- 
able improvements  in  our  text.  The  copies  most  accessible  to  us 
are  based  with  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  accuracy  on  the  cele- 
brated Codex  Vaticanus  (^).  Excessive  claims  have  sometimes 
been  made  for  this  MS.,  as  though  it  transmitted  the  original 
Septuagint,  or  were  free  from  Hexaplar  influence.     These  claims 


THE  TEXT  AND   VERSIONS  xxxi 

cannot  be  substantiated.  Codex  ^  represents  one  recension  of 
the  text  of  (^,  and  one  recension  only.  But  from  the  number 
of  MSS.  which  are  generally  found  agreeing  with  it,  we  may  con- 
clude that  it  represents  that  type  with  considerable  fidelity. 

A  second  group  is  represented  by  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  (*). 
That  this  also  represents  a  recension  —  that  is,  a  form  of  the  text 
modified  by  the  work  of  an  editor  —  must  be  evident  to  every 
reader.  For,  on  comparison  of  ^  with  ^,  the  former  is  seen  to 
have  been  systematically  corrected  by  a  Hebrew  copy  resembling 
the  one  now  current.  Typical  of  a  third  group  is  the  edition  of 
Lagarde  {^).  This  also  has  been  frequently  corrected  by  a 
Hebrew  copy  or  by  one  of  the  other  Greek  translations.*  But 
with  almost  equal  frequency,  this  copy  has  retained  the  earlier 
reading  along  with  the  correction. 

The  great  divergence  of  these  several  types  of  text  shows  the 
complexity  of  the  problem  which  confronts  the  editor  of  the 
Septuagint.  For  the  corrector  of  the  Hebrew  it  is  not  quite  so 
serious.  It  allows  him  to  argue  that  where  these  three  copies 
agree  they  represent  a  very  early  type  of  text.  Where  they  agree 
in  a  reading  different  from  that  preserved  in  f^,  this  reading 
deserves  to  be  considered  on  its  merits,  as  if  it  were  the  read- 
ing of  a  very  ancient  Hebrew  copy.  Internal  probability  should 
decide  between  them. 

We  may  go  farther  than  this.  Where  our  Greek  copies  differ 
among  themselves,  we  may  assume  that  the  variation  has  arisen 
in  one  of  two  ways,  —  either  there  has  been  corruption  of  one  or 
more  by  the  ordinary  accidents  of  Greek  transmission,  or  else  one 
or  two  have  been  corrected  by  a  Hebrew  copy.  The  skilful  critic 
will  be  able  to  distinguish  the  cases.  And  in  any  case  he  may 
consider  the  reading  most  remote  from  the  present  Hebrew  as  a 
possible  variant  of  the  autotype.  To  ascertain  the  weight  of 
probability  in  each  particular  case  is  undoubtedly  a  delicate  busi- 
ness. But  it  is  along  these  lines  that  criticism  must  proceed. 
Preceding  commentators  have  worked  along  these  lines,  and  have 

*  In  the  Books  of  Samuel  it  shows  no  special  affinity  with  the  fragments  of 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  that  have  come  down  to  us.  Its  agreement 
with  the  current  text  of  S  is  remarked  by  Dr.  and  others.  Cf.  Stockmayer  in 
ZATH.XU.p.2iBf. 


XXXii  INTRODUCTION 

made  many  undoubted  improvements  in  the  text.  Their  argu- 
ments and  results  have  been  attentively  considered  in  the  present 
work. 

Hexaplar  diacritical  marks  have  been  preserved  for  us  in  only  a 
few  instances  in  the  Books  of  Samuel.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
readings  of  the  ancient  Greek  versions  attributed  to  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus,  and  Theodotion.  For  these  I  have  depended  on  Field, 
Hexaplorum  Origenis  quae  Supersunt,  London,  1875. 

The  most  complete  apparatus  for  (5  is  the  well-known  edition  begun  by 
Holmes  and  continued  by  Parsons  {HP.),  Oxford,  1 798-1827.  The  Books  of 
Samuel  (Kings)  are  contained  in  the  second  volume  of  this  work.  I  have  con- 
sulted it  on  all  difficult  passages.  Repeated  attempts  to  group  the  MSS.  as 
presented  in  this  work  have  given  no  results  in  which  I  have  confidence,  and  I 
have  fallen  back  upon  the  rule  formulated  above.  My  citation  of  @,  there- 
fore, must  be  taken  to  mean  only  that  @abl  agree  in  a  particular  reading. 
The  text  of  ^  is  reproduced  in  Swete's  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  I.  Cambridge, 
1887,  with  some  corrections  by  Nestle  in  the  appendix  to  Vol.  II.  The  varia- 
tions of  ^  are  given  in  the  margin  of  the  same  edition.  The  edition  of 
Lagarde  (which  the  editor  supposed  to  represent  the  recension  of  Lucian) 
is  entitled,  Librorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Canonicorum  Pars  Prior,  and  was 
published  ir  Gottingen,  1883. 

The  translation  of  the  Bible  into  Latin  made  by  Jerome  (H) 
has  little  independent  value  for  the  correction  of  the  text.  The 
standard  edition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  does  indeed  fre- 
quently depart  from  the  meaning  of  the  current  Hebrew.  But 
careful  examination  shows  that  this  is  due  to  contamination  from 
the  preceding  Latin  version,  or  versions,  made  from  Greek  proto- 
types. When  Jerome's  own  work  is  cleared  from  these  admixt- 
ures it  is  found  to  represent  a  copy  closely  resembling  J^.  In 
preparing  this  commentary  I  have  examined  3L  by  means  of  the 
apparatus  given  in  Vercellone's  Variae  Lectiones  (Rome,  1864), 
and  have  cited  as  3L  only  what  is  confirmed  by  such  examination. 

The  readings  of  the  Old-Latin  (I)  sometimes  throw  light  on  the 
Greek  text  from  which  they  are  derived.  I  have  therefore  exam- 
ined the  fragments  contained  in  Sabatier's  Bibliorum  Sacrorum 
Latinae  Versiones  Antiquae  (1743),  and  also  those  given  by  Ver- 
cellone  from  the  margin  of  a  codex  of  Leon  —  Codex  Gothicus 
Legionensis. 

The  Syriac  version  known  as  the  Peshitta  has  apparently  under- 


RELIGIOUS   IDEAS   OF  THE   BOOKS   OF   SAMUEL      XXXUi 

gone  a  revision  under  ecclesiastical  authority.  Its  testimony  to 
a  Hebrew  original  is  therefore  open  to  suspicion  —  for  the  im- 
portance of  the  Greek  Old  Testament  in  the  Church  influenced 
the  revisers,  if  not  the  translators,  of  S».  Where  this  version  dif- 
fers materially  from  ^  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  variation  is  not 
due  to  Greek  influence.  The  difficulty  of  using  this  translation  in 
criticism  of  the  Hebrew  is  enhanced  by  the  state  of  its  own  text. 
The  only  printed  edition  within  reach  is  that  of  Lee,  which  was  a 
reprint  of  the  Syriac  part  of  Walton's  Polyglott,  which  in  its  turn 
was  taken  from  the  Paris  Polyglott,  resting  finally  upon  a  single 
MS.  —  of  late  date  and  slender  authority.  The  edition  published 
at  Oroomiah  in  connexion  with  a  rendering  in  Modern  Syriac  dif- 
fers very  slightly  from  that  of  Lee,  and  it  is  not  yet  certain  that  it 
can  be  called  an  independent  witness.  Where  I  have  adduced  a 
reading  of  S  I  mean  the  edition  of  Lee.  In  a  few  instances  this 
testimony  seems  to  have  some  value.* 

The  other  translation  which  throws  light  upon  the  text  is  the 
Jewish  Aramaic  version  known  as  the  Targum  (ST).  It  conforms 
in  general  to  the  type  of  Hebrew  current  among  us.  But  not  in- 
frequently it  shows  an  apprehension  of  the  text  different  from  that 
embodied  in  the  Massoretic  punctuation,  and  occasionally  it 
tacitly  corrects  even  the  consonants  of  the  traditional  copies.  I 
have  collated  the  edition  of  Lagarde,  which  reproduces  the  old 
and  good  Codex  Reuchlinianus,  and  which  was  published  in  1872. 

§  8.   Religious  Ideas  of  the  Books  of  Samuel. 

In  turning  our  attention  to  the  religious  ideas  expressed  or 
implied  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  we  are  first  impressed  by  the 
variety  of  view  in  different  parts  of  the  work.  In  some  places 
we  have  a  glimpse  of  the  most  primitive  stage  of  Israel's  religion. 
An  instance  of  this  is  the  treatment  of  the  Teraphim  (i  S.  19). 
We  cannot  doubt  that  this  was  an  image  in  human  form  and  that 

•  The  need  of  a  critical  edition  of  S  is  great.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  such 
an  edition  will  influence  our  view  of  the  Hebrew  text  to  any  considerable  extent. 
On  the  editions  and  MSS.  the  reader  may  consult  an  article  by  Rahlfs  in  7. A  TW. 
IX.  pp.  161-210,  and  the  volume  by  Barnes,  An  Apparatus  Criticus  to  Chronicles, 
Cambridge,  1897. 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

it  was  an  object  of  worship.  It  is  mentioned  as  being  in  the  house 
of  David,  with  no  explanation  of  its  coming  there  and  with  no 
betrayal  of  surprise.  We  are  warranted  in  inferring  that  it  was  a 
part  of  the  ordinary  furniture  of  the  Israelite  house.  The  author 
of  the  story  had  no  idea  that  the  use  of  such  an  image  was  contrary 
to  the  command  of  Yahweh,  or  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  com- 
plete loyalty  to  him.  The  worst  enemy  of  Saul  never  accused  him 
of  being  anything  but  a  true  worshipper  of  Yahweh,  and  David  is, 
if  possible,  even  more  free  from  suspicion.  To  understand  the 
position  of  the  author  we  must  remember  that  the  prophet  Hosea 
also  mentions  the  Teraphim,  without  special  remark,  as  coexisting 
with  the  worship  of  Yahweh,  Hos.  3*. 

The  narrative  we  are  considering  reminds  us  of  another  passage, 
Gen.  31193^35  ^£^^  where  Rachel  steals  the  Teraphim  of  her 
father.  Here  also  the  presence  of  the  Teraphim  in  the  family 
of  Israel  gives  the  author  no  offence.  Yet  we  can  hardly  avoid 
seeing  that  he  views  them  with  something  of  contempt.  They 
are  carried  off  by  a  woman,  and  when  they  must  be  concealed 
they  are  ignominiously  thrust  under  her  camel  saddle  and  sat 
upon.  This  author  has  a  touch  of  sarcasm  in  his  tone,  from  which 
the  narrator  in  Samuel  is  free.  The  story  of  David  and  Michal 
therefore  represents  an  earHer  stage  of  thought  than  that  of  E. 

It  is  rather  striking  that  the  only  other  reference  to  the  Tera- 
phim in  Samuel  is  at  the  opposite  pole  of  religious  thought.  In 
this  (i  S.  15-^)  the  Teraphim  are  classed  with  idolatry  and  witch- 
craft as  an  abomination  to  Yahweh. 

We  shall  probably  not  be  wrong  in  seeing  a  survival  of  pre- 
prophetic  religion  in  the  account  of  the  witch  of  Endor  (i  S.  28). 
The  narrative,  however,  does  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
its  material  as  in  the  case  just  considered.  The  author  condemns 
necromancy  (at  least  as  we  now  read)  and  makes  Saul  in  his 
better  days  to  have  cut  off  its  devotees  from  the  land.  But 
through  the  story  we  are  able  to  see  the  spiritistic  ideas  which 
once  prevailed  in  Israel.  The  spirits  of  the  dead  are  classed  with 
the  gods.  They  possess  superhuman  knowledge.  They  can  be 
induced  by  magical  means  to  reveal  the  secrets  of  the  future. 
This  was  once  religion.  From  the  time  of  Isaiah  it  was  distinctly 
proscribed. 


RELIGIOUS    IDEAS   OF  THE   HOOKS    OF   SAMUEL      XXXV 

That  Yahweh  is  the  God  of  Israel  is  the  faith  of  all  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.  In  the  older  parts  of  our  book  however  this  is 
taken  in  the  literal  sense  —  his  jurisdiction  does  not  extend  be- 
yond the  land  of  his  people.  David  says  in  evident  good  faith 
( I  S.  26'^)  :  They  have  driven  me  forth  from  miion  with  the 
heritage  of  Israel,  saying:  Go,  serve  other  gods  !  According  to 
this,  the  exile  is  no  longer  under  the  protection  of  his  own  god, 
but  is  obliged  to  seek  help  from  the  gods  of  the  land  where  he 
sojourns.  There  is  here  no  trace  of  the  later  conviction  that 
Yahweh  is  the  only  God,  and  that  the  gods  of  the  nations  are 
naught. 

But,  as  in  the  case  already  considered,  the  diversity  of  view  in 
different  parts  of  the  Book  is  so  marked  as  to  constitute  contra- 
diction. In  the  Deuteronomic  sections  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  author  has  the  exclusive  view,  according  to  which  the 
gods  of  the  nations  are  no  gods.  This  is  in  fact  distinctly  asserted 
in  one  passage  (i  S.  i2''^'),  which  however  may  be  a  late  expan- 
sion of  the  text.  The  way  is  prepared  for  this  universalism  by 
the  account  of  Dagon  before  the  Ark.  Here  the  god  of  the 
Philistines  is  not  regarded  as  a  nonentity,  but  his  inferior  power 
when  brought  into  conflict  with  Yahweh  is  made  evident. 

No  stress  can  be  laid  upon  the  use  of  the  name  Baal  in  proper 
names,  as  it  proves  only  the  appellative  application  of  the  title 
{Lord)  to  Yahweh.  Nor,  in  the  present  state  of  the  narrative, 
can  we  argue  conclusively  that  the  ephod  used  in  consulting  the 
oracle  was  an  image  of  Yahweh.  It  is  in  the  representation  of 
the  character  of  Yahweh,  that  we  see  the  primitiveness  of  Israel's 
religion  at  this  time.  Yahweh  is  a  God  inscrutable  in  his  actions 
—  a  God  of  moods  we  might  almost  call  him.  He  instigates  Saul 
against  David  for  no  reason  of  which  the  latter  is  conscious.  Yet 
by  inhaling  the  fragrance  of  a  sacrifice,  it  is  probable  that  he  may 
be  placated  and  thus  his  good  humour  be  restored.  At  a  later 
time  he  instigates  David  to  commit  a  sin,  apparently  in  order  that 
he  may  punish  him,  just  as  he  hardened  the  hearts  of  Eli's  sons 
in  order  that  he  might  destroy  them. 

Yahweh  may  be  pleased  by  extraordinary  efforts  or  by  extraor- 
dinary self-denial.  For  this  reason,  Saul  adjures  the  people  to 
abstain  from  food  the  whole  day,  confident  that  he  will  be  granted 


XXXVl  •  INTRODUCTION 

a  victory.  Unfortunately  the  sequel  was  not,  in  this  case,  a  happy 
one,  because  the  injunction  was  violated.  But  this  does  not  make 
the  adjuration  less  meritorious  in  itself  considered. 

Nevertheless  Yahweh  is  a  righteous  God.  He  watches  over 
oaths  and  vows,  and  punishes  their  violation.  This  is  curiously 
illustrated  in  the  case  just  alluded  to.  Saul's  adjuration  is  unwit- 
tingly violated  by  Jonathan.  Yahweh  is  wroth  and  refuses  to 
answer  when  approached  in  the  use  of  the  oracle.  He  unerringly 
points  out  the  offender  and  would  apparently  insist  upon  his  death. 
It  is  something  extraordinary  that  the  people  interfere  and  ransom 
Jonathan.  Another  instance  of  Yahweh's  vindicative  justice  is 
given  in  the  matter  of  the  Gibeonites.  Israel  has  sworn  to  spare 
them.  But  Saul  in  his  zeal  for  Israel  breaks  the  covenant.  Blood 
therefore  rests  upon  himself  and  upon  all  his  house.  Yahweh 
becomes  the  avenger,  and  the  blood  is  purged  by  the  death  of 
seven  descendants  of  Saul  "before  Yahweh."  Thus  (as  in  the 
case  of  EH's  house  also)  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  are  visited 
upon  the  children. 

Yahweh  is  a  God  who  reveals  himself  to  his  people.  Even  the 
individual  (it  would  appear)  may  seek  an  omen  from  casual  things, 
as  did  Jonathan  from  the  words  of  the  PhiHstines.  But  more  dis- 
tinctly the  divine  will  is  revealed  in  certain  appointed  ways.  One 
of  these  is  the  Urim  and  Thummim  which  we  may  identify  with 
the  sacred  lot.  The  oracle  given  by  the  Ephod  probably  ex- 
pressed itself  in  the  same  way.  Most  distinctly,  Yahweh  speaks 
to  (and  through)  his  prophets,  sometimes  apparently  by  dreams, 
sometimes  in  waking  visions.  He  sends  the  Spirit  also,  which 
produces  extraordinary  effects  in  those  who  are  seized  by  it.  They 
experience  exaltation  of  feeling  so  that  they  join  in  religious 
dances,  rave,  fall  down  in  a  cataleptic  state.  In  other  cases,  the 
Spirit  drives  to  deeds  of  heroic  courage,  or  prepares  the  Anointed 
of  Yahweh  for  his  work  as  a  ruler ;  and  again  it  produces  morbid 
jealousy,  melancholy,  and  deeds  of  frenzy. 

The  extermination  of  the  enemies  of  Israel  is  a  religious  duty, 
for  they  are  the  enemies  of  Yahweh  also.  The  method  of  deaUng 
with  them  is  set  forth  in  the  account  of  Saul  and  Amalek.  The 
objects  of  attack  are  solemnly  dedicated  to  Yahweh,  so  that  to 
leave  any  alive  is  to  commit  sacrilege.     We  can  hardly  be  wrong 


COMMENTARIES  XXXvii 

in  supposing  that  their  extermination  was  pleasing  to  him,  as  the 
"devotion"  of  Israel  was  pleasing  to  Chemosh.  The  author  of 
this  section  of  our  history  is  possessed  by  the  idea  of  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  —  to  leave  the  enemies  of  Yahweh  aUve  is  sinful. 
It  is  some  relief  to  think  that  his  history  is  here  the  reflection  of 
his  idea. 

The  pragmatism  which  shows  itself  in  the  Book  of  Judges  is 
carried  over  into  the  first  section  of  i  Samuel.  This  is  a  philoso- 
phy of  history,  according  to  which  when  Israel  was  faithful  to 
Yahweh  it  was  prospered  and  kept  in  safety.  When  it  forgot  him 
it  was  delivered  over  to  the  power  of  its  enemies.  Thus  the  Phil- 
istine oppression  comes  because  the  people  have  forsaken  Yahweh 
and  served  Baal  and  Astarte.  When  they  repent  and  seek  their 
God,  he  delivers  them  by  the  hand  of  Samuel.  As  an  expression 
of  belief  in  the  justice  of  God  in  dealing  with  the  nations,  this 
view  deserves  all  respect.  The  mechanical  way  in  which  it  is 
carried  out,  however,  gives  a  one-sided  view  of  the  course  of 
Israel's  history. 

§  9.   Commentaries. 

Among  the  Fathers,  Theodoret  possesses  considerable  acumen, 
and  his  Questioties  in  Libras  Regum  (Migne,  Tom.  80)  will  always 
be  of  value.  The  commentary  of  Procopius  of  Gaza  is  now 
proved  to  have  been  mainly  taken  from  Theodoret.*  The  Ques- 
tiones  Hebraicae  in  Libras  Regum  printed  in  Jerome's  works  are 
known  to  be  spurious.  They  are  occasionally  interesting  however 
for  their  embodiment  of  Jewish  tradition. 

The  merits  of  the  Rabbinical  commentators  Rashi  (Isaaki), 
Kimchi  (Karachi)  and  Levi  ben  Gerson  are  perhaps  less  conspicu- 
ous in  their  treatment  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  than  elsewhere, 
because  of  their  dependence  on  the  traditional  text.  Besides 
these,  which  are  contained  in  Buxtorf 's  Rabbinical  Bible,  I  have 
consulted  Abarbanel  in  the  edition  of  1686,  and  the  portions  of 
Tanchum's  Arabic  commentary  published  by  Haarbriicker  (1844). 

Among  the  Roman  Catholic  expositors  I  know  only  Cornelius 
a  Lapide,  in  the  edition  of  Venice,  1 700,  and  those  who  are  cited 
by  Poole  in  his  Synopsis,  or  by  Schmid  in  his  commentary. 

*  Cf.  Eisenhofer,  Procopius  von  Gaza,  Freib.  1897. 


XXXVlll  INTRODUCTION 

Among  the  Protestant  scholars  of  the  seventeenth  century  a 
high  place  must  be  accorded  to  Sebastian  Schmid  of  Strasburg. 
His  commentary  on  the  Books  of  Samuel  (two  volumes,  quarto, 
1687,  1689)  is  a  monument  of  solid  and  judicious  learning. 
The  author  shares  the  prejudice  of  his  time  in  favour  of  the 
received  text,  and  the  theological  questions  which  he  discusses  at 
length  have  to  us  lost  a  large  part  of  their  interest.  But,  so  far 
as  the  text  on  which  he  comments  is  uncorrupt,  the  author's  judg- 
ment is  sound,  and  much  that  is  of  value  in  recent  conservative 
commentaries  is  derived  from  him.  Among  Reformed  theo- 
logians Clericus  (Le  Clerc)  is  much  esteemed.  His  commentary 
on  Samuel  appeared  in  1 708.  The  often  suggestive  Annotationes 
of  Grotius  are  embodied  in  the  Biblia  Illusirata  of  his  Lutheran 
opponent  Calov.     Of  this  I  have  used  the  second  edition  (1719). 

The  questions  of  textual  criticism  which  have  come  to  the  front 
in  recent  years  were  first  fairly  discussed  by  Thenius.  He  under- 
took systematically  to  correct  the  text  by  comparison  of  the  ancient 
versions.  His  commentary  forms  part  of  the  Kurzgefasstes  Exe- 
getisches  Handbuch*  Thenius  sometimes  goes  too  far  in  his 
preference  for  the  reading  of  (§,  but  this  should  not  make  us 
undervalue  his  really  pioneer  work.  The  next  step  was  taken  by 
VVellhausen  in  his  Text der  Bucher  Samuelis  (1871).  The  author's 
well-known  brilliancy  and  balance  are  manifest  in  this  early  work, 
and  all  succeeding  commentators  are  indebted  to  it.  The  only 
criticism  to  be  made  upon  it  is  that  it  is  not  always  sufficiently 
appreciative  of  the  work  accomplished  by  Thenius.  Keil  alone, 
of  recent  expositors,  holds  on  to  a  conception  of  the  Hebrew 
text  inherited  from  the  seventeenth  century,  and  his  commentary 
(second  edition,  1875)  refuses  to  recognize  the  most  evident  gains 
of  recent  scholarship.  The  exposition  of  Erdmann  in  Lange's 
Bibelwerk  is  accessible  in  an  English  translation  (1877).  The 
author  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  in  advance  of  Keil,  but  his  Ameri- 
can editor  (Professor  Toy)  has  enriched  the  work  with  notes  which 
show  a  scholarship  abreast  of  the  times.  The  great  work  of  Reuss, 
La  Bible,  Traduction  Nouvelle  (Paris,  1874),  contains  in  its  first 


*  The  first  edition  was  published  in  1842 ;  the  second  in  1864 ;  a  third,  edited  by 
Lohr,  has  just  appeared  (1898). 


COMMENTARIES  XXXIX 

volume  a  lucid  translation  of  the  historical  books,  with  brief  but 
luminous  notes.  The  translation  and  notes  of  Klostermann  are 
always  original  and  ingenious.  His  treatment  of  the  text  is  free 
from  bias  and  often  suggestive.  The  majority  of  his  conjectural 
emendations,  however,  have  not  commanded  general  assent.  His 
work  is  a  part  of  the  Kurtzgefasster  Kommentar  of  Strack  and 
Zockler,  and  was  published  in  1887.  Budde's  Richter  und  Samuel 
(1890)  has  already  been  alluded  to.  It  contains  valuable  notes 
on  the  text.  The  edition  of  the  text  in  SBOT.  by  the  same 
author  also  deserves  mention  here  as  well  as  among  the  introduc- 
tory works. 

In  English  the  only  help  to  the  understanding  of  this  part  of 
the  Bible  which  deserves  mention  is  Driver's  Notes  on  the  Hebre^v 
Text  of  the  Books  of  Satnuel  (1890).  The  book  has  a  valuable 
introduction  on  Hebrew  palaeography,  and  discusses  with  great 
fulness  questions  of  textual  criticism.  As  the  author  confesses  his 
frequent  dependence  on  Wellhausen,  so  I  do  not  hesitate  to  avow 
that  I  have  frequently  adopted  an  explanation  from  him. 

In  addition  to  the  books  mentioned,  I  have  had  constantly  by 
me  Kittel's  translation  in  Kautzsch's  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alien 
Testaments.  I  have  examined  also  a  number  of  programmes, 
dissertations,  and  pamphlets,  some  of  which  will  be  referred  to  in 
the  notes. 

A  list  of  abbreviations  will  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  volume. 


A   COMMENTARY   ON    THE    BOOKS   OF 

SAMUEL. 


A  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BOOKS  OE 

SAMUEL. 


I   SAMUEL  I.-XV.    THE   LIFE   OF  SAMUEL  DOWN  TO 
THE   REJECTION   OF   SAUL. 

As  the  final  redactor  of  the  Books  regarded  it,  this  section 
makes  one  division  of  his  work.  The  legitimate  rule  of  Samuel 
was  succeeded  by  the  legitimate  rule  of  David ;  Saul  played  but 
a  subordinate  part.  That  this  was  not  the  mind  of  one  of  his 
sources  is  evident  firom  what  has  been  said  in  the  Introduction 
(see  above  p.  xviii), 

I.  1-IV.  1*.  Samuel's  "birth  and  calL  —  Hannah,  the  child- 
less wife  of  Elkanah,  grieves  over  her  privation  and  prays  for  a 
son.  Her  prayer  is  answered,  and  in  accordance  with  the  vow 
made  in  her  prayer  she  dedicates  her  son  to  the  service  of  Yahweh. 
He  is  therefore  brought  to  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  when  yet  a  boy. 
Here  his  behaviour  is  in  marked  contrast  to  that  of  the  hereditary 
priests,  the  sons  of  Eli.  While  yet  a  lad  (as  it  would  seem)  he 
becomes  a  prophet  by  the  divine  call,  and  the  first  revelation 
which  he  receives  is  a  denunciation  of  punishment  on  Eli  for  his 
indulgence  of  his  sons.  This  revelation  is  followed  by  others, 
which  establish  Samuel's  reputation  as  a  prophet  throughout 
Israel. 

The  piece  begins  like  the  stories  appended  to  the  history  of  the 
Judges,  Jd.  17^  19'  (cf.  13-).  The  place  to  which  it  introduces 
us  is  Shiloh,  where  we  find  the  Ark  of  God  under  the  guardianship 
of  Eli  and  his  family,  and  where  there  is  a  temple  for  it.  The 
time  is  not  far  from  that  commemorated  by  the  story  of  Samson, 
as  the  Philistines  are  the  prominent  enemies  of  Israel.     Probably 

3 


4  I  SAMUEL 

the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  had  m  mind  the  story  of  EU  or 
of  Samuel,  or  even  of  Saul,  when  he  credited  Samson  with  only 
the  beginning  of  deliverance  (Jd.  13').  Shiloh  appears  as  the 
sanctuary  of  Israel  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  in  at  least  one  passage 
ascribed  to  JE  (18*"^")  as  well  as  in  others  of  later  date,  also  in 
Jd.  18^^  in  an  insertion  which  is  classed  with  E.  The  prominence 
given  to  this  sanctuary  in  our  present  account  makes  it  probable 
that  the  various  documents  are  in  some  way  connected. 

Our  account,  however,  is  not  a  unit.  It  has  received  at  least 
one  insertion  from  an  extraneous  source  in  the  Song  of  Hannah. 
Again,  the  warning  of  Eli  by  an  anonymous  man  of  God  (2^"^) 
unpleasantly  duplicates  the  message  revealed  to  Samuel  in  the 
next  chapter.  One  of  the  two  is  superfluous.  Against  the  opinion 
of  most  critics  which  sees  in  2^"^  a  barefaced  insertion,  I  have 
given  reasons  above  (Introduction,  p.  xix  f.)  for  supposing  that  it 
was  already  a  part  of  the  account  of  EU's  sons  which  the  author 
used  in  \vriting  the  life  of  Samuel. 

That  the  earher  part  of  i  Sam.  properly  belongs  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
has  often  been  pointed  out.  That  there  was  ever  a  separate  book  of  Judges 
which  included  i  Sam.  1-12  cannot  be  certainly  asserted.  Graf*  claims  that 
Jd.  17  18  19-21  and  i  Sam.  i-y-^  are  from  the  same  source.  But  no  one 
seems  to  have  followed  him  in  this,  and  the  character  of  the  documents  is 
quite  dissimilar.  If  the  assertion  had  been  limited  to  Jd.  17  18  and  i  Sam. 
3-6,  more  could  be  said  in  its  favour.  Graf  also  points  out  that  the  speech 
of  Samuel  in  i  Sam.  12  marks  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  as  Joshua's 
farewell  address  marks  the  close  of  the  period  of  conquest.  To  this  Kuenen  f 
adds  the  obvious  argument  that  both  Eli  and  Samuel  are  called  Judges,  i  Sam. 
4I8  7I5-17,  The  latter  passage,  however,  uses  the  term  Judgi;  in  a  different  sense 
from  that  which  it  has  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  That  at  some  time  Eli  was 
counted  among  the  Judges  of  Israel  is  possible.  But  it  seems  impossible  to  fit 
both  him  and  Samuel  into  the  scheme  of  the  author  of  the  present  Book  of 
Judges.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  point  of  view  of  the 
author  of  i  Sam.  y--^~  was  very  similar  to  his.  J 

1-18.  Hannah's  prayer.  —  The  story  introduces  us  at  once  to 
the  principal  characters:   There  was  a  man  of  the  Ratnathites,  a 


*  Gesch.  BB.  p.  98.    I  have  not  seen  the  dissertation  De  Templo  Silonensi  to 
which  he  refers, 
t  HCm.  I.  p.  337. 
+  Cf.  Bu.,  RS.  p.  201,  Ki.  GH.  II.  pp.  29-32. 


I.  1-3  5 

Zuphite  of  the  hill  country  of  Ephraim  whose  name  was  Elkanali] 
cf.  similar  openings,  Jd.  13^,  i  S.  9^  There  has  possibly  been 
conflation  in  the  description.  That  he  was  a  Ratnathite  would 
be  enough  to  indicate  that  he  was  of  the  hill  country  of  Ephraitn, 
without  the  addition  of  those  words.  Ramah  is  a  common  Old 
Testament  name,  designating  at  least  eight  different  places.  Four 
locahties  have  been  identified  with  the  Ramah  of  Elkanah  and 
Samuel.  These  are  Beit  Rima  thirteen  miles  northeast  of  Lydda, 
Ram  Allah  nine  miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  Er-Ram  four  miles 
nearer  that  city,  and  Neby  Samwil  about  four  miles  northwest  of 
it.  The  first  of  these  seems  too  near  the  Philistine  territory,  the 
last  two  are  in  Benjamin.  The  Biblical  data  are  not  sufficient  to 
decide  the  question  with  certainty,  but  my  own  mind  inchnes  to 
Ram  Allah  as  having  the  probability  on  its  side.  Zuph  occurs 
again  as  the  name  of  the  district  in  which  Saul  finds  the  home  of 
Samuel,  9\  The  genealogy  given  seems  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
Elkanah  was  an  Ephraimite  by  blood.  —  2.  As  in  some  other 
cases  where  a  man  had  two  wives,  sorrow  was  caused  by  the  fact 
that  one  was  blessed  with  children,  while  the  other  had  no  child — 
so  we  should  read  here  with  (§.  She  would  not  have  grieved, 
had  she  had  even  one.  The  case  of  Rachel  before  the  birth  of 
Joseph  will  occur  to  every  one.  The  name  Hannah  corresponds 
to  the  English  name  Grace,  and  Peninnah  means  Coral  or  Pearl. 
—  3.  Elkanah  used  to  go  up  year  by  year  to  worship  and  to  sacri- 
fice to  Yahweh  Sebaoth  in  Shiloh']  the  institution  of  the  pilgrimage 
is  apparently  as  old  as  the  existence  of  shrines.  That  Elkanah 
went  once  a  year  seems  to  point  to  a  time  when  the  three  yearly 
festivals  were  not  yet  regarded  as  obligatory.  The  divine  name 
Yahweh  Sebaoth  occurs  in  Samuel  eleven  times,  and  all  seem  to 
belong  to  the  later  strata  of  the  book.  The  meaning  of  the  name 
has  been  much  discussed.  To  our  conception  Yahweh  is  appropri- 
ately called  God  of  the  hosts  of  heaven,  understanding  by  the  hosts 
either  the  stars  or  the  angels.  But  to  the  earlier  thought  of  Israel, 
the  angels  were  unknown.  God  of  the  armies  of  Israel  \s  favoured 
by  the  fact  that  mxn^  does  designate  these  armies  in  many  pas- 
sages (Ex.  7*  12"  Num.  i',  al.).  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that 
Amos,  the  earliest  writer  to  whom  we  can  trace  the  appellation, 
seems  to  have  been  especially  impressed  by  the  fact  that  Yahweh 


6  I  SAMUEL 

uses  the  armies  of  the  heathen  for  the  accompHshment  of  his  ends, 
Am.  3^^*'-  4^^  5^^.  He  is  therefore  God  of  the  nations,  not  of 
Israel  alone,  Shiloh  is  the  modern  Seilun,  and  its  situation  is 
described  in  Jd.  21^'  as  7wrth  of  Bethel,  east  of  the  road  7vhich 
i!;oes  up  from  Bethel  to  Shechem.  There  was  a  yearly  festival  there 
in  the  time  of  the  judges,  Jd.  21'^"^-.  In  order  to  an  understanding  of 
what  follows,  the  narrator  adds  :  Aiid  Eli  and  his  two  sons,  Hophni 
and  Phinehas,  were  there  priests  to  Yahweh'\  the  text  is  that  of  (S. 

1.  B\"imn-jn]  The  pointing  makes  the  name  of  the  place  Ramathaim. 
This  name  (that  is,  the  dual  form,  later  Arimathaea)  does  not  appear  else- 
where in  the  Old  Testament,  but  even  in  this  same  account  (v.i^)  is  given  as 
a  singular.  We.,  TBS.,  p.  35,  therefore  supposes  an  attempt  made  in  this 
instance  to  substitute  a  more  modern  form  for  the  older,  which,  however,  did 
not  extend  beyond  this  single  case.  It  seems  simpler  with  Kl.  to  point  DviD">n, 
for  which  we  may  cite  •'HDin  i  Chr.  27^'.  —  O'Dis  D\nain]  is  grammatically 
impossible.  For  the  second  word  we  have  Set(/)d  (S^,  which  indicates  suffi- 
ciently that  the  a  has  come  from  the  following  word.  %  seems  to  feel  the 
difficulty  in  the  received  text,  for  it  renders  noj  n''D'?nD.  The  restoration 
of  We.  is  now  generally  adopted,  as  above. — nm^]  <§  renders  ^NDmi,  but 
I  Chr.  6^*  seems  to  go  back  to  |§.  —  imoN]  seems  to  have  been  originally 
equivalent  to  Ephraiinite,  Jd.  12^  i  K.  ii-^.  In  this  place,  however,  ®  has  iv 
Nacei/S  E^pctt^,  so  that  the  original  may  have  been  ^^^^^tsVi  lis  \i  as  suggested 
by  We.  —  2.  nnx]  a  number  of  MSS.  have  nnsn.  —  nn*?^  j^n]  oi>k  ^v  iraMov 
(5  seems  more  forcible.  —  3.  n^i'i]  the  perfect  with  Waw  Consecutive  is  used 
of  customary  action.  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  120;  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  54;  Konig,  Syntax, 
367 //.  —  n^i'D  Ninn  u'^sn]  (@B  has  simply  6  dvdpujiros;  the  shorter  text  has  the 
presumption  in  its  favour.  —  nnin^  dicd]  Ex.  13I''  Jd.  11*"  2ii9,  cf.  Kon., 
Syntax,  266  a.  niNax  mni  —  besides  the  Bible  Dictionaries  the  student  may 
consult  ZATIV.  VI.  p.  17;  PREP-,  article  Zebaoth;  Smend,  Alttest.  Religions- 
geschichte,  p.  185  if.  On  the  pronunciation  of  the  name  of  Israel's  God, 
ZA  TW.  III.  p.  280  f.,  IV.  p.  21  ff.  —  ■'Sy-^03  ^jtr]  'HXei  kqX  ol  dvo  viol  airov  (&■ 
It  is  necessary  that  Eli  should  be  mentioned  because  he  appears  in  the  imme- 
diate sequel.  There  is  every  reason  to  adopt  the  reading  of  <S  therefore. 
Even  if  Eli  had  been  mentioned  in  some  preceding  part  of  this  history  now 
lost,  it  would  be  quite  as  appropriate  to  mention  him  here  as  to  mention  his 
sons  alone.  The  change  to  |^  may  possibly  have  been  made  to  shield  Eli 
from  the  blame  afterwards  pronounced  upon  his  sons.  We.  and  Dr.  decide 
against  ®,  while  Bu.  supposes  that  the  original  was  simply  ps  ^'?y  Qtt'i.  The 
name  Phinehas  is  said  to  mean  negro  in  Egyptian  (Lauth,  ZDMG.  XXV. 
P-  139)- 

4-8.  The  point  of  interest  is  the  behaviour  of  Hannah.  The 
author,  therefore,  means  to  say  that  on  one  occasion  Hannah 


I.  3-8  7 

wept  and  could  not  eat.  But  the  connexion  is  broken  by  a  long 
sentence,  which  gives  an  account  of  Peninnah's  habitual  scornful 
treatment  of  her  rival.  The  result  is  awkward,  and  we  must  con- 
cede the  possibility  that  the  text  has  been  interpolated.  As  it 
stands,  we  must  make  a  long  parenthesis  :  //  came  to  pass  on  one 
occasion  that  Elkatiah  sacrificed  {now  he  used  to  give  portions  to 
Feninnah  and  her  children,  but  to  Hannah  one  portion  though  he 
loved  her,  and  her  rival  would  vex  her  .  .  .)  and  she  wept  and 
would  not  eat.  The  words  are  plain  enough  in  themselves,  with 
the  exception  of  D'SK,  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  critical  note. 

—  6.  The  received  text  asserts  that  her  rival  vexed  her,  taunting 
her  with  her  barrenness.  The  expression  is  somewhat  confused, 
however,  and  it  is  noticeable  that  (S  in  its  primitive  form  only 
asserts  that  she  (Hannah)  was  greatly  troubled.  There  is  reason 
to  suspect  the  text.  —  7.  The  received  text  must  mean :  So  he 
would  do  year  by  year'\  making  Elkanah  the  subject.  In  this  case 
we  must  (by  a  change  of  the  points  only)  read  :  as  often  as  he 
came  up  to  the  house  of  Yahweh.  The  next  clause  is  either  an  in- 
terpolation or  corrupt.  Conjecturally  we  may  read  :  But  Han- 
nah covered  her  face  and  wept  and  would  not  eat.  —  8.  Elkanah 
endeavours  to  comfort  her  :  Why  7vilt  thou  weep  and  wilt  not  eat, 
and  lohy  does  thy  heart  reproach  thee  .?]  The  rhetorical  question 
is  followed  by  another  :  Am  I  not  better  to  thee  thaji  ten  sons .?] 
The  answer  would  have  been  in  the  affirmative,  but  it  was  for  his 
sake  that  she  wished  children,  so  the  attempt  at  consolation 
rather  opened  the  springs  of  grief  afresh. 

4.  The  author  begins  njpSN  T\y\>^  Dvn  inM  as  though  he  were  going  to  relate 
what  happened  on  one  particular  occasion.  He  then  drops  into  the  frequen- 
tative tense  jnji  as  though  what  followed  was  a  common  experience,  and  this 
is  kept  up  until  the  end  of  v.'',  where  we  find  no3ni  which  would  naturally 
connect  with  n3TM.  The  result  is  an  obscure  sentence,  and  (S  unfortunately 
gives  little  help.  —  orn  >n^1]  i  S.  14^  2  K.  48-11.18  job  i^.  There  seems  no 
reason  to  separate  the  phrase  from  others  like  'H''r^r\  n>*2  in^,  of.  also  tfnnn  >T\>y 
I  S.  20^*,  Ges.25  126^.  —  jnji]  one  is  tempted  to  change  to  jn'i,  which  is 
apparently  favoured  by  @.  But  this  would  involve  change  of  the  following 
verbs.  —  n\nio2i  n^ji'^^'?!]  @^  has  simply  kolI  rots  vloh  avrri^,  which  is  original. 
The  expansion  of  such  phrases  by  a  scribe  is  too  common  to  call  for  remark. 

—  6.  d^dn]  is  impossible;  tpXt/v  Uti.  <S^  points  to  ■«d~don,  cf.  Num.  1328  Dt. 
15*  Jd.  4^  Am.  98,  where  it  evidently  means  nevertheless.     It  is  awkward,  how- 


8  I  SAMUEL 

ever,  to  say :  Nevertheless  he  loved  Hannah  and  Yahweh  had  shut  her  womb. 
We  expect  the  author  either  to  say  only  one  portion  (nnj"?)  in  contrast  to 
Peninnah,  or  else  to  say  that  he  distinguished  her  in  some  way  as :  he  gave 
her  a  portion  before  them.  The  latter  alone  would  be  accounted  for  by  the 
following  ^3.  There  is  reason  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  corruption  is 
incurable  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  :  Kara  Trp6(rwirov  (B^;  tristis 
IL  seem  to  be  attempts  to  render  the  text  of  f^.  —  i-'na  ST  gives  a  good  sense, 
but  cannot  be  got  out  of  the  present  text,  and  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  this 
translator  had  another  reading  before  him.  Bu.  supposes  that  the  original 
may  have  been  2'dn  nc.  But  the  point  of  the  narrative  is  that  Hannah  wept 
because  of  the  contrast  between  herself  and  her  co-wife,  not  because  of  any- 
thing in  her  husband's  mien.  —  6.  The  verse  is  removed  by  Bu.  to  the  margin 
of  his  text  as  a  later  insertion,  but  without  sufficient  reason.  As  it  stands  we 
must  render  and  her  rival  provoked  her.  —  mx]  the  co-wife,  as  is  shown  with 
abundant  learning  by  Lagarde,  Mittheilungen,  1. 1 25  ff.  In  this  place,  however, 
(S^  renders  Kord  ttjv  6\i\j/Lv  airijs,  evidently  reading  nmso.  This  would  join 
very  well  to  the  preceding  clause  of  @^.  '  For  the  Lord  had  not  given  her  a 
son  like  her  rival. ^  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  join  well  with  what  fol- 
lows. A  further  difficulty  is  made  by  nnjJin,  an  abnorm.al  form,  Ges.^^  §  22  j.  The 
verb  in  the  Hiphil  is  always  to  thunder,  in  the  Qal  to  roar  (Ps.  96II).  The 
word  is  probably  corrupt  here,  as  neither  of  these  meanings  is  appropriate. 
After  -najJD  we  expect  mention  of  the  cause  of  Hannah's  grief — nr^Din  ii2i"3 
would  give  a  good  sense,  (g^  seems  to  have  read  n?  ^laj'j.  —  7.  n:;';j^]  must  have 
Elkanah  in  mind  as  the  actor,  which  indeed  he  was.  There  seems  to  be  no 
reason  for  changing  to  nryn  (Dr.).  The  nnVjr  which  follows  must  be  nhSy  of 
course,  though  IL  seems  to  favour  onSj?;  noa]  should  be  n<3.  The  words 
nsam  njOi'DH  p  make  a  difficulty  by  their  abrupt  change  of  subject.  It  is  not 
unlikely  therefore  that  njn  is  represented  in  the  last  three  letters  of  the  first 
verb.  Kl.'s  proposal  to  read  mn  D2r^\  and //annah  covered  her  face  in  sign 
of  grief,  is  attractive.  ©  seems  to  have  read  Dyom,  koX  rjOvfjiU.  With  nn 
nnSj?  cf.  DPNS  "113  I  S.  18^".  8.  After  njn  (5  introduces  koI  eiwev  aiirifi  'Idoii 
iyu>,  Kvpie  •  /cat  elTrev  air^.  This  is  entirely  appropriate,  but  if  original  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  it  was  lost.  For  nnS  @  has :  tI  iffrl  croi  8ti,  which  has  no  claim 
to  be  more  original,  but  probably  goes  back  to  a  variant  Hebrew  text.  —  y^.^ 
123"?]  Tvirrei  <re  i]  KapSla  ffov,  which  indicates  "I32V  "^T.  This  is  more  appro- 
priate, for  'aS  yi^  is  used  of  the  heart  that  hardens  itself  against  its  neighbour, 
Dt.  151".  Hannah  no  doubt  reproached  herself  with  her  shortcoming,  though 
it  was  not  voluntary.  Her  husband  exhorts  her  not  to  blame  herself,  which  is 
precisely  what  she  was  doing  —  her  heart  smote  her  is  the  natural  expression 
in  the  case. 

9-11.  The  vow.  —  Hannah  presents  herself  before  Yahweh : 
She  rose  after  they  had  eaten,  and  stood  before  Yahweh']  the  read- 
ing is  that  of  (g.     The  condition  of  things  is  described  in  the  fol- 


I.  9-1  r  9 

lowing  clause  :  Eli  the  priest  was  sitting  at  the  time  on  his  chair 
at  the  door  posts  of  the  temple  of  Yahweh']  the  structure  seems  to 
have  been  a  solid  building,  otherwise  it  could  not  be  called  a 
temple ;  the  same  word  is  afterwards  applied  to  the  temple  of  Sol- 
omon, I  K.  6\  —  10.  She  was  greatly  distressed^  \\\..  bitter  of  soul, 
cf.  2  K.  4''^,  where  it  is  said  of  the  woman  who  has  lost  her  only 
son  that  her  soul  is  bitter.  — 11.  The  prayer  culminates  in  a  vow  : 
Yahweh  Sebaoth  !  If  thou  wilt  indeed  look  upon  the  affliction  of 
thy  maidservant  and  wilt  give  thy  maidservant  a  man  child,  then  I 
will  give  him  to  Yahweh  all  the  days  of  his  life'\  she  means  that  he 
should  become  a  temple  servant,  a  nethin,  Num.  8^^.  A  vow  is  a 
promise  to  give  something  to  Yahweh,  or  to  perform  something 
for  him,  in  case  he  grants  a  prayer.  An  example  is  Jacob's  vow. 
Gen.  28^^^  (E)  :  ^  Yahweh  God  will  be  with  me  and  protect  me 
on  this  journey  .  .  .  then  this  stone  shall  be  to  me  a  house  of  God, 
and  all  that  thou  shall  give  me  I  will  tithe  for  thee.  The  devotion 
of  human  beings  in  this  way  is  illustrated  by  Jephthah,  and  is  pre- 
supposed in  the  elaborate  provisions  of  the  law  for  redemption. 
Lev.  27.  Our  author  does  not  seem  to  be  troubled  by  the  ques- 
tion whether  Hannah  had  a  right  to  make  a  vow  of  this  kind  with- 
out the  consent  of  her  husband.  The  point  which  most  interests 
us  is  that  the  author  cannot  have  thought  of  Samuel  (or  Elkanah) 
as  a  Levite,  for  in  that  case  the  vow  would  have  been  unmeaning. 
But  that  he  also  loses  sight  of  the  ancient  regulation  that  every 
male  that  opens  the  womb  is  already  the  property  of  Yahweh, 
seems  evident.  The  statement  in  the  text :  a  razor  shall  not 
come  upon  his  head  reads  like  a  later  addition.  But  it  is  readily 
accounted  for  by  the  view  of  a  scribe  that  Samuel  was  to  be  a 
Nazirite  —  a  lifelong  Nazirite  like  Samson.  @  carries  the  Hke- 
ness  to  Samson  further  by  adding:  a7id  wine  and  fermented 
liquor  he  shall  not  drink~\  cf.  Jd.  13^  Aftd  wilt  remetnber  me'] 
reads  Hke  a  reminiscence  of  Gen.  30",  where  God  remembers 
Rachel  in  giving  her  a  son. 

9.  nSt^a  hSds  nnN  njn  opni]  the  last  word  is  unnecessary,  and  difficulty  is 
found  in  accepting  hSdn,  because  she  had  not  eaten.  The  latter  is  somewhat 
relieved  by  reading  aSsx  with  @.  The  objection  that  she  finds  the  family  still 
at  their  meal  in  v.^*  is  hardly  cogent  in  view  of  the  state  of  the  text  there. 
Still  it  is  not  impossible  that  there  has  been  scribal  expansion.     We.  points 


lO  1  SAMUEL 

n'7^'3,  which  is  possible,  only  1  should  take  a  letter  from  the  preceding  word 
n7a'3n  "^JN  nriN  =  after  the  eating  of  the  boiled  fiesh,  2^'.  The  conjecture  of 
Kl.  r\yv'-^-y  nSoN  nnnx  njni,  which  is  adopted  by  Bu.,  seems  too  remote  from 
any  external  testimony.  It  seems  necessary,  however,  to  insert  with  @  ai'\"ini 
nin''  'js*^  (Th.,  We.,  al.).  — 3!:"  .  .  .  '^;-i]  a  circumstantial  clause,  pnic  is  else- 
where used  in  the  plural,  and  should,  perhaps,  be  so  pointed  here,  with  ®.  — 
10.  n^jn  njji]  the  emphatic  adverbial  infinitive.  The  imperfect  tense  indi- 
cates continued  action:  she  kept  weeping  bitterly.  — 11.  i.-icxtn  nsa'.TN'?!  is 
superfluous  and  is  also  lacking  in  (S'*;  we  may  disregard  it. — o^rjN  ynr]  does 
not  occur  again.     That  she  means  a  male  child  is  evident. 

12-18.  Eli's  rebuke,  followed  by  a  blessing^.  —  As  Hannah 
prolonged  her  prayer,  Eli,  who  saw  the  movement  of  her  Hps,  but 
heard  no  sound,  took  her  for  a  drunken  woman^  that  excess 
in  wine  was  not  an  infrequent  concomitant  of  religious  feasts  seems 
indicated  by  the  readiness  with  which  the  suspicion  is  entertained 
here.  For  the  construction  cf.  Job  13"^ :  w/iy  dost  thou  reckon  me 
thine  enemy  ?  — 14.  The  rebuke  :  How  long  wilt  thou  show  thyself 
drunken']  seems  to  emphasize  the  disgracefulness  of  the  spectacle. 
Put  azaay  thy  wine  and  go  from  the  presence  of  Yahiveh']  the 
second  half  is  found  in  (§  only,  but  seems  to  be  original.  In  (§ 
EU's  servant  is  made  to  utter  the  rebuke,  an  evident  attempt  to 
shield  the  priest  from  the  charge  of  harshness.  — 15.  Hannah 
repels  the  charge  :  A^o,  my  Lord ;  an  afflicted  womaii  am  I,  and  I 
have  not  drunk  wine  or  intoxicating  drink']  the  two  are  often  men- 
tioned together.  But  I  poured  out  fny  soul  before  Yahweh,  cf.  Ps. 
62^  {potir  out  the  heart)  ,42'.  — 16.  Do  not  take  thy  servant  to  be  a 
vile  woman]  lit.  a  daughter  of  belial.  The  corresponding  phrase 
sons  of  belial  is  frequent  and  evidently  means  vile  men,  Jd.  19^, 
I  Sam.  2^^  The  derivation  of  the  word  belial,  however,  is  obscure, 
and  recent  discussions  are  inconclusive.  The  Greek  translators 
render  men  of  belial,  or  sons  of  belial,  by  adjectives  like  vile,  un- 
godly, senseless,  contrary.  A  satisfactory  Hebrew  etymology  has 
not  been  found.  The  older  commentators  propose  without  yoke, 
for  which  they  cite  Jer.  2^.  Other  conjectures,  that  rises  no  more 
(after  falling) ,  that  profits  not,  are  equally  precarious.  The  word 
is  possibly  a  foreign  word,  but  the  Babylonian  derivation  does  not 
as  yet  seem  unequivocally  established.  For  on  account  of  the 
greatness  of  my  grief  have  I  continued  until  noiv.  The  soft  answer 
turns  away  wrath.  — 17.    Eli  not  only  dismisses  her  in  peace,  but 


1.    I2-I8  II 

adds  a  prayer  that  her  petition  may  be  granted.  — 18.  Her  prayer 
is  that  she  may  stand  well  with  hint]  Ut.  find  favour  in  his  eyes, 
a  frequent  Old  Testament  phrase.  The  historian  adds  :  So  the 
W07nan  went  her  way,  and  her  face  was  no  more  sad']  for  the  text 
see  the  critical  note. 

12.  n\Ti]  is  possible,  as  one  of  the  rare  cases  of  the  perfect  with  weak 
1  (so  Dr.,  Notes,  and  Tetises'^,  §  133).  But  it  is  more  likely  that  it  is  the 
mistake  of  a  scribe  who  thought  the  verb  continued  the  preceding  sen- 
tence. Restore  \nM  (Bu.).  —  '^''flnn'?  nna-\n]  the  main  verb  expresses  the 
idea  which  we  express  adverbially :  she  prayed  much.  Similar  cases  are 
nii'i"?  3^an :  he  did  ivell :  pvi'];^  nnc :  he  did  quickly.  i'?>'i  introduces  the 
circumstantial  clause :  she  continued  praying  while  Eli  was  observing  her 
mouth.  — 13.  ^•^■^  njm]  the  casus  pendens  :  As  for  Hannah,  she  zvas  speak- 
ing in  her  heart;  only  her  lips  were  moving.,  but  her  voice  7vas  not  heard]  * 
the  whole  sentence  is  explanatory  of  what  Eli  was  observing.  The  name  of 
Hannah  is  here  omitted  by  <3^^.  —  nj^'n^]  resumes  the  story  introduced  by 
the  ■'HM  at  the  beginning  of  v.^-.  —  mD-;']  on  the  form  of  the  adjective,  Ges.'^ 
§  84^,  24.  — 14.  inDn::'.'^]  one  of  the  few  cases  of  the  old  feminine  ending, 
Ges.^*'  §  47  ''•  — 1'^> "]  (S  substitutes  Kal  iropevov  (/cai  direXde  ^)  e/c  irpocnbirov 
Kvplov.  The  clause  seems  to  me  one  likely  to  be  changed,  to  avoid  the  seem- 
ing identification  of  Yahweh  with  the  Ark.  — 15.  nn"r"'|i]  harsh  of  spirit 
seems  mipossible.  Most  modern  scholars  have  adopted  Th.'s  emendation  to 
Di^  Hw'p :  7\  (TKXrjpa.  r)p.^pa.  (S,  cf.  Job  yy^^,  where  DV  7\-^'^^  is  one  in  tnisfortune. 
— 13-']  fruit-ivine  or  cider,  cf.  Benziger,  Hebr.  Archaologie,  p.  96. — 16.  Vn 
^JD*?  .  .  .  ]'^^'\  would  naturally  mean  do  not  give  .  .  .  into  the  pozver  of,  which 
cannot  be  correct.  What  Hannah  desires  is  that  she  may  not  be  reckoned  to 
be  a  vile  woman.  In  this  sense  we  find  jnj  followed  by  d,  and  we  should 
probably  emend  to  nar,  throwing  out  ijo'^.  Kl.'s  'd'?  does  not  occur  with  this 
verb,  and  Dr.'s  *?  is  also  without  parallel.  Cf.  Gen.  42^'',  □^'^Ji::^  ijnN  jnii : 
and  took  us  for  spies.  —  ':';j'''?3]  is  an  obscure  word,  cf.  BDB.  s.v.,  Moore  on 
Judges  192^,  Baudissin  in  PRE?  H.  p.  548  f.,  Cheyne,  in  the  Expositor,  1895, 
and  in  the  Expository  Times,  June,  1897,  with  Baudissin's  reply,  ibid.,  Nov. 
1897,  ^nd  Jensen's  remarks,  ibid.,  Apr.  1898.  —  'D;'31  •'nT]  @  seems  to  have 
found  but  one  of  the  two  words,  probably  ^n^ti'  which  was  not  definite  enough 
for  a  Hebrew  scribe,  so  that  an  explanatory  word  was  added.  —  v-nm]  decid- 
edly less  forcible  than  ^/cr^raxa  (5,  probably  \i3iNn.  — 17.  '[-'^Z'  for  ^nSNt;', 
cf.  Ges.26  §  23  r.  — 18.  SjNm]  is  lacking  in  seven  Hebrew  MSS.,  and  although 
this  is  rather  a  slender  basis  on  which  to  erect  a  theory,  I  suspect  the  word  to 
be  an  insertion.  The  sense  is  perfectly  good  without  it,  as  is  seen  in  the 
translation  given  above.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  author  would  have  said 
she  went  her  way  if  he  meant  simply  that  she  returned  to  the  chamber  imme- 

*  ®i-  adds  here :  But  the  Lord  heard  her.     The  example  is  instructive  as  show- 
ing how  a  text  grows. 


12  I  SAMUEL 

diately  adjoining  the  temple.  The  text  of  (S :  and  came  into  the  chamber  and 
ate  zvith  her  husband  and  drank  will  be  a  further  expansion.  If  original,  we 
cannot  account  for  its  abbreviation.  —  n'r-rTx'?  nijsi]  koX  to  Trp6auirov  ai)r^s 
ov  ffvvfire<r€v  @.  The  only  parallel  cited  for  |^  (Job  9-^)  is  of  doubtful  integrity. 
It  seems  better  therefore  to  correct  nb~vn  to  n^o:,  which  is  quite  in  accord 
with  Hebrew  usage. 

19-28.    The  prayer  answered,  and  the  vow  performed.  — 

The  division  between  this  and  the  preceding  is  artificial.  The 
narrative  continues  without  a  break.  After  paying  their  respects 
at  the  temple  the  next  morning  the  family  returned  to  their  home 
in  Ramah.  And  Elkanah  knew  Hannah  his  wife']  cf.  Gen.  4^ 
And  Yahweh  remembered  her]  as  he  remembered  Rachel  Gen. 
30^-.  —  20.  And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  a  year  that  she  bare 
a  son]  about  the  time  of  the  yearly  festival.  And  called  his  name 
Samuel:  For  from  Yahweh  I  have  asked  him]  the  last  words  evi- 
dently give  her  reason  for  the  choice  of  this  name.  The  etymology 
does  not  bear  out  the  intention.  —  21.  At  the  usual  time  Elkanah 
went  up  to  Shiloh  to  offer  the  yearly  sacrifice]  as  we  have  heard 
nothing  of  his  vow,  which  is  added  in  the  received  text,  the  words 
are  probably  the  insertion  of  a  scribe.  —  22.  Hannah  excuses  her- 
self from  the  present  journey  in  the  words  :  When  the  boy  is  weaned 
then  I  will  bring  him]  for  two  years  she  would  keep  him  at  home, 
for  this  was  the  usual  time,  and  is  still  the  case  in  the  East,  cf. 
Koran,  2^.  Some  commentators  have  thought  it  impossible  that 
the  boy  could  be  actually  delivered  to  the  priest  at  so  early  an 
age,  and  have  tried  to  interpret  the  verb  weaned  in  a  figurative 
sense.  But  this  seems  uncalled  for.  Then  we  shall  see  the  face 
of  Yahweh,  and  he  shall  dwell  there  forever]  where  the  last  clause 
means  of  course  all  his  life.  —  23.  Elkanah  consents,  adding  : 
Only  Yahweh  establish  thy  word]  a  wish  that  their  lives  may  be 
spared  to  do  as  she  purposes.  —  24.  At  the  time  set,  she  brought 
him  tip  with  a  three  year  old  bullock]  an  unusually  valuable  sacri- 
fice. The  received  text  has  three  bullocks  by  an  error  of  transcrip- 
tion. And  an  ephah  of  flour  and  a  skin  of  wine]  the  abundance 
of  provision  was  in  order  to  invite  many  to  "  eat  and  drink  and 
rejoice  before  Yahweh  "  with  them.  The  ephah  of  flour  is  Gideon's 
offering  also,  Jd.  6'".  "The  quantity  according  to  the  smallest 
computation  was  over  a  bushel  "  (Moore) .  —  25.   After  sacrificing 


I.  19-28  13 

the  bullock  they  brought  the  lad  to  EW]  that  the  whole  family  was 
present  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  fitness  of  things.  —  26.  She 
recalls  herself  to  his  remembrance  :  By  thy  life,  Sir,  I  am  the 
woman  that  stood  near  thee  here  to  pray  to  Yahweh  /  —  27.  The 
answer  to  her  prayer  ;  Concerning  this  boy  I  prayed  and  Yahweh 
granted  what  I  asked"]  lit.  my  request  which  I  asked  of  him. — 
28.  The  return  she  proposes  to  make  :  Now  /,  on  tny  part,  have 
given  him  to  Yahweh.  All  the  days  that  he  shall  live  he  is  given  to 
Yahweh']  is  Hannah's  devotion  of  her  son  only  a  revival  of  the 
ancient  law  which  claimed  all  the  first  born  for  Yahweh?  At  the 
end  of  the  verse  ^  adds  and  he  bowed  to  Yahweh.  If  this  refers 
to  Samuel,  it  seems  appropriate  enough.  It  is,  however,  lacking 
in  (§^,  which  inserts  a  clause  not  found  in  |^  at  the  end  of  the 
Song  which  follows.  The  probable  explanation  is  that  the  Song 
was  inserted  in  the  two  texts  at  different  points.  The  original  text 
seems  to  have  said,  after  Hannah's  presentation  of  the  lad,  so  she 
left  him  there  and  went  to  Raniah.  The  Song  was  inserted  in  |^ 
between  the  two  halves  of  this  sentence  ;  in  (^  it  comes  before  the 
first  half. 

20.  a-'S-'H  mspnS]  similarly  njtrn  ncpnS  Ex.  34^2  2  Chr.  24^3.*  —  njn  inni 
n*^."!]  @  puts  KoX  o-vviXa^ev  at  the  end  of  v.^^.  The  word  has  been  interpo- 
lated in  both  recensions.  Before  ^2,  (3  and  ST  insert  and  she  said;  a  case  of 
explicative  expansion.  —  rr>X'.:'  ninia  ^3]  as  Kimchi  sees,  the  theory  of  the 
author  is  that  '?N'ica'  is  a  contraction  of  Vnd  Sinc.  But  such  contraction  is 
unheard  of  elsewhere.  There  is  an  exegetical  tradition  in  favour  of  VNyiDtf 
as  the  original  form  of  the  word,  but,  as  shown  by  Dr.  {Notes,  in  loc),  this 
also  is  without  analogy.  The  most  natural  derivation,  making  it  mean,  Name 
of  God,  is  attributed  to  St.  Gregory  by  Schm.  — 21.  mrnsi]  Jewish  tradition 
sees  in  this  a  vow  made  for  the  birth  of  a  son.  But  the  only  vow  of  which  the 
narrative  gives  us  any  knowledge  is  Hannah's  vow.  There  is  reason  to  sup- 
pose the  words  an  addition  to  the  original  text  therefore.  The  tendency  to 
such  expansion  is  seen  in  @  here,  which  reads,  Kal  rds  eiJxos  avrov  koX  Trdtros 
rds  SeKa.ra'i  Trjs  yrjs  avrov.  —  22.  her  n>']  a  parallel  case  is  Jd.  1 6*,  so  that 
there  is  no  need  to  insert  ovk  dva^-fia-o/xai  l3^.  —  nsiji]  apparently  intended 
by  the  punctuators  as  a  Niphal.  It  is  better  to  read  it  as  the  Qal  imperfect 
on  account  of  'jsj'.in  which  follows  —  perhaps  the  well-known  cohortative 
with  weak  i :  /  will  bring  him  up  that  we  may  see  the  face  of  Yahweh.  — 
23.    iijt.'^n]  must  be  understood  of  some  promise.     The  only  one  of  which 

*  According  to  these  passages  we  should  expect  the  singular  Pflpn  here,  and  the 
1  is,  in  fact,  omitted  in  many  MSS. 


14  I  SAMUEL 

we  have  record  is  Eli's  wish  that  Hannah  should  have  a  son  —  which  might 
be  construed  as  a  word  of  Yahweh.  But  this  is  already  fultilled  in  the  birth 
of  Samuel.  It  seems  better  therefore  to  read  Ti3"'  with  (5  t6  i^€\66v  iK  toO 
arbnoLTbi  ffov.  —  24.  nr'^w*  C'i£33]  iv  /xdaxv  Tpifrlt^ovTL  <S  =  w'Sb'D  ni33;  cf. 
Gen.  15^.  The  reading  of  (§  is  to  be  restored.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  i>':n) 
■»":  is  unintelligible;  Kai  to  iraiddpiov  /ler'  airuy  (S  is  superfluous,  though  (3^ 
helps  it  by  reading  /cai  eiffrjXdov  for  inN3Pi.  In  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge  we  must  be  content  to  omit  the  words;  ^Ae  boy  was  young  is  an 
impossible  rendering,  and  besides,  the  sentence  is  superfluous.  Dr.  conjectures 
that  the  words  rr:;-  -\;"jni  belong  at  the  end  of  v.^^,  and  he  is  followed  by  Bu. 
—  25.  I  see  no  reason  for  departing  from  the  received  text.  The  consent  of 
Eli  was  necessary  to  make  the  act  valid,  and  it  was  entirely  appropriate  that 
both  parents  should  present  the  lad  at  the  sanctuary,  though  the  mother  takes 
the  leading  part.  If  we  are  to  change  at  all,  we  must  read  ^^'i  Sn  -i>"jn  d.v  N2ri 
nsj,'  ^yjni. — 26.  ''Jin  "3]  a  phrase  claiming  the  favourable  notice  of  the  one 
addressed,  Jd.  6-^.  —  28.  For  the  aj  correlativum  (Th.  after  Clericus)  cf. 
Gen.  2&,  N'~"2J  she  fay  her  part.  ^^wi't\  is  to  encourage  a  person  to  ask 
by  granting  his  request,  then  to  give  without  a  previous  request.  —  .th  irx] 
seems  impossible :  "n  i:;'n  seems  indicated  by  (5KS  and  is  found  in  one 
codex.  —  nin-'S  ar  mPtt'M]  some  AISS.  have  imncM.  The  whole  clause  is  lack- 
ing in  @^^  which  give  a  substitute  at  the  beginning  of  2^^.  It  is  represented 
in  @L  in  both  places. 

II.  1-10.  The  song  of  Hannah.  —  The  author  or  the  final 
redactor  here  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Hannah  a  song  of  praise. 
Careful  examination  shows  that  it  has  no  particular  reference  to 
her  circumstances.  The  assertion  that  the  barren  has  borne  seven 
while  the  prolific  mother  grows  faint  is  made  only  as  an  example 
of  God's  sovereign  dealings  with  his  creatures.  Possibly  this 
couplet  may  have  drawn  the  editor's  attention,  and  made  him 
think  the  psalm  appropriate  for  this  place.  But  this  sentence, 
with  the  rest  of  the  composition,  is  too  general  to  give  us  light 
on  the  situation  of  the  author.  The  expressions  used  are  those 
common  to  the  songs  gathered  in  the  Psalter.  Like  many  of 
them,  it  voices  the  faith  of  the  pious  in  Yahweh  as  ruler  over  the 
destinies  of  men. 

The  structure  of  the  poem  is  very  simple.  Four  stanzas  may 
be  marked  off:  (i)  The  believer's  doxology ;  (2)  Warning  to 
the  arrogant;  (3)  Yahweh's  government;  (4)  Confidence  for 
the  future.  The  metre  regularly  shows  three  accents  to  a  line, 
except  in  one  or  two  instances,  where  the  text  is  probably  at  fault. 


II.  ,-5  15 

A  translation  is  given  by  Professor  Briggs  in  his  Mtsstanic  Prophecy  (N.V., 
1886),  p.  124  f.,  and  with  critical  notes  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1885, 
p.  112  f. 

1-2.  The  opening  stanza  is  one  of  praise,  expressive  of  the 
singer's  state  of  mind  in  view  of  Yahweh's  glory. 

Glad  is  my  heart  in  Yahweh, 

My  horn  is  exalted  in  my  God, 

My  mouth  is  enlarged  over  my  enemies, 

For  I  rejoice  in  thy  salvation. 

There  is  none  holy  like  Yahv/eh, 

For  there  is  none  righteous  like  our  God, 

And  there  is  no  rock  besides  thee. 

1.  "iDN.ni  njn  S'^cnm]  @'^  has  simply  koX  e'nrev,  which  is  enough.  —  yh]}j 
icTepiJ}dT)  @  may  go  back  to  yoa;  but  as  this  verb  with  3V  might  convey  the 
meaning  of  obstinacy  (cf.  Dt.  2*^),  it  seems  better  to  adhere  to  ^.  '/he 
elevation  of  the  horn  and  the  widening  of  the  mouth  are  familiar  figures 
in  Hebrew  poetry,  Ps.  92^1  Is.  57*.  The  second  7\^r\^2  should  doubtless  be 
^^'?N3  with  @  and  28  MSS.  —  2.  The  second  member  is  -|n'^3  px  •'O.  Evi- 
dently something  has  been  lost;  and  as  (&  has  Skaios,  we  cannot  do  better 
than  to  insert  it.  But  having  followed  @  in  this,  it  seems  better  to  go  with 
it  also  in  the  interchange  of  in'^a  and  irn^so.  The  parallelism  is  thus 
improved.     For  nix,  cf.  Ps.  iS^^^ 

3-5.   Warning  to  the  opposers. 

Do  not  speak  haughtily. 
Or  let  arrogance  come  from  your  mouth. 
For  a  God  of  knowledge  is  Yahweh, 
And  a  God  who  weighs  men's  deeds. 

The  bow  of  the  mighty  is  broken, 
And  the  weak  are  girded  with  might. 
Those  who  had  plenty  do  lack, 
But  the  famished  inherit  the  land. 
For  the  barren  has  borne  seven, 
And  the  mother  of  many  languishes. 

3.  The  first  member  is  unmanageably  long.  It  seems  probable,  therefore, 
that  n3in  mn  are  duplicates,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  double  nnaj. 
It  answers  every  purpose  to  read  nnaj  nann  *?«.  For  pny,  cf.  Ps.  311^. — 
niJT  Sn]  Job  36*.  The  plural  is  probably  emphatic,  and  might  be  rendered 
all-knowing  (Briggs).  —  mSSj?  uanj  nVi]  et  les  crimes  ne  passent  pas  impunis 
(Reuss)  is  hardly  justified.  At  least  the  niS'?>'  should  be  described,  in  order 
that  we  may  understand  that  crimes  are  meant.    The  Qre,  reading  1^1  (also 


l6  I  SAMUEL 

in  the  text  in  some  copies),  makes  a  possible  sense:  And  by  him  actions  are 
weighed.  Hut  <S,  reading  koi  debs  eroi/xdi'wv  iimyiSevnaTa  avrov,  makes  us 
suspect  the  original  to  have  been  ni'^'^y  jsh  '^ni  (SS). — 4.  B\~n]  Th.  and 
Dr.  cite  Is.  21'"  in  favour  of  the  reading.  But  it  seems  simpler  to  correct 
to  nrn :  i)<Tdivy)<T€  (5.-5.  n^^'j]  hi>e  themselves  out  would  be  appropriate, 
but  the  verb  is  nowhere  found  in  this  stem,  and  non,  suggested  by  @,  is 
preferable.  —  I'^tn]  needs  something  to  complete  the  sense.  Briggs  takes 
i;'  from  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  and  translates  keep  holiday  forever. 
But  in  order  to  mean  keep  holiday,  the  verb  needs  something  to  complete 
the  sense  —  cease  from  labour.  Reifmann,  cited  by  Dr.,  proposes  ^a>•  I'^in, 
which  is  adopted  by  Bu. :  wap^Kav  y^v  (§  does  not  seem  to  help  us,  but 
habitaverunt  \  points  to  Trap(^Kr](7av,  which  is  also  confirmed  by  the  Armenian 
(according  to  HP).  I  have,  therefore,  ventured  to  restore  in.x  i:rn%  of.  Ps. 
2513.  —  ly]  could  undoubtedly  be  spared.  B  omits,  but  @  represents  it  by 
6Ti.  —  n^^-:i<']  Ges.2«  §  55  d. 

6-8.    Yahweh's  government. 

Yahweh  kills  and  gives  life. 
Brings  down  to  Sheol  and  brings  up. 
Yahweh  makes  poor  and  makes  rich. 
Brings  low  and  also  sets  on  high. 

He  raises  the  poor  from  the  dust. 
From  the  dung-hill  he  raises  the  needy. 
To  make  him  sit  with  nobles  of  the  people, 
And  gives  him  in  possession  a  glorious  throne. 
[For  to  Yahweh  belong  the  pillars  of  the  earth. 
And  he  has  set  the  world  upon  them]. 

6.  The  second  half  is  synonymous  with  the  first  —  Sheol  the  abode  of  the 
dead.  —  7.  ^n]  is  represented  by  /cat  alone  in  © :  et  %.  —  8.  ^-i  and  p-aN 
are  parallel,  Ps.  72^^.  —  rcrN:;]  Many  codd.  have  pdU'NSi,  which  is  also  the 
reading  of  (@1L.  The  rsa'N  is  the  mound  of  rubbish  which  accumulates  near 
an  Oriental  town.  Beggars  often  spend  the  night  upon  it  in  default  of  a 
lodging.  —  CO''nj]  dwacTTCov  \aQ)vlS^:  dvvaarQv  \aov  ©i-,  evidently  reading 
nv"'3nj,  which  seems  more  vigorous.  The  couplet  in  brackets  is  not  found 
in  (§,  and  is  therefore  probably  not  original.  In  place  of  it  we  find :  6i5oi>5 
eixv"  TV  eixofidvcf),  Kal  ev\6y7)(r€v  stt]  diKalov,  which  seems  an  endeavour  to 
adapt  the  psalm  more  nearly  to  Hannah's  circumstances. 

9,  10.    The  confidence  of  the  believer. 

The  feet  of  his  friends  he  will  guard, 
But  the  wicked  shall  perish  in  darkness, 
(For  not  by  strength  is  a  man  mighty). 


II.  6-12  17 

Yahweh  will  shatter  his  enemies, 

Upon  them  he  will  thunder  in  the  heavens. 

Yahweh  will  judge  the  ends  of  the  earth; 

He  will  give  strength  to  his  king, 

And  will  exalt  the  horn  of  his  anointed. 

9.  (5  omits  the  first  two  members  of  the  verse.  These  seem,  however, 
more  in  accord  with  the  context  than  the  third.  — 10.  irin-j  read  rn>  with 
(g.  —  lanc]  is  confirmed  by  i§,  but  is  of  course  to  be  taken  collectively: 
vunn  Qre.  —  i':'],']  v^';  Qre.  Bu.  proposes  jv'?;',  which  would  not  be  out  of 
l)lace.  In  this  verse  @  inserts  six  lines  from  Jer.  g^^*"-.  For  nini  in  line  3 
l§  has  simply  awro's.  —  in^;":]  as  a  title  of  the  king  (and  we  can  hardly  under- 
stand it  otherwise  here)  this  word  is  another  indication  of  comparatively 
late  date. 

11.  The  verse  is  the  conclusion  of  the  account  of  Samuel's 
dedix;ation  and  originally  read  :  And  she  left  him  there  before 
Yahiveh  and  went  to  Ramah ;  but  the  boy  continued  ministeritig 
to  Yahweh  in  the  presence  of  Eli  the  priest. 

11.  KoX  KariXiirev  avrbv  iKet  ivuiriov  KVplov  (5  is  represented  in  |^  by  the 
last  three  words  of  i-*.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt  that  (5  has  the  original, 
and  that  its  proper  place  is  here.  —  nnmn  njpSx  i^ii]  can  scarcely  be  original, 
as  Hannah  has  been  the  prominent  character  in  what  precedes.  We  should 
read  nnain  iSm  or  nnmn  loS^i.  The  words  ini3~Sjj  are  lacking  in  (@^  and 
superfluous.  —  ms'c]  is  often  used  of  priestly  service. 

12-17.    The  corruption  of   the   existing   priesthood. — The 

author  describes  the  conduct  of  Eli's  sons  in  a  manner  to  point 
the  contrast  afforded  by  Samuel,  and  also  to  prepare  for  the  catas- 
trophe that  is  to  overtake  their  house.  The  crime  of  which  they 
are  accused  is  arrogance  in  demanding  a  share  of  the  sacrifice 
and  in  not  contenting  themselves  with  the  portions  assigned  by 
custom  or  by  law. 

The  paragraph  separates  itself  so  neatly  from  what  precedes 
and  follows,  that  we  naturally  suppose  it  to  belong  to  an  older 
document  which  the  author  of  the  life  of  Samuel  wove  into  his 
narrative. 

12.  The  sons  of  Eli  were  wicked  men'\  the  phrase  used,  sons 
of  belial,  is  parallel  to  daughter  of  belial  used  in  i^^.  We  must  be 
careful  not  to  assume  that  belial  was  at  this  time  a  proper  name. 
Whatever  its  origin,  it  denotes  extreme  depravity.     They  kneiu  not 


1 8  I  SAMUEL 

Yahweh']  in  any  such  sense  as  would  lead  them  to  do  his  will, 
nor  the  pries fs  due  from  the  people^  this  clause  from  the  next 
verse  seems  to  belong  here.  —  13,  14.  Whenever  a  man  sacrificed, 
the  pries  fs  servant  would  come,  at  the  boiling  of  the  flesh,  with  his 
three-pronged  fork  in  his  hand,  and  would  strike  it  into  the  pot  or 
the  pan  or  the  kettle~\  the  method  could  scarcely  be  more  offensive. 
All  that  the  fork  brought  up  the  priest  would  take  for  himself '\  by 
the  hand  of  his  servant,  that  is.  This  violence  was  not  exercised 
in  isolated  cases  only,  but  was  practically  universal  —  to  all  Israel 
that  came  to  sacrifice  to  Yahweh  in  Shiloh.  — 15.  Worse  is  to  follow : 
Moreover,  before  they  burned  the  fat,  the  priests  seniant  used  to 
come  and  say  to  the  offerer :  Give  roasting-flesh  for  the  priest — ■  he 
will  not  take  boiled  flesh  from  thee,  but  raw'\  this  amounted  to 
sacrilege,  as  nothing  ought  to  intervene  between  the  presentation 
of  the  offering  and  the  burning  of  the  part  belonging  to  Yahweh. 
The  expostulation  of  the  worshipper  to  this  effect  only  led  to 
fresh  insult :  Should  the  offerer  say :  They  are  going  to  burn  the  fat 
at  once,  then  take  whatever  you  please,  he  would  reply :  No  !  You 
shall  give  it  at  once  or  I  will  take  it  by  force.  — 17.  The  greatness 
of  the  sin  consisted  in  this,  that  these  priests  despised  the  offerings 
of  Yahweh. 

13.  PN  D'»jnon  taott'Di]  (5  had  hnd  jnan  tasu'ni;  this  is  confirmed  by  9  MSS. 
and  seems  preferable.  The  nearest  parallel  is  Dt.  18*  —  hno  O'-jnon  oorD. 
It  is  extremely  difficult  to  decide  whether  this  clause  belongs  with  the  preced- 
ing verse  or  whether  it  should  begin  a  new  sentence :  the  custom  of  the  priest 
.  .  .  was  that  his  servant  would  come.  The  decisive  consideration  is  the  use 
of  the  phrase  in  Dt.  18^,  where  it  certainly  means  the  due  of  the  priests  from 
the  people.  On  this  account  it  belongs  with  the  preceding,  though  we  expect 
an  HN  to  precede  taott'D.  For  D^jaM  ^'^'i?  We.  and  Dr.  read  Zi-'iv  r\'if'^v.  — 14.  njni 
doubtless  should  be  the  pointing,  with  @.  Instead  of  four  vessels  (5  has  but 
three.  —  la]  should  be  corrected  to  iS  with  OS®.  —  rhz''^  Di:']  the  tautology 
is  relieved  by  (5^  Bvaai.  Kvplcf)  iu  ST^Xtijii,  and  this  should  be  restored.  It  is 
not  certain  that  at;'  should  be  retained  with  this  reading  (Kl.,  Bu.).  —  15.  aj] 
evidently  introduces  the  climax.  —  np^]  Xtl/Jw  (3&.  The  reading  of  |^  seems 
more  likely  to  be  original.  — 16.  icnm]  as  pointed  by  |H  would  describe  a 
single  case.  It  seems  better  to  point  ics^i  and  to  understand  it  as  stating  a 
hypothesis.  —  vSn  is  not  represented  in  (5.  —  iS  A7.]  nS  Qre  and  in  19  codd., 
besides  <S&.  —  ipnpS]  is  justified  by  analogy,  cf.  Dr.  Tenses,^  §  1367;  but  it 
is  smoother  to  change  to  •'-'np^i  (Kl.).  — 17.  nin>  >;n"PN,  which  is  inserted  in 
different  places  in  different  recensions  of  ®,  is  possibly  not  original,  as  it  is 


IT.    12-21  19 

superfluous  and  may  have  crept  in  from  the  next  verse.  —  D^tt-jsn]  lacking 
in  (5,  seems  to  be  an  insertion  intended  to  lighten  the  categorical  assertion 
that  the  priesis  treated  the  offerings  with  contumely. 

18-21.   The  narrative  returns  to  Samuel  who  continued  serving 
YaJnvefi]  lit.  the  face  of  Yahiveh,  which  means  Yahweh  himself. 
Samuel  is  described  as  a  lad  girded  with  a  linen  ephod'\  where 
the  ephod  is  evidently  a  priestly  garment,  22^*  2  S.  6".      Bau- 
dissin*  points  out  that  linen  garments  were  worn  by  the  Egyptian 
priests.     Direct  influence  cannot  be  proved.  — 19.  And  his  mother 
used  to  make  him  a  little  robe'\    no  English  word  exactly  corre- 
sponds to  the  Hebrew.     The  garment  was  worn  over  the  tunic. 
There  seerns  no  reason  to  find  fault  with  the  statement  on  the 
ground  that  as  the  boy  grew  it  would  no  longer  be  a  little  robe. 
The  narrator  has  the  earlier  years  especially  in  mind.     Doubtless 
the  cloth  was  spun  and  woven  by  his  mother,  as  well  as  the  robe 
cut  and  sewed  by  her.  —  20.   The  blessing  of  Eli :   Yahweh  repay 
thee  with   seed  from  this  woman  for  the  gift  which  she  gave  to 
Yahweh']  the  received  text  is  obscure,  but  the  reference  must  be 
to  i-^  where  Hannah  expressly  says  she  has  given  him  to  Yahweh. 
21.   And  Yahweh  visited  Hannah']  as  he  did  Sarah,  Gen.  2\^,  so 
that  she  gave  birth  to  three  sons  atid  two  daughters]  in  addition  to 
Samuel.     But  the  lad  Samuel  grew  up  in  the  presence  of  Yahweh. 

19.  rJ|i  "r^ysi]  the  "^^^c  was  the  outer  garment  worn  by  well-to-do  people. 
It  was  usually  sleeveless,  as  we  may  judge  from  the  emphasis  laid  upon 
those  with  sleeves.  For  |-jp  Kl.  proposes  \\T^-2,  cotton,  which,  however,  occurs 
nowhere  in  Biblical  Hebrew.  —  20.  Dir^]  would  perhaps  answer  our  pur- 
pose. But  dworiaai  (3^  indicates  d':'^'i  as  does  dz/TaTroSanret  (3^.  —  Sxr 
nin'i'?]  cannot  be  right,  though  the  attempt  is  made  to  translate  it,  7<'/«VA 
one  asked  of  Yahiveh.  But  there  is  no  reason  for  the  indefinite  verb  here : 
Eli  would  certainly  have  said  nVstr  or  Thv.-v  and  would  also  have  used  p. 
On  the  basis  of  i^s  we  naturally  restore  h'^'^num  (Bu.).  (5  has  ex/»7<^«s  which 
is  evidently  n'^srn,  cf.  Ex.  \'^'^.  But  it  seems  unfair  to  give  the  merit  to  Elka- 
nah.  —  iDpcS  id'^hi]  better  to  make  the  suffix  plural  as  in  some  codd.;  @ 
however  makes  the  verb  singular. — 21.  ""PD"^:]  seems  without  motive  :  ipci 
6S>  should  be  restored.  —  inni]  is  lacking  in  (5"^,  cf.  i'^'',  which  shows  how 
easily  such  insertions  are  made.     After  "tfr^y  insert  ni>'  @^. 

*  Geschichte  des  Alttestammtlichen  Priesterthums,  Leipzig,  1889,  p.  70,  referring 
to  Herodotus,  II.  37.    Compare,  also,  Nowack,  Hebr.  Archaologie,  II.  p.  116. 


20  I  SAMUEL 

22-25.  Eli's  ineffectual  rebuke.  —  The  paragraph  joins  di- 
rectly to  v.^^  and,  as  already  indicated,  was  probably  part  of  a 
source  which  treated  the  sin  and  punishment  of  Eli's  sons  without 
reference  to  Samuel.  —  22.  Although  Eli  was  a  very  old  man,  yet 
he  used  to  hear  zvhat  his  sons  were  doing]  the  reference  is  to  the 
sins  already  laid  to  their  charge.  The  impurity  predicated  of  them 
in  the  second  half  of  the  verse  was  not  in  the  mind  of  the  original 
author.  —  23.  The  rebuke  :  JVhy  will  you  do  the  like  of  these  things 
which  I  hear  from  the  mouth  of  all  the  people  ?]  this,  which  is  an 
abbreviated  text,  seems  to  convey  all  that  he  meant  to  say.  — 
24.  No,  my  sons  !  Not  good  is  the  report  which  I  hear  .  .  .  tJie 
people  of  Yahweh]  the  text  is  suspicious,  and  perhaps  originally 
contained  a  prohibition. — 25,  The  motive  is  the  difficulty  of 
finding  a  mediator  when  Yahweh  is  the  offended  party  :  If  a  man 
sin  against  a  man,  God  will  mediate]  cases  of  this  kind  could  be 
brought  before  God  as  umpire,  and  the  oracle  would  decide 
between  the  parties.  But  if  against  Yahweh  one  sin,who  shall 
act  as  mediator?  No  higher  power  exists  to  whom  the  case  can 
be  submitted.  The  conclusion  is,  that  the  offended  party  will 
take  his  revenge.  The  expostulation  was  fruitless,  for  Yahiueh 
was  minded  to  slay  them],  and  on  that  account  incited  them  to 
sin,  as  he  afterwards  incited  David  to  take  the  census,  2  S.  24^ 

26.  Samuel  is  again  brought  in,  in  contrast.  He  kept  growing 
laiger  and  better  in  the  estimation  of  Yahweh,  and  in  the  estima- 
tion of  men. 

22.  ''d]  is  lacking  in  (S^^'.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  brings  as  an 
additional  accusation  against  the  priests  that  they  tised  to  lie  with  the  women 
who  ministered  at  the  gate  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting]  the  sentence  is  suspicious; 
first,  because  it  is  lacking  in  (g^.  in  the  second  place  the  original  narrator 
has  stated  his  accusation  above  and  this  should  have  been  made  a  part  of  that 
accusation.  Finally,  the  whole  narrative,  except  in  this  verse,  is  ignorant  of 
women  who  ministered  and  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting  as  established  at  Shiloh. 
The  language  is  borrowed  from  the  Priestly  document  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Ex.  38^.  For  these  reasons  the  half  verse  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  late  inter- 
polation (We.,  Kl.,  Dr.,  Bu.). — 23.  ^^'i-\  DD^aTPN]  is  lacking  in  (S^  and 
difficult  to  construe:  for  I  hear  of  your  evil  dealings  (RV.)  cannot  be  the 
meaning.  It  seems  better  to  leave  the  words  out.  —  dns]  ex  a-To/xaros  (3  is 
more  vivid.  —  h'^n  nyn]  is  impossible.  The  n'?x  has  come  in  by  false  duplica- 
tion of  the  following  Sn.     ®  has  Kvplov  which  perhaps  represents  oihSn;  but 


II.    22-26  21 

notice  the  phrase  nn^  o-j  at  the  end  of  the  next  verse.  —  24.  JJCIS'  "3JN  icn 
D^"i3j:a]  seems  unintelligible :  which  I  hear  the  people  circulating  9E  would 
require  a>n  to  be  expressed  before  the  participle  :  You  make  the  people  trans- 
gress would  require  the  addition  of  dpn,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Kimchi's  pro- 
posal:  You  make  the  people  forsake  \the  sanctuary].  If  a  word  of  this  kind 
can  be  used  here  at  all,  it  is  better  to  correct  to  amayn  or  Emasn,  ye  lead 
astray.  But  Vx  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  suggests  a  negative  command, 
in  which  case  there  has  been  radical  corruption.  —  25.  i'?''di]  as  the  direct 
object  is  without  analogy  we  may  read  i"?  '?'?si;  We.,  Bu.,  al.,  point  iVSfli. — 
26.   V"iJi]  is  lacking  in  (5^. 

27-36.  The  Threat  of  Punishment  upon  Eli.  —  An  unnamed 
prophet  comes  to  Eli  and  rehearses  the  benefits  he  and  his  house 
have  received  from  Yahweh.  The  ingratitude  with  which  he  has 
treated  his  benefactor  is  pointed  out,  and  the  removal  of  his  house 
from  the  priesthood  is  foretold,  with  the  consequent  impoverish- 
ment of  his  descendants. 

The  piece  reminds  us  of  similar  sections  elsewhere,  Jd.  6"^'  i  K. 
1 3^"^-,  where  a  prophet  is  sent  with  a  rebuke,  and  of  others,  Jd.  2^^ 
lo""^",  where  Yahweh  himself  (or  his  Angel)  delivers  the  rebuke. 
All  such  sections  are  of  comparatively  late  date,  and  the  present 
one  is  no  exception.  The  only  question  which  is  raised  concern- 
ing it  is  whether  it  is  an  insertion  made  after  the  narrative  of 
Samuel's  life  was  completed.  In  answering  this  we  need  to  note 
that  the  account  of  the  priests'  wickedness,  ending  at  i^,  might 
be  continued  perfectly  well  by  the  account  of  the  capture  of  the 
Ark  beginning  at  4^  The  oldest  historian  would  then  have  left  us 
to  draw  the  moral  ourselves.  It  seems  on  the  whole  probable 
that  this  was  the  case.  But  an  editor,  not  content  with  this  form 
of  the  story,  inserted  our  section  on  purpose  to  point  out  the 
lesson.  This  may  very  well  have  been  done  before  the  story 
of  Samuel  was  inserted  in  the  narrative,  as  the  author  of  that 
story  had  abundant  reason  to  tell  us  of  his  hero's  call  even  if  2-'''^" 
were  already  in  his  text,  while  the  interpolator  would  have  no 
motive  to  insert  2^""^  if  3  was  already  a  part  of  the  history. 

We.  {Comp.,  p.  239  f.)  treats  this  section  as  an  interpolation  into  the  narra- 
tive similar  to  the  Song  of  Hannah,  though  of  earlier  date,  "  yet  scarcely  older 
than  Deuteronomy  and  the  reform  of  Josiah."  IjU.,  RS.  p.  200,  thinks  the 
section  in  place  but  "  Deuteronomistically  recast,"  with  which  Cornill  agrees 
Einleiting^,  p.  99;    and  Driver   takes  substantially  the  same  view,  LOT.^, 


22  I  SAMUEL 

p.  174.  I  can  see  no  evidence  of  the  recasting,  and  if  the  piece  is  not  much 
later  than  Josiah,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  may  not  have  existed  before  the 
incorporation  of  the  story  of  Samuel  into  this  context. 

27.  A  man  of  God'\  the  phrase  is  frequently  used  of  a  prophet, 
especially  in  the  Books  of  Kings  ;  it  is  twice  used  of  an  angel, 
Jd.  13"'^  in  a  passage  ascribed  to  J.  by  Prof.  Moore,  once  applied 
to  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  {2>2>^,  E),  and  once  also  in  Joshua  (14*^, 
a  passage  Deuteronomistically  coloured).  Thus  saith  Yahzveh'] 
is  a  standing  phrase  in  the  prophetic  books.  I  certainly  revealed 
myself  to  thy  father's  house,  while  they  were  in  Egypt,  servants  to 
the  house  of  Pharaoli]  the  father's  house  was  probably  the  clan 
of  Levi.  Parallel  to  this  election  by  Yahweh  as  a  reason  for  obe- 
dience, is  the  frequent  argumentation  from  his  choice  of  Israel  as 
his  people.  —  28.  And  I  chose  him  from  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  as  my 
priest,  to  offer  on  my  altar,  to  burn  sacrifices  and  to  bear  an  ephod'\ 
whether  we  should  translate  to  bear  an  ephod,  or  to  wear  an  ephod 
depends  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word  ephod,  concerning  which 
this  passage  leaves  us  wholly  in  the  dark.  And  I  gave  thy  father's 
house  all  the  offerings  of  the  sons  of  Israel  for  food~\  the  last  two 
words  are  omitted  by  |^,  but  found  in  (^.  They  seem  necessary 
to  the  sense,  for  the  point  of  the  rebuke  is  that  Eli's  sons  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  provision  made  for  them.  It  seems  clear 
that  the  writer  has  in  mind  either  the  tribe  of  Levi  or  the  house 
of  Aaron  which  was  chosen  to  the  priesthood  in  Egypt,  and  that 
therefore  he  lived  before  the  descent  of  Zadok  (who  displaced  the 
descendants  of  Eli)  was  traced  either  to  Levi  or  to  Aaron.*  — 
29.  Why  then  dost  thou  look  with  an  evil  eye  on  my  sacrifices  and 
on  my  offerings  and  dost  honour  thy  sons  above  me,  in  fattening 
them  with  the  first-fruits  of  all  the  offerings  of  Israel  my  people? 
The  Hebrew  text  is  obscure  and  this  restoration  is  only  pro- 
visional. It  seems  to  express  the  mind  of  the  writer — that  Eli 
allowed  his  sons  to  seize  as  their  own  the  portion  that  belonged 
of  right  to  God.  —  30.  A  change  of  purpose  is  declared:  I  had 
thought  that  thy  house  and  thy  clan  should  continue  in  my  presence 
forever']  lit.  should  walk  to  and  fro  before  me.     The  figure  is  that 

*  Cf.  Baudissin,  Geschichte  des  Alttcstamentlicken  Priesterthums,  Leipzig,  1889, 
p.  197  f. 


II.  27-36  23 

of  a  courtier  who  lives  in  his  sovereign's  favour,  basks  in  the  light 
of  his  countenance.  But  now,  saith  Yahweh,  far  be  it  from  me  \ 
for  them  that  honour  me  I  will  honour,  ajid  they  that  despise  tne 
shall  be  lightly  esteemed.  —  31.  The  prediction  to  which  this  leads 
up  :  I  will  cut  off  thy  seed"]  a  man  has  hope  in  the  survival  of  his 
posterity,  long  after  he  himself  is  gone.  So  that  there  shall  not  be 
an  old  man  in  thy  family'\  premature  death  is  a  sign  of  the  divine 
displeasure,  —  32.  And  thou  shall  look,  beifig  in  straits  and  with 
envious  eyes,  upon  all  with  which  I  favour  Israel^  as  a  punish- 
ment for  the  present  greedy  behaviour.  The  text  must  be  con- 
fessed to  be  very  uncertain.  —  33.  And  the  man  of  thine  whom  I 
do  not  cut  offfiojn  my  altar  shall  be  spared  in  order  to  consume  his 
eyes  and  to  starve  his  soul,  and  all  the  increase  of  thy  house  shall 
die  by  the  sword  of  men']  one  is  tempted  to  see  a  reference  to  the 
slaughter  of  the  priests  by  Saul.  —  34.  An  earnest  of  the  calamity 
should  be  the  death  of  Eli's  sons  :  on  the  same  day  both  shall  die.  — 
35.  In  contrast  with  EH  there  shall  be  a  faithful  priest :  All  that  is 
in  my  heart  a7id  in  my  desire  he  will  do,  and  I  will  build  him  an 
enduritig  house']  that  is,  a  continuous  posterity,  cf.  2  S.  7",  Yahweh 
makes  known  to  thee  that  Yahzveh  will  build  thee  a  house.  This 
priest,  in  person  or  in  his  descendants,  shall  walk  before  mine 
Anointed  for  all  time]  lit.  all  the  days.  The  Anointed  is  of  course 
the  king  of  Israel,  and  the  writer  seems  to  look  back  upon  a  long 
line  of  kings.  There  can  be  no  doubt  therefore  that  the  faithful 
priest  is  Zadok,  who  was  made  priest  by  Solomon  in  place  of 
Abiathar  (Eli's  great-grandson).  This  is  expressly  stated  to  be 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  i  K.  2^.  The  family  of  Zadok 
maintained  themselves  in  the  sanctuary  of  Jerusalem  until  the 
final  destruction  of  the  temple.  —  36.  EU's  family  shall  be  so 
reduced  as  to  seek  the  menial  offices  of  the  sanctuary  for  the 
pittance  that  might  thus  be  earned.  And  the  one  that  is  left  of  thy 
house  shall  come  to  do  him  obeisance  for  a  bit  of  money  or  a  loaf 
of  bread]  the  contrast  is  between  the  regularly  installed  priesthood 
which  lives  of  the  altar,  and  the  hangers-on  of  the  sanctuary  who 
are  willing  to  earn  an  occasional  penny  or  an  occasional  meal  by 
menial  services.  The  ambition  of  the  latter  is  to  be  put  into  one 
of  the  priests'  places  in  order  to  eat  a  morsel  of  the  bread  of  Yahweh] 
the  state  of  things  is  that  which  we  find  after  the  reform  of  Josiah, 


24  »  SAMUEL 

when  the  priests  of  the  Bamoth  were  obliged  to  content  them- 
selves with  what  subordinate  places  there  were  in  the  service  of  the 
Jerusalem  sanctuary. 

27.  nSjjn]  the  interrogative  n  is  out  of  place,  for  it  would  call  for  a 
negative  answer.  It  has  come  on  to  this  word  by  duplication  of  the  next  pre- 
ceding letter.  —  n;;ic  n^aS]  might  in  connection  with  onvna  mean  belonging 
to  the  house  of  Pharaoh.  But  (S  is  probably  right  in  inserting  hovKwv;  read, 
therefore, '3  noS  Dnay.  —  28.  inji]  as  an  infinitive  absolute  representing  a 
finite  verb,  the  word  might  pass.  But  it  is  simpler  to  restore  nnasi  with  (5IL. 
The  scribe  probably  thought  he  was  going  to  begin  the  verse  with  viina  inai 
corresponding  to  vi^Sjj  nSjj  above;  ni'^j'S  seems  to  stand  for  piSj.ti'^  or 
to  be  corrupted  from  it.  —  nxirS]  probably  rsc'^i  with  (5IL.  At  the  end  of 
the  verse  ets  ^pwaiv  (5  should  be  restored.  —  29.  n::*^]  prefix  i  with  (5. — 
i:3>'3n]  the  verb  occurs  only  Dt.  321^,  where  it  means  /o  kick.  But  v/hether  it 
would  take  a  in  the  meaning  to  kick  at  is  not  certain.  (§  evidently  read  oon 
which  makes  good  sense.  —  pyc  Tiiis  nrNJ  is  unintelligible  in  this  context: 
dfaiSe?  6<pOa\/j.<fi  <S  may  represent  |'i;'d  18^  (I'^l-)-  This  makes  good  sense, 
and  we  must  suppose  TriVi  i^'N  inserted  to  help  out  the  unintelligible  jiya 
after  the  ji^D  had  become  mutilated. — DDsnan':']  may  be  conjecturally 
altered  to  ons  NnanS,  for  it  is  Eli's  indulgence  to  his  sons  that  is  rebuked : 
(vevXoyeiffdai  (3  would  be  ^'i'an'p.  For  id;?'?  we  should  perhaps  read  iJ"'j;S 
(Bu.)  although  it  is  equally  good  simply  to  leave  off  the  '?  as  a  duplicate 
of  the  preceding  letter.  —  30.  \-ni:N  iicn]  only  the  second  word  is  indicated 
by  (5.  The  contrast  may  be  between  Yahweh's  former  declaration  and  his 
present  one.  But  it  seems  more  forcible  to  make  IDN  denote  the  thought 
of  his  mind,  as  frequently.  —  nini-ONj]  is  frequent  in  the  prophets. — 
31.  ^V^f]  TO  ffiripiia.  ffov  (@.  The  latter  alone  seems  to  be  justified  by  the 
concluding  words  of  the  verse  (contra  Dr.,  Kl.).  ynf.iK  should  be  made  to 
conform  to  the  word  just  discussed. — 32.  The  verse,  down  to  "1.1133,  is 
omitted  by  (5^,  whence  some  have  supposed  it  not  original.  But  the  omis- 
sion can  be  accounted  for  by  homeoteleuton,  and  the  verse  is  represented  in 
most  MSS.  of  @  and  also  in  I.  But  to  make  sense  of  it  is  another  matter.  — 
pjJD  IS  nt33ni]  is  nonsense;  Kl.  is  probably  right  in  seeing  a  reference  to 
the  pyn  which  we  have  changed  to  piyc  above  (very  possibly  the  form  may 
have  been  Jipp).  In  that  case,  the  simplest  correction  will  be  to  read  pi;?Di 
instead  of  p;'D.  For  a^L:'"  I  have  ventured,  in  so  desperate  a  passage,  to  put 
31BIN.  —  33.  l^Jip]  read  vj>y  (5.  —  3nN^i]  is  pointed  as  a  Hiphil  with  the 
n  dropped.  The  reference  to  Dt.  28^*^  is  so  evident,  however,  that  the  correc- 
tion to  3iNinS  seems  obvious.  —  is'dj]  read  uj'BJ  (&.  —  o^cm  cannot  mean 
cum  ad  virile m  aetatem  venerit  IL.  Read  with  <5  dicjn  3in3.  —  34.  iJDn~'?N 
onjoi]  is  superfluous  and  perhaps  a  gloss. — -35.  jcnj  ni3]  cf.  25'^^.  —  36.  "^s] 
is  lacking  in  ®J*  and  superfluous.  —  Bn':'"-\33iJ  also  lacking  in  S^^.  —  an-' J  ©^ 
adds  Tov  Kvpiov,  confirmed  by  I,  and  doubtless  original, 


II.  36-III.  3  25 

III.  1-21.  The  revelation  to  Samuel.  —  Samuel  while  sleep- 
ing in  the  sanctuary  hears  a  voice  calling  him.  Supposing  that  it 
is  Eli,  he  waits  upon  him  thrice.  Eh  at  last  perceives  the  nature 
of  the  call  and  instructs  the  lad  how  to  reply.  The  sequel  is  a 
revelation  of  Yahweh's  determination  to  destroy  the  house  of  Eli. 
On  hearing  the  message  the  aged  priest  resigns  himself  to  the  di- 
vine will.  The  significance  of  the  revelation  is  that  it  opens  Sam- 
uel's career  as  a  prophet,  and  his  reputation  soon  becomes  known 
throughout  Israel. 

The  chapter  seems  to  be  a  unit.  Doubts  have  been  expressed 
as  to  the  originality  of  """ ;  but  these  seem  not  to  be  well 
founded.  The  necessity  of  the  account  in  a  life  of  Samuel  is  evi- 
dent. The  fact  that  this  section  duplicates  the  warning  of  the 
anonymous  man  of  God  in  the  preceding  chapter  does  not  make 
it  the  less  necessary  that  Samuel  should  be  accredited  as  a 
prophet.  And  no  more  appropriate  credential  could  be  found 
than  a  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  the  house  of  Eli.  The 
tone  and  style  agree  well  with  ch.  i. 

1-10.  Samuel  hears  a  voice  calling  him  in  the  night,  and  the 
voice  proves  to  be  the  voice  of  Yahweh.  The  account  opens  with 
a  restatement  of  Samuel's  position  in  the  temple  service,  and 
then  tells  us  that  //le  word  of  YaMveh  was  rare  in  those  days, 
there  7vas  no  .  .  .  vision']  the  qualifying  word  may  mean  public 
or  7uidespread,  but  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  original 
reading  is  lost.  —  2,  3.  After  the  opening  clause,  the  thread  of 
the  narrative  is  interrupted  to  describe  the  condition  of  things  at 
the  time  when  the  event  took  place,  and  is  resumed  in  v.^  So 
the  sentence  is  :  It  came  to  pass  in  that  day,  wheti  Eli  .  .  .  that 
Yahweh  called  Samuel.  The  circumstantial  clause  is  compli- 
cated ;  three  of  its  items  tell  of  the  condition  of  things  at  the  mo- 
ment, the  other  gives  us  information  of  the  state  of  Eli's  physical 
vision.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  clause  bears  on  the  present 
history.  But  taking  the  text  as  it  stands  we  may  render  by  insert- 
ing a  parenthesis  :  When  Eli  was  lying  in  his  place  {now  his  eyes 
had  begun  to  grow  dim,  he  could  not  see)  and  the  lamp  of  God  had 
not  yet  gone  out,  Samuel  also  was  lying  in  the  Temple  of  Yahweh. 
where  the  Ark  of  God  was.    But  the  originality  of  the  words  in  pa- 


26  1  SAMUEL 

renthesis  is  difficult  to  maintain.  The  other  items  are  important  for 
the  picture  they  present  of  the  sanctuary.  It  is  evident  that  Eh  and 
Samuel  slept  in  adjoining  rooms,  if  not  in  the  same  room.  Samuel, 
at  least,  lay  in  the  apartment  in  which  the  Ark  stood.  The  dif- 
ference between  this  arrangement  and  that  provided  in  the  tradi- 
tional Tabernacle  is  evident.  That  a  lamp  should  burn  all  night 
before  Yahweh  is  in  accordance  with  the  fitness  of  things.  The 
early  Israelites  in  providing  Yahweh  a  dwelhng  were  careful  to 
furnish  it  with  articles  of  use  and  luxury  according  to  their  ideas. 
Of  any  typical  or  symbolical  meaning  such  as  later  attached  itself 
to  this  furniture  we  find  no  trace  in  our  narrative.  We  may  as- 
sume, however,  that  the  lamp  burned  all  night  in  the  sanctuary, 
as  was  later  expressly  provided,  Ex.  27^',  cf  2  Chr.  13",  and 
therefore  that  the  time  of  Samuel's  call  was  in  the  early  morning. 
The  sanctuary  is  here  called  a  temple  as  in  i'-*.  The  sleeping  of 
an  attendant  near  the  Ark,  as  a  servant  sleeps  near  the  monarch 
so  as  to  serve  him,  seems  to  show  preexilic  custom,  but  how  it 
shows  this  account  to  be  pre-Deuteronomic  *  I  do  not  see.  The 
belief  that  sleepers  in  the  sanctuary  receive  revelations  in  dreams 
was  common  in  antiquity  and  seems  not  yet  to  have  died  out,  as 
there  are  traces  of  it  among  the  Moslems  to  the  present  time. 
The  Ark  of  God  is  here  mentioned  for  the  first  time.  It  is  evi- 
dently the  same  which  was  afterwards  transferred  to  his  citadel  by 
David,  and  which  was  the  sacred  object  in  the  Temple  of  Solomon. 
But  we  have  no  description  of  it  by  an  early  writer.  See  below, 
on  4^  —  4.  The  text  must  be  restored  at  this  point,  where  we  ex- 
pect the  most  detailed  account,  so  as  to  read  :  Yahiveh  stood  and 
called:  Samuel!  Samuel !  The  repetition  of  the  name  is  one  of 
the  marks  of  E  among  the  Pentateuchal  documents,  Gen.  22^^  46^ 
Ex.  3^  —  5.  Answering  what  he  supposed  was  the  call  of  Eli, 
Samuel  is  bidden  to  return  to  his  place.  —  6.  Yahweh  calls  again  : 
Samuel!  Samuel!  with  the  same  result  as  before.  —  7.  The  re- 
mark that  Samuel  did  not  yet  know  Yahweh,  and  the  word  of  Yah- 
weh had  not  yet  been  revealed  to  him,  is  added  to  explain  how  it 
was  that  he  did  not  recognize  the  voice  of  the  speaker.  —  8.  At 
the  third  experience  Eli  perceived  that  Yahweh  was  calling  the 

*  As  affirmed  by  Kittel,  GH.  II.  p.  33. 


ni.  3-10  27 

lad.  —  9.  Hence  his  instruction  :  Go  and  lie  doivn  ;  and  if  one 
call  thee  thou  shalt  say :  Speak  /  for  thy  servant  is  listening.  As 
the  subject  is  left  indefinite  in  the  clause  and  if  one  call  thee,  it  is 
probable  that  the  name  of  Yahweh  was  not  mentioned  in  what 
follows.  Eli  will  let  the  lad  discover  who  the  speaker  is.  — 
10.  When  the  call  comes  again,  Samuel  replies  as  he  has  been 
directed. 

This  single  passage  is  not  enough  to  give  us  an  Old  Testament 
doctrine  of  revelation.  But  it  conveys  with  great  clearness  its 
author's  conception.  He  does  not  describe  a  dream,  because  he 
makes  Samuel  rise  and  run  to  Eli  after  each  call.  He  conceived 
of  the  prophet  as  hearing  a  voice  physically  audible.  This  voice 
enunciated  in  articulate  words  the  message  which  the  prophet  was 
to  receive.  The  experience  is  therefore  not  parallel  to  that  of 
Jacob,  who  saw  and  heard  God  in  a  dream. 

1.  'C"'Oi]  seems  to  give  no  good  meaning,  f^b,  which  We.  substitutes,  is 
too  violent  in  meaning  for  this  place,  though  it  is  possible  that  the  j  has  come 
from  the  preceding  word.  —  2.  vr>']  should  be  read  with  the  Qre.  —  vm:^  iSnn] 
We.  seems  to  be  wrong  in  insisting  that  the  second  word  cannot  be  an  infini- 
tive, on  the  ground  that  a  V  would  be  required.  Cf.  nn  '^ns  Dt.  2^-^^,  '?nK 
•f-'-yx  Jos.  3''.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  point  nn^.  —  n'^]  should  perhaps 
be  n'^i  ((5).  —  3.  DTJ  is  usually  construed  with  the  imperfect  tense  as  here, 
Dr.,  Tensed,  27^.  — 4.  Nip^'i]  In  v.^''  we  read  that  Yahweh  stood  and  called 
as  before.  It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  opening  account  should 
contain  this  particular,  and  so  we  find  in  (5^'  /cat  Kar^aT-q  Kal  fKaXeffe  Kvpios. 
The  omission  of  ai'v^  may  be  accounted  for  by  its  anthropomorphism.  That 
it  was  not  omitted  below  only  shows,  what  we  know  from  other  passages,  that 
a  correction  of  this  kind  is  rarely  carried  far.  —  '^nic';'~'^n]  should  be  Snicc' 
Sniob'  as  below,  and  here  also  in  <3-  — 5.  "'j:i]  the  regular  answer  when  one's 
name  is  called. — 6.  Dp^]  is  lacking  in  (3^^-  By  its  omission  we  lose 
nothing,  and  the  second  call  is  made  uniform  with  the  first.  —  7.  otj] 
iSovXeve  irplv  17  (3^  seems  to  be  a  case  where  a  Greek  editor  tried  to  make 
sense  out  of  a  text  he  did  not  understand.*  —  >"T']  should  be  pointed  as  an 
imperfect  after  aiiD  (Bottcher,  followed  by  Th.).  —  9.  T''^n]  &^'  adds  6  KaXQv, 
which  is  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  writer's  meaning.  —  mn^  121]  ^^  has 
simply  XdXei,  which  is  what  Samuel  actually  says  in  v.i''.  It  seems  to  me 
more  likely  that  the  name  is  a  later  insertion  than  a  later  omission. — 
10.  D;'D3"a>'D3]  cf.  Jd.  16^''.  From  what  has  already  been  said  it  is  evident 
that  the  narrative  cannot  be  made  to  illustrate  the  incubation  common  among 

*  The  reading,  however,  is  found  in  I  serviebat  antequam.  Cod.  Goth.  Leg.  apud 
Vercellone, 


28  1  SAMbEL 

Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Romans.  Bui  there  is  probably  a  similar  idea  at  the 
basis;  namely,  that  the  sanctuary  is  a  favourable  place  to  receive  revelations. 
Cf.  Seyffert,  Dictionary  of  Classical  Antiquity,  p.  435,  Friedlander,  Darslel- 
lungen  aus  d.  Sittengesch.  Rom<^,  III.  p.  571  ft. 

11-14.  The  message.  —  The  contents  are  of  such  a  nature  that 
Samuel  could  no  longer  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  personality  of  the 
speaker  :  Behold  I  am  about  to  do  a  thing  in  Israel  such  that  the 
ears  of  every  one  that  hears  it  shall  ring]  cf.  2  K.  21^^  Jer.  19', 
both  describing  the  effect  of  news  of  calamity.  The  verb  is  used 
once  of  the  trembling  of  the  lips  from  fear  (Hab.  3"^).  — 12.  In 
that  day  /  will  fulfil  upon  Eli  all  that  I  have  spoken  against  his 
house  from  beginning  to  end]  lit.  beginning  and  ending;  the  ad- 
verbial infinitives  express  the  completeness  of  the  punishment.  — 
13.  And  thou  shall  tell  him]  a  slight  change  from  the  received 
text  —  that  I  will  punish  his  house  foi-ever  for  the  guilt  of  his  sons, 
in  that  his  sons  were  blaspheming  God,  and  he  did  not  rebuke 
them]  the  text  has  been  purposely  obscured  to  shield  the  reader 
from  pronouncing  the  words  blaspheming  God,  but  the  original  has 
fortunately  been  preserved  in  (!9.  — 14.  Therefore  have  I  sworn  to 
the  house  of  Eli  that  the  guilt  of  the  house  of  Eli  shall  not  be  ex- 
piated] the  technical  term  can  best  be  translated  thus,  though 
Hebrew  and  Greek  ideas  of  expiation  must  not  be  confused.  By 
sacrifice  or  by  offering  forever]  the  expression  seems  to  be  made 
very  general  in  order  to  emphasize  the  impossibility  of  placating 
the  offended  deity  by  any  of  the  methods  known  to  the  ritual.  In 
ordinary  cases  of  his  anger  he  might  be  appeased  by  S7nelling  an 
offering,  26'''. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  revelation  to  Samuel 
vk^as  originally  of  a  different  tenor,  predicting  the  doom  of  Shiloh 
and  appointing  Samuel  as  Eli's  successor.  But  the  reasons  ad- 
vanced to  sustain  this  thesis  are  not  convincing,  and  the  tone  of 
the  verses  seems  quite  homogeneous  with  the  rest  of  this  docu- 
ment. The  fact  that  there  is  an  allusion  in  v.^-  to  the  preceding 
message  to  Eh  has  already  been  pointed  out,  as  has  the  bearing  of 
this  fact  upon  the  comparative  age  of  the  whole  chapter. 

11.  nr>']  on  the  use  of  the  participle  in  divine  announcements,  cf.  Dr., 
7>w^^i^,  §  135,  3.  — 12.  SnJ  in  the  first  occurrence  at  least  we  should  read 
*?;■.    The  interchange  of  the  two  prepositions  is  so  common  as  scarcely  to  call 


III.  1 1-18  29 

for  remark.  — 13.  T^  \-ii.)ni]  cannot  mean  Joy  I  have  told  him  (R\'.),  but 
must  be  and  I -will  make  knoivn  to  him.  This  seems  unnecessary,  ami  the 
conjecture  of  Kl.  (adopted  by  Bu.)  that  we  should  read  iS  rnini  is  taken 
as  the  basis  of  the  translation  above;  for  the  object  of  this  revelation  is  to 
warn  Eli  of  the  impending  doom  of  his  house.  — jv^ J  the  construct,  govern- 
ing the  clause  which  follows,  is  doubtless  possible,  Ges.^''  §  130^.  It  seems 
awkward  here,  however,  and  the  word  is  left  out  by  Bu.  on  conjecture.  As  it 
seems  better  to  have  some  authority,  1  prefer  to  emend  according  to  ^'^"^  which 
reads  v:3  \y}l  but  omits  >ni"na'x.  —  anS  a'''7S|">s]  cannot  mean  made  thetnselves 
vile,  AV.,  or  bring  a  curse  upon  themselves,  RV.  All  the  analogies  are  in 
favour  of  D''n'?x  a'''?'?p3  which  was  read  by  (5.  The  passage  is  one  of  those 
altered  by  the  scribes  {tiqqime  sophei-im') ,  cf.  Geiger,  Urschrift  und  Ueherset- 
zungen,  p.  271. —  hhd]  is  used  in  the  sense  of  restrain  only  here,  so  that  there 
may  be  an  error  of  the  text.  — 14.  ';2V:'\  is  regularly  followed  by  as  giving  the 
oath  a  negative  force,  or  by  sS'as  where  the  force  is  affirmative.  —  iflDn']  this 
stem  is  found  here  only,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  meaning.  The  Piel 
is  the  technical  term  for  removing  by  a  ritual  act  anything  which  is  offensive  in 
the  sight  of  God  and  would  therefore  make  his  worshippers  unacceptable  to 
him,  cf.  Dr.,  Detiteronomy,  p.  425,  BDB.,  s.v. 

15-18.  The  message  delivered. — Samuel  lay  until  the  morn- 
ing, when  he  rose  atid  opened  the  doors  of  the  house  of  Yahweh~\ 
a  part  of  his  regular  work  as  servant  of  the  sanctuary.  That  he 
was  afraid  to  make  the  visio?i  knotvn  is  easily  understood. — 
16, 17.  Eli's  adjuration,  so  may  God  do  to  thee  and  more  too,  if 
thou  coticeal  from  me  a  word  of  all  that  he  spoke  to  thee~\  induces 
a  response.  The  formula  so  may  God  do  to  thee  is  an  imprecation 
originally  connected  with  the  ceremony  of  slaying  an  animal  at  the 
taking  of  an  oath.  The  parties  pray  that  the  fate  of  the  victim 
may  be  theirs.  The  fact  that  the  formula  is  used  only  in  Samuel 
and  Kings  is  an  argument  against  attributing  these  books  to  the 
Pentateuchal  authors  E  and  J,  who  had  abundant  opportunity  to 
use  the  expression  in  their  histories.  The  omission  of  the  subject 
of  the  verb  shows  Eli's  dread  of  the  divine  sentence.  At  Samuel's 
report,  the  old  man  resigns  himself:  //  is  Ya/nveh,  let  him  do  what 
is  good  in  his  sight'\  compare  David's  expression  in  2  S.  15"^. 

15.  After  np3n,  add  ip33  D3i:'M  which  has  fallen  out  of  ||J  on  account  of  the 
resemblance  of  -\p2i  and  tp^a;  it  is  preserved  by  (S.  The  doors  here  men- 
tioned are  another  evidence  that  the  House  of  Yahweh  was  not  a  tent.  — 
16.  '?NiD'^'"nN]  some  MSS.  have  ":;-'^ii. —  18.  uddJ  ©^  adds  pyjtia  (=-\3i), 
which   seems   necessary  to  the  sense.  —  iJ''>'3]   the  Qre  substitutes  vrjJa   as 


30  t  SAMUEL 

usual.  With  the  phrase  the  good  in  his  eyes,  compare  the  right  in  his  eyes,  the 
evil  in  his  eyes.  Strictly  parallel  with  the  present  passage  are  Gen.  i6*  19* 
(both  J)  and  Jd.  19-*  (late).  But  we  find  arjni  -\-v^r\  once  in  Dt.  (6i^)  and 
aion-'?33  in  Jd.  lo^^  (E).  Exactly  like  the  text  are  i  S.  I^s  1430.40  2  S.  \(p, 
representing  both  the  main  streams  of  narrative  from  which  our  history  is 
made  up. 

III.  19-rV.  1*.  The  sequel  is,  that  Samuel  becomes  widely 
known  as  a  prophet.  The  verses  are,  however,  not  necessary  to 
the  connexion,  and  may  be  an  editorial  insertion. 

19.  As  Samuel  grew  up  he  continued  to  enjoy  the  favour  of 
Yahvveh.  Yahweh  was  with  him  a?id  let  tione  of  his  words  fall  to 
the  grou}id'\  that  is,  he  confirmed  them,  so  that  they  were  not 
useless.  —  20.  A  fid  all  Israel  knew,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba'\  cf. 
Jd.  20^  2  S.  3^"  17^^;  that  Samuel  was  authenticated  as  a  prophet 
of  Yalmieli]  the  evident  idea  of  the  author  is  that  the  people  came 
to  the  sanctuary  to  consult  the  prophet.  —  21,  IV.  l^^.  The  verse 
as  it  stands  is  tautological.  By  the  change  of  a  single  word,  we 
get  an  excellent  continuation  of  the  preceding :  A?id  Israel  again 
appeared  in  Shiloh  because  Yahweh  revealed  himself  to  Samuel, 
and  the  word  of  Samuel  came  to  all  Israel'\  the  sanctuary  had 
been  deserted  because  of  the  wickedness  of  Eli's  sons,  and  because 
God  did  not  reveal  himself  to  them.  All  this  was  changed  by  the 
establishment  of  Samuel  as  prophet.  At  the  end  of  this  paragraph 
(§  adds  :  {and  Samuel  ivas  established  as  a  prophet  fro7n  one  end 
of  the  land  to  the  other)  but  Eli  was  exceeding  old  and  his  sons 
kept  on  doing  worse  and  7vorse  before  YaJnveJi]  what  is  here  in 
parenthesis  is  duplication  of  ^'*'',  but  the  rest  is  possibly  original. 

19.  For  S'fln]  (5  may  have  read  So:,  cf.  Jos.  21*^  2  K.  10^°.  —  21.  Bu. 
proposes  to  interchange  this  verse  and  the  following,  partly  on  the  ground  of 
(5,  and  partly  because  that  order  seems  more  natural.  The  difficulty,  however, 
is  caused  by  HNnnS  nin>  T\p>\  which,  as  it  now  stands,  only  says  that  Yahweh 
appeared  again  in  Shiloh,  and  thus  duplicates  the  second  half  of  the  verse. 
By  the  single  change  of  mn>  to  Snt.:'>  the  difficulty  is  avoided,  and  the  verses 
fall  into  a  natural  order. — nsnnS  is  an  unusual  form  for  an  infinitive  construct, 
but  occurs  Jd.  1321,  cf.  Ges.26  75  c,  Stade,  Gram.  622  b.  —  nin>  -1213  rhv^] 
is  lacking  in  ®  and  probably  later  expansion.  — IV.  la.  The  division  into  chap- 
ters has  cut  off  this  clause  from  the  paragraph  to  which  it  belongs.  The  addi- 
tion adopted  above  is  found  in  the  MSS.  of  (5,  apparently  without  exception. 


in.  lo-iv.  3  31 

IV.  I'^-VII.  1.  War  with  the  Philistines;  defeat  of  Israel 
and  capture  of  the  ark;  the  experiences  of  the  Philistines 
with  the  ark  and  its  return  to  the  land  of  Israel. 

The  three  chapters  form  a  closely  connected  whole.  They 
show  no  trace  of  acquaintance  with  Samuel,  but  form  a  natural 
continuation  of  the  history  of  Eli  and  his  sons.  They  are  now 
generally  supposed  to  belong  to  an  older  stratum  of  the  narrative 
than  that  which  has  preceded.  In  spite  of  their  unity  of  scope, 
there  are  indications  that  they  are  from  a  composite  history  like 
that  of  JE. 

IV.  1*^-22.  The  great  disaster.  —  The  author  tells  us  of  the 
first  repulse  in  few  words.  The  original  opening  of  the  account, 
however,  is  mutilated  in  f^  by  the  same  cause  which  made  the  last 
words  of  3^'  illegible.  Restoring  the  reading  from  (3,  we  get : 
And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days  that  the  Philistines  gathered  for 
war  against  Israei'\  the  Philistines  appear  as  the  oppressors  of 
Israel  in  the  time  of  Samson.  We  know  very  well  that  they  occu- 
pied the  great  maritime  plain  from  Joppa  southwards  to  the  bordei 
of  Egypt.  They  appear  as  a  confederacy  of  five  cities,  each  with 
a  chief  magistrate  (in  some  places  called  a  king)  bearing  the  title 
of  Seren.  That  they  were  immigrants  was  known  to  Amos  (9^), 
who  derives  them  from  Caphtor.  Cf.  Dt.  2^  Jer.  47^  At  the 
opening  of  this  campaign  the  Israelites  camped  at  Ebenezer. 
According  to  7'^  the  place  did  not  receive  the  name  until  later. 
But  the  historical  accuracy  of  that  account  is  open  to  question. 
The  Philistine  camp  was  at  Aphek,  probably  the  same  with  the 
Aphek  in  Sharon  of  Jos,  12^*  (®)-  Sharon  was  the  natural  con- 
tinuation of  the  Shephela.  The  place  cannot  now  be  certainly 
identified.  —  2.  When  battle  was  joined.  Israel  was  smitten  before 
the  Philistines']  and  their  loss  is  put  at  four  thousand  men  i7t  the 
ranks  in  the  field.  This  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Israel- 
ites did  not  flee,  but  suffered  heavy  loss  while  holding  their 
ground. 

IV.  1.  Having  given  the  first  clause  to  the  preceding  paragraph,  we  find 
this  one  beginning  with  NX",  which  gives  no  explanation  of  the  reason  why 
Israel  went  out.  This  is  supplied  by  @  which  begins  Kal  iyev^drj  iv  rati 
7)ixipa.ii  iKtlvoM  KoX  avvadpoL^ovrai.  a,\\6(pvKoi  els  ir6\e/^ov  ivrl  '\<rpa.^\.      This  is 


32  I  SAMUEL 

now  generally  acloptc'l  as  the  original  beginning  of  the  section.  It  seems  to 
he  found  in  all  MSS.  of  (S.  —  DTr^D  pnv'^]  should  probably  be  anNn|-iS  @. 
On  the  Philistines,  Ebers,  Aegypten  tind  die  Biicher  Mosis  (i868),  pp.  130- 
237;  Max-Miiller,  Asien  iind  Europa  (1893),  pp.  387-390.  —  nryn  pNn]  can- 
not be  right.  The  lirst  word  must  be  ns  (We.).  —  psx]  We.  {Comp.,  p.  254) 
identifies  this  with  the  Aphek  of  29I  i  K.  2o2«  2  K.  13I'.  Cf.  Buhl,  Geog., 
p.  212.  —  2.  rN"\r''^  isiyi]  cf.  2  S.  lo-'- ^''.  —  ::'a.ii]  gives  no  suitable  sense  here  : 
Kai  eK\ivev  (5  points  to  am  (adopted  by  We.  al.).  It  should  be  noticed,  how- 
ever, that  naj  is  nowhere  used  of  a  battle,  so  that  the  emendation  is  doubt- 
ful; rpm  would  give  a  good  meaning  and  would  easily  be  corrupted  into  •^•ap^, 
cf.  2  S.  2I".  —  '^x-i-:"]  prefix  r^N  with  (5  (Bu.). 

3-11.  The  bringing-  of  the  Ark  to  the  camp  does  not  deliver 
the  Israelites;  on  the  contrary  the  Ark  itself  falls  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy.  —  As  usual  //le  Sheikhs  determine  what  is  to 
be  done.  They  recognize  that  Yahiveh  has  smitten  theni]  the  de- 
feat of  course  could  not  be  because  their  God  was  less  powerful 
than  the  deities  of  the  enemy.  Let  us  bfing  to  us  from  Shiloh  the 
Ark  of  our  God  that  he  may  go  out  in  the  midst  of  us  and  save  us 
from  our  enemies.  The  Ark  was  taken  into  battle  on  other  occa- 
sions, as  in  the  Ammonite  war,  2  S.  ii'^  The  cry  which  was 
raised  when  the  Ark  set  out  at  the  head  of  the  people  was  (Num. 
10''^)  :  Rise,  Yahiuch,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered,  and  let  thy 
haters  fie e  before  thee  —  a  war-cry  on  the  face  of  it.  That  the 
Ark  went  before  the  people  at  the  invasion  of  the  country  and  the 
siege  of  Jericho  (Jos.  3,  4)  is  significant  in  the  same  connexion. 
The  present  account  identifies  Yahweh  and  the  Ark  very  closely, 
but  it  does  not  describe  the  sacred  object.  From  the  name  we 
infer  that  it  was  a  chest,  for  the  same  word  is  used  of  the  sarcoph- 
agus of  Joseph,  Gen.  50'",  and  of  the  box  set  by  the  side  of  the 
altar  to  receive  the  money  contributions  of  the  worshippers,  2  K. 
12"'.  The  author  of  Deuteronomy  (10^')  describes  it  so  far  as  to  say 
that  it  was  of  acacia  wood,  and  made  to  contain  the  two  tables  of 
the  Covenant.  Hence  his  name  for  it  is  Ark  of  YahxveKs  Cov- 
enant, and  this  usage  prevails  in  Deuteronomistic  passages  in 
other  books.  The  priestly  writer  of  Ex.  25  gives  us  the  exact 
dimensions,  and  covers  it  with  gold  after  his  manner.  He  also 
makes  it  contain  the  tables  of  the  Law  which  he  calls  the  Testi- 
mony. So  that  his  name  for  it  is  Ark  of  the  Testimony.  He  also 
gives  an  elaborate  description  of  its  lid  or  cover,  to  him  the  most 


IV.  3-"  33 

important  part  of  the  sacred  object,  something  of  which  we  do 
not  hear  in  earlier  writers.  Jeremiah  alludes  to  it  once  under  the 
name  given  it  by  the  Deuteronomist,  but  in  terms  which  show 
that  he  attached  no  great  importance  to  it,  Jer.  s'*'.  The  com- 
moner name  in  the  historical  books  is  Afk  of  Yahweh  or  Ark  of 
God.  In  some  cases  this  designation  has  been  obscured  by  inter- 
polation, a  scribe  having  inserted  the  word  Covenant  to  conform 
to  his  own  usage,  as  is  illustrated  in  the  passage  before  us. 

3.  nin^  nn3  pisj  Ty\v  Ki^oorbv  rod  6eov  ij/xQv  ®^;  both  readings  are  com- 
bined in  (5^.  The  original  is  evidently  irn*?}*  jnN,  for  which  a  scribe  substi- 
tuted the  Deuteronomic  phrase.  We  must  judge  in  the  same  way  of  the 
insertion  of  n-'-\2  in  v.*  (twice)  and  in  v.^  So  far  the  revision  was  car- 
ried and  then  given  up.  In  all  these  cases  the  testimony  of  <S^  is  against  the 
insertion.  The  problem  of  the  nomenclature  of  the  Ark  is,  however,  some- 
what complicated.  No  less  than  twenty-two  various  designations  are  found 
for  it.  Of  these,  nna  jnx  with  its  expansions,  are  Deuteronomistic,  and 
nn;in  p-iN  belongs  to  P.  The  original  name  must  have  been  simply  nini  ]^•\n, 
for  which  might  be  substituted  D>r\^H  jnN  or  dmSnh  jnx.  The  only  one  of 
these  used  in  the  Hexateuch  is  nini  jnx,  which  occurs  in  Jos.  3,  4,  6,  and 
7,  always  in  the  narrative  of  JE,  and  (curiously)  in  both  elements,  J  and  E. 
The  occurrence  of  a^nSxn  jnx  in  the  present  chapter  would,  therefore,  militate 
against  its  assignment  to  either  of  the  Hexateuchal  sources. 

It  remains  to  notice,  however,  that  the  interchange  of  the  two  names  in 
the  chapters  before  us  cannot  well  be  explained  except  on  the  ground  of  two 
different  hands  having  been  concerned  in  the  composition  of  the  narrative. 
The  facts  are  as  follows : 

1.  nin>  nna  jnx  in  vv.^-s  is  the  result  of  interpolation,  as  already  noted, 
and  so  is  QinSKn  nna  jnx,  which  occurs  in  v.^''. 

2.  ht<-\Z'>  ^hSn  jnx  which  is  used  in  5^-  ^  i**-  "  6^,  in  the  mouth  of  the  Philis- 
tines is  the  natural  expression  for  them  to  use. 

3.  mni  piN  is  used  4*' ;  it  then  gives  place  to  DinSxn  jns,  but  is  resumed 
^^-  *,  interrupted  by  5!",  but  again  resumed  in  6^,  being  used  throughout  the 
rest  of  the  chapter  and  in  7^,  which  belongs  with  it. 

4.  D^n'^N  jnN  is  used  only  once  (4") ;  but  Din'i'Nn  jnN  characterizes  4^'- 
5^,  in  which  it  occurs  eight  times.     It  recurs  again  twice  in  5I''. 

The  verse  5!"  can  well  be  spared  and  is  probably  an  insertion.  The  section 
^u-22  forms  a  distinct  section  of  the  narrative,  being  concerned  with  the  recep- 
tion of  the  news  by  Eli  and  the  effect  upon  him  and  his  house.  Nothing 
stands  in  the  way  of  our  assigning  it  to  a  different  hand  from  the  one  that 
wrote  the  rest  of  the  account.  The  two  verses  5^- '  are,  in  part,  a  necessary 
introduction  to  what  follows.  But  they  are  over  full,  and  probably  have  suf- 
fered redactional  accommodation  to  their  present  place. 

Notice  that  n3M  should  be  HTS>\  which  was  read  by  &. 
D 


34  »  SAMUEL 

4.  The  proposition  is  adopted  and  the  Ark  is  brought  from 
Shiloh  ;  and  also  the  two  sons  of  Eli  with  the  Ark  of  God']  they 
would  naturally  accompany  it,  but  the  author  calls  attention  to 
their  presence  because  their  fate  is  involved.  If  this  were  part  of 
the  document  which  makes  Samuel  so  prominent,  his  name  would 
certainly  have  been  mentioned  here  either  to  explain  his  escape 
or  to  account  for  his  absence.  —  5.  When  the  Ark  reached  the 
camp  all  Israel  shouted  a  great  shout  and  the  earth  resounded]  cf. 
Jos.  6^-  ^  (E).  —  6.  The  PhiHstines  inquire  the  cause  of  this  noise  of 
shouting  in  the  camp  of  the  Hebrews]  so  the  Israelites  are  named 
ordinarily  by  foreigners.  They  ascertain  that  the  Ark  of  Yahweh 
has  come  to  the  camp.  —  7.  The  fear  of  the  Philistines  is  motived 
by  the  thought  :  These  are  their  gods ;  they  have  come  to  them  to 
the  camp]  the  text  is  that  of  #^.  Woe  to  us,  for  it  has  not  been 
thus  heretofore]  indicates  that  the  palladium  had  not  usually  been 
taken  to  war  in  this  period.  —  8.  The  question  of  desperation  : 
Who  shall  deliver  us  from  the  hand  of  these  mighty  gods  ?  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  historical  reason  :  These  are  the  gods  which  smote  the 
Egyptians  with  evoy  sort  of  plague  and  ivith  pestilence]  the  received 
text  has  7vith  every  sort  of  plague  in  the  wilderness.  This  might  be 
condoned  in  the  mouth  of  the  Philistines,  but  it  would  hardly  occur 
to  an  IsraeUtic  writer  to  impute  the  inaccuracy  to  them.  —  9.  Take 
courage]  Jd.  20" ;  and  be  men]  lit.  and  become  men  if  you  never 
were  men  before.  In  case  of  defeat  they  could  expect  only  to 
become  slaves  of  the  Hebrews ;  as  they  have  been  slaves  to  you. 
10.  The  result  was  the  courage  of  despair  on  the  part  of  the 
Philistines,  so  that  in  the  battle  which  ensued  Israel  was  defeated, 
and  fled  each  to  his  tents]  2  S.  18"  19^  The  slaughter  in  Israel 
is  given  as  thirty  thousand  footmen]  cf.  Jd.  20^  i  S.  15*  2  S.  lo^ 
—  11.  The  climax  :  The  Ark  of  God  was  taken  and  the  two  sons 
of  Eli  died]  so  the  sentence  pronounced  by  Samuel  was  executed. 

4.  The  Ark  is  here  called  in  ^  3^3i3n  att"  niN3X  mn^-nna  p-iN  of  v/hich  iS^ 
omits  n^-\3  and  nisax.  The  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the  shorter  form,  and  it 
is  probable  that  a^'jian  yi'^  also  is  a  later  insertion,  for  no  reason  can  be  given 
why  the  author  should  so  describe  Yahvi^eh  here,  cf.  2  S.  6^.  —  an]  is  inappro- 
priate. The  word  ar  is  not  represented  in  (&.  — aji  proposed  by  Kl.  would  not 
be  out  of  place.  But  on  the  testimony  of  @  it  seems  better  to  read  simply 
the  1.    The  names  Hophni  and  Phinehas  read  like  an  afterthought.  —  5.  rna] 


1\  .  4^<5  35 

is  to  be  omitted,  with  (&.  —  2npi]  on  the  form  (ies.^^  §  72 -4,  who  makes  it 
()al.  —  6.  n;n?n  Sip]  cf.  n^i'TSn  ^^p  v.i*.  —  np]  on  the  pointing,  Ges.-'^  §  37  f. 
—  7.  The  speech  of  the  Philistines  varies  somewhat  in  the  different  recensions 
of  (5,  and  all  differ  from  lij.  The  latter  has  simply  D'H^^vV  xa.  But  it  must  l)e  evi- 
dent that  :n<n'-N  is  the  appropriate  word.  As  this  is  rendered  by  (3  we  naturally 
adopt  it,  and  with  it  the  context  as  translated  above.  The  reading  of  (3^  ovroi  6 
$ebs  avrdv  seems  to  be  a  correction  of  the  phrase  in  (@^.  —  n3]  should  be  read 
1N3  with  (@^.  —  i:""  mn]  (3  adds  i^eXov  i]fJ.cis,  Kvpte,  (Trjfj.€pov,  which  is  of  course 
impossible  in  the  mouth  of  the  Philistines.  If  original,  it  is  part  of  a  speech 
attributed  to  the  Israelites,  which  it  is  now  impossible  to  reconstruct.  —  '^i^ns 
cr'^i:']  cf.  Ex.  5'^- 1  S.  14-1 19".  — 8.  c^-c'txh]  ffrepeuiv  (§^  seems  to  render  on^'DNn, 
which  is  more  appropriate,  so  Cappellus,  Notae  Criiicae,  p.  433.  —  iai;:3]  has 
been  supposed  to  indicate  a  tradition  which  made  the  Egyptians  follow  the 
Israelites  into  the  desert  and  there  to  be  smitten  by  the  plagues.  But  the  text 
is  uncertain,  (S  reading  koX  iv  rrj  iprifiCf).  This  is  of  course  ungrammatical,  but 
may  conceal  12131  as  conjectured  by  We.  and  adopted  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  al. — 
9.  The  two  imperatives  are  continued  by  two  perfects  with  waw  consecutive, 
Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  112.  —  cnrnSji]  (5  seems  to  render  Din?:nSji. —  10.  irn'^n]  as 
@^  omits  the  Philistines,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  both  parties  are  thought 
of  as  subjects  —  they  fought.  — 11.  The  names  Hophni  and  Phinehas  read 
again  as  if  an  afterthought. 

12-21.  The  effect  of  the  tidings.  —  There  ran  a  Benjamite 
from  the  ranks'\  Rabbinical  tradition  makes  him  to  have  been  Saul, 
who  had  rescued  the  tables  of  the  Law  from  the  hands  of  Goliath. 
With  his  clothes  rent  and  earth  on  his  head'\  the  usual  signs  of 
grief,  2  S.  I"  i5^-.  — 13.  The  verse  is  difficult  to  understand. 
The  received  text  ( Qre)  makes  Eli  sit  by  the  side  of  the  road, 
watchifig']  the  road  would  naturally  be  the  one  leading  to  the 
scene  of  battle.  Yet  the  fugitive  apparently  comes  first  to  the 
town  and  afterwards  to  Eli.  A  change  of  pointing  would  make 
Eli's  station  to  be  beside  the  Mizpah  road,  but  this  does  not  relieve 
the  difficulty.  We  are  forced  therefore  to  read  with  (§  by  the  side 
of  the  gate  watching  the  road~\  where  the  gate  is  evidently  the  gate 
of  the  sanctuary,  at  which  he  was  accustomed  to  sit,  i^.  Though 
he  was  blind,  his  mind  was  intent  upon  the  road  along  which  news 
must  come  — for  his  heart  was  trembling  for  the  Ark  of  God. 
The  bearer  of  tidings  comes  first  to  the  town,  which  shrieks  at  the 
news.  — 14.  Eli  hears  the  outcry  before  the  messenger  reaches  him, 
but  the  latter  does  not  delay  —  he  hastened  and  came  and  told  Eli. 
— 15.   The  verse,  which  speaks  of  his  age  and  blindness,  inter- 


j6  1  SAMUEL 

rupts  the  narrative  and  is  apparently  a  redactional  insertion.  If 
original,  it  belongs  after  the  first  clause  of  v.^''.  —  16.  I  am  he  that 
is  come  frotn  the  ranks'^  the  speaker  takes  for  granted  that  some 
one  was  expected.  — 17.  To  EU's  question  the  answer  is  given  in 
four  particulars  :  Israel  fled  before  the  Philistines ;  there  was  a 
great  slaughter  of  the  people  ;  thy  tivo  sons  are  dead ;  and  the  Ark 
of  God  has  been  captured^  the  four  form  an  ascending  scale  to 
Eli,  reaching  the  climax  in  the  capture  of  the  Ark.  — 18.  When 
the  messenger  mentioned  the  Ark^  the  special  object  of  EU's  solici- 
tude, the  old  man  fell  from  his  seat  backward  by  the  side  of  the 
gate,  and  his  neck  was  broketi,  and  he  died~\  the  author  adds  in  ex- 
planation that  the  jnan  was  old  and  heavy.  The  additional  re- 
mark:  he  had  fudged  Israel  forty  years  is  evidently  designed  to 
bring  Eli  into  the  same  class  with  the  Judges  whose  story  is  given 
in  the  Book  of  Judges. 

12.  pD'j3"U''{<]  is  possible,  but  more  natural  is  "ij>D>J3  t£"N,  which  is 
favoured  by  @. —  13.  y']  ~\\  Qre  and  some  MSS.,  is  undoubtedly  correct. 
It  seems  unnecessary  to  change  to  Tia  or  yh,  however,  as  is  done  by  some 
commentators.  —  nssD  Tn]  would  naturally  be  interpreted  the  Mizpah  road. 
But  the  punctuators  give  us  nssn,  which  is  confirmed  by  @.  This  version, 
however,  reads  ttapb.  ttjv  wvK-qv  ffKoirewv  tt)v  6S6i>  =  •^l•^-\n  noi'D  lyii'n  -[\  which 
is  restored  by  Th.  — 14.  pr:^  is  the  confused  noise  made  by  a  crowd  of  people. 
— 15.  The  verse  is  expanded  in  (S  by  the  repetition  (substantially)  of  the 
greater  part  of  v.^*.  This  indicates  that  its  original  place  was  different  from 
the  one  in  which  we  now  find  it;  and,  as  a  rule,  such  dislocations  are  proof  of 
later  insertion.  For  ninely-eight  years  @  has  ninety.  —  nnp  rj''>'i]  for  which  the 
Orientals  give  icp  Qre,  seems  harsh  in  spite  of  the  parallels  adduced  by  Dr. 
Notes.  The  confusion  of  n  and  1  is  so  easy  that  it  seems  better  to  restore  the 
plural  here.  Cf.  i  K.  14*.  Twelve  codd.  read  rvcp  irj?i  here.  — 16.  If  the 
preceding  verse  be  omitted,  we  may  also  omit  ^SySx  ir^xn  with  @^B_  For 
the  first  n3-i;'?;n  @  seems  to  have  read  njnnn.  — 17.  is-ann]  the  original  mean- 
ing was  one  that  made  another  change  colour,  therefore  a  bringer  of  important 
tidings,  whether  good  or  bad.  In  actual  Hebrew  usage  it  generally  means  a 
bringer  of  good  tidings.  For  iJoS  read  ijbd  with  16  MSS.  and  probably  (5. 
The  successive  stages  of  the  disaster  are  emphasized  by  dji.  The  names  of 
the  two  sons  are  omitted  by  (5^^.  — 18.  ii^thd]  some  MSS.  have  niorna. 
The  two  prepositions  are  not  infrequently  confused.  —  ti  ^^'2]  can  hardly  be 
right.  Probably  an  original  i^3  was  corrupted  into  lya,  and  then  the  i>  was 
inserted  in  the  endeavour  to  make  sense :  ix^l^ffos  (3^^,  ^x'^Mf" «  ®^  else- 
where represent  i>3  or  n^-'^N,  Ps.  141'^  I  S.  193.  —  inpnsD]  here  only.  It  means 
the  neck  as  dividing  (pis)  the  head  and  trunk. 


IV.  I5-V.  I  3; 

19.  The  effects  in  the  family  of  Eli  are  set  forth.  His  daugh- 
ter-in-law, the  wife  of  Phinehas,  was  7vith  child'\  the  phrase  used 
here  does  not  occur  elsewhere  :  it  seems  to  mean  pregnant  and 
near  the  time  of  childbirth.  The  news  of  the  capture  of  the  Ark 
and  the  death  of  her  father-in-law  brought  on  the  pangs  of  labour. 

—  20.  At  the  moment  of  her  giving  birth,  the  women  standing 
about  her  said  to  her;  fear  not,  for  thou  hast  given  birth  to  a  son'\ 
a  message  which  should  give  her  comfort  in  her  sorrow.  But  she 
neither  ansiaered  nor  heeded'\  lit.  set  her  heart,  Ex.  7'^  Prov.  27^. 

—  21,  22.  The  account  is  over-full,  probably  by  conflation,  ^^ 
being  almost  an  exact  duplicate  of  a  part  of  ^^  Leaving  out  the 
latter  we  get :  A7id  they  called  the  boy  Ichabod,  saying :  the  glory 
from  Israel  is  take?i  captive  —  because  of  the  capture  of  the  Ark  of 
God  and  because  of  her  father-in-law  and  her  husband~\  the  sub- 
ject is  the  women  standing  about  her,  for  she  was  already  uncon- 
scious. 

19.  rh"-!  mn]  the  nearest  parallel  is  Is.  26I" :  mSS  a>ipn  mn  id3.  On  the 
form  nS*^,  Konig.  Grain.  I.  p.  402,  Ges.-^  §  69  m.  The  form  here  may  be  a 
simple  scribal  error,  no  parallel  to  the  contraction  having  been  pointed  out 
except  .■^n.s  for  mnt<.  After  npSn-Sx  we  should  expect  nnM,  which  should  there- 
fore probably  be  restored  for  nci.  Still  an  infinitive  may  have  been  intended, 
6  MSS.  read  rn  "^ni.  With  nnx  cf.  Is.  21^.  by  -iflnj  is  found  in  the  sense  of 
being  poured  suddenly  upon.  Is.  60^.  —  20.  nnin  nj?3i]  in  itself  gives  good 
sense,  but  the  reading  of  (5  koX  iv  ti^  Kaip($  avrris  awodfrjO-Kei :  npD  nnjoi  which 
seems  to  fit  the  case  better.  —  21.  Nipm]  the  subject  evidently  cannot  be  the 
mother,  for  she  was  already  unconscious;  so  that  we  must  suppose  the  subject 
is  indefinite  —  one  called.  The  verb  is  feminine  because  the  writer  has  in 
mind  the  women  standing  about.  — 1123  ■'n]  Inglorious  is  the  evident  intention 
of  the  writer  —  dSo^la.  (Josephus).  The  only  instance  that  can  be  cited  for 
'N  as  an  equivalent  of  jw  is  Job  22''',  where  the  text  is  doubtful.  (S  seems  to 
point  to  •'l^s  as  the  first  member.  —  ^x]  should  probably  he  h}}.  —  22.  The 
verse  is  omitted  (on  grounds  already  stated)  by  We.,  and  is  put  into  the 
margin  by  Bu. 

V.  1-12.  The  devastation  wroug-ht  by  the  Ark.  —  First,  the 
god  of  the  Philistines  is  smitten  :  then  they  themselves  suffer. 
The  trophy  is  brought  from  Eben-ha-ezer  to  Ashdod'\  one  of  the 
five  chief  cities  of  the  Philistines.  It  lay  near  the  coast  about 
midway  between  Joppa  and  Gaza.  A  village  on  the  site  still 
bears  the  name  Esdud,      The  tautology  in  this  verse  and  the  next 


38  1  SAMUEL 

indicates  that  this  was  originally  the  conclusion  of  the  preceding 
section.  After  the  account  of  the  family  of  Eli  the  author  adds  : 
But  as  for  the  Philistines,  etc.  He  then  begins  his  specific  ac- 
count of  the  fortunes  of  the  Ark.  —  2.  As  we  should  expect  in  the 
case  of  so  remarkable  a  trophy,  they  brought  it  to  the  temple  of 
Dagon  and  set  it  up  by  the  side  of  Dagon']  the  national  god  of  the 
Philistines  if  we  may  argue  from  his  prominence  here.  The 
temple  here  alluded  to  existed  until  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  i 
Mace.  lo*^-  II^ 

The  nature  and  attributes  of  Dagon  are  wholly  unknown.  He 
is  a  god  of  the  Philistines  in  whose  honour  a  great  feast  is  held, 
Jd.  i6-^  According  to  Schrader,  COT.  I.  p.  170,  the  name  is 
found  in  Assyrian.  If  the  name  be  Semitic,  it  may  be  related 
either  to  n  fish  or  to  fn  corn.  The  adoration  of  a  fish-god  in 
Syria  is  well  attested,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  god  of  corn 
would  be  at  home  in  the  fine  grain-growing  land  of  the  Shephela. 
For  Beth-Dagon  (two  places  of  the  name  are  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament)  Jerome  gives  us  dojnus  tritici,  while  for  Dagon 
he  allows  piscis  tristitiae  {OS.  pp.  25,  32).  Isaaki  and  Kimchi 
suppose  that  the  figure  of  Dagon  was  half  man  and  half  fish. 
The  combination  with  Atargatis  (Derketo)  is  uncertain,  see 
Moore's  note  on  Jd.  i6-^  Bandissin  in  PRE^.  H.  p.  171,  Movers, 
Phonizier,  I.  p.  590.  For  the  god  of  the  harvest  Sanchuniathon  is 
cited  by  Movers.     Cf.  Wellhausen,  Skizzen,  HI.  p.  170,  n.  2. 

3.  The  next  day,  the  Ashdodites  rose,  and  came  to  the  house  of 
Dagon  and  looked~\  the  latter  clause  is  lacking  in  f^,  but  is  prob- 
ably original.  They  found  Dagon  prostrate  on  his  face  on  the 
ground~\  cf.  Jd.  3^,  Gen.  i  f-  ^" ;  the  narrator  evidently  means  that 
Dagon  was  doing  obeisance  to  Yahweh.  Without  learning  the 
lesson  of  Yahweh's  superiority,  the  Ashdodites  raised  their  god 
and  returned  him  to  his  place.  —  4.  The  next  lesson  was  a  severer 
one.  The  following  morning  they  not  only  find  him  prostrate,  but 
the  head  of  Dagon  and  his  hands  were  cut  off  upoti  the  threshold, 
only  his  trufik  was  left  of  hint]  the  received  text  has  only  Dagon 
was  left,  which  is  manifestly  impossible.  —  5.  The  narrator  traces 
a  pecuHar  custom  of  the  worshippers  at  this  temple  to  this  event 
—  therefore  the  priests  of  Dagon  and  all  who  enter  the  house  of 


V.  1-6  39 

Dagon  do  not  tread  on  the  threshold  of  Dagon  in  Ashdod  until 
this  day,  but  step  over  zV]  the  last  words  are  not  in  ^  but  seem  to 
be  original.  The  threshold,  having  been  the  resting  place  of  the 
hands  and  head  of  Dagon,  is  consecrated,  so  that  it  must  not  be 
touched.  We  find  every  one  who  leaps  over  the  threshold  (or 
upon  the  threshold^  alluded  to,  Zeph.  i^  but  we  cannot  be  sure 
that  there  is  any  connexion  between  the  passages,  or  that  the 
custom  is  the  same  in  the  two  cases.  Various  threshold  cere- 
monies are  cited  by  Schm.  p.  132. 

1.  On  the  location  of  Ashdod,  Robinson,  ^^2,  II.  p.  2)Vi  GASmith,  Geog:^ 
p.  192.  —  2.  ij^'Sm]  elsewhere  of  setting  upright  as  Gtn.  30^**  Jd.  S'^'^.  It  seems 
to  imply  that  worship  was  to  be  offered  to  the  captive  God  as  well  as  to 
Dagon.  —  3.  nincc]  is  lacking  in  (5^,  which,  however,  reads  koX  el(Trj\dov  eis 
oIkqv  ^aydiv,  /cai  iibop  lacking  in  |^.  Probably  (§  is  right  in  both  respects, 
the  ninDD  can  be  spared  here  though  it  is  needed  in  v.'*.  —  ^oi]  the  participle 
describes  the  state  of  the  idol.  —  Vish'\  would  mean  before  it,  which  is  super- 
fluous. Yis'^y  should  be  restored,  following  (5  (We). — inpMJ  /cat  ijyetpai' 
<@  points  to  lO^p^i,  which  alone  is  in  place.  —  n''i'M]  Kal  KaTi(rTy]<Tav  (5 
indicates  I3'xii,  which,  however,  would  scarcely  be  followed  by  impc'?.  At 
the  end  of  the  verse  (5-^^  I  add  a  sentence  taken  from  v.**,  but  which  here 
interrupts  the  sequence. — 4.  loor^i]  (5  seems  to  have  read  icoii'n  13  ^n^, 
adopted  by  Bu.  But  the  wording  in  @  may  be  due  simply  to  free  transla- 
tion.—  rjo*?]  should  doubtless  be  rjD"'?;?  as  above.  —  ]m-\  pi]  irXrji'  ^  pcixis 
AuYwv  (5 :  Dagon  solus  truncus  3L.  The  emendation  iiJ  for  pji  is  due  to 
Lagarde,  Prophetae  Chald.  p.  li.  ST  has  n^su  and  S  pj-n  riDtt'ji;  and  Ew., 
GVI^.  II.  p.  586  (English  Trans.  II.  p.  415),  had  already  proposed  to  insert 
lu  or  HMJ  before  pji.  We.  suggests  ui,  which  does  not  seem  natural 
without  some  explanation.  —  5.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  (5  adds:  &ri  virep^ai- 
vovres  vweppalvov<nv.  We.  admits  that  this  is  correct  description,  but  re- 
fuses to  admit  the  words  to  the  text,  because  we  cannot  account  for  their 
omission.  To  which  the  obvious  reply  is,  that  the  archetype  of  J^  was  evi- 
dently illegible  in  many  places  and  so  very  possibly  here. 

To  the  references  concerning  Dagon  given  above  may  be  added  Scholz, 
Gotzendienst  und  Zauberwesen  bei  den  alten  Hebrdern,  Regensburg,  1877, 
pp.  238-244.  His  endeavour  to  identify  Dagon  with  various  fish-gods  should, 
however,  be  viewed  with  reserve. 

6-12.  A  plague  breaks  out  in  the  city  and  follows  the  Ark 
wherever  it  is  carried.  —  6.  And  the  hand  of  Yahweh  was  heavy 
on  the  Ashdodites'\  a  phrase  elsewhere  used  of  oppression  by  a 
ruling  caste  or  people,  Jd.  i^.  And  he  wasted  the m'\  in  Hos.  2" 
the  same  verb  is  used  for  destroying  the  vines  and  fig  trees  ;  and 


40  I  SAMUEL 

smote  them  with  tutnours\  we  can  hardly  go  astray  in  seeing  a 
description  of  the  bubonic  plague.  The  same  word  is  used 
Dt.  28^'  in  connexion  with  the  boil  of  Egypt,  cf.  Driver,  Dt.,  p.  310. 
At  the  end  of  the  verse  |^  adds  epexegetically  Ashdod  atid  her 
borders,  probably  a  late  insertion.  —  7.  Let  not  the  Ark  of  the  God 
of  Israel  remain  with  its,  for  his  hand  is  severe  upon  us^  cf.  the 
hand  of  a  severe  master.  Is.  19*.  —  8.  A  council  of  the  Tyrants  of 
the  Philistines  is  held.  These  ofificers  bear  a  special  title. 
Whether  they  were  kings  (as  Jeremiah  calls  them,  25'^"')  or  more 
like  the  Suffetes  of  the  Carthaginians  cannot  now  be  determined. 
It  does  not  appear  that  Achish,  king  of  Gath,  was  also  a  Seren. 
The  conclusion  :  To  Gath  let  the  Ark  of  Israel  go  around~\  Gath, 
one  of  the  chief  cities  of  the  Philistines,  cannot  now  be  identified. 
—  9.  But  when  the  Ark  was  brought  to  Gath  the  hand  of  Yahweh 
was  heavy  upon  them,  and  he  smote  the  men  of  the  city  both  small 
and  great,  and  tumours  broke  out  upon  theni\  the  rendering  of  the 
last  clause  is  conjectural  only,  as  the  verb  used  occurs  only  here. 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  plague  is  the  same  as  the  one  described 
above. — 10.  The  Ark  is  next  sent  to  Ekron,  but  the  people  cry 
out  at  its  coming  ;  They  have  brought  the  Ark  of  the  God  of  Israel 
to  f?ie  to  slay  me  and  my  people"]  the  pronouns  represent  the  speech 
of  each  individual  man.  For  Ekron  (3  has  Ashkelon  in  this  verse. 
Ekron  was  nearest  of  the  Philistine  cities  to  the  land  of  Israel.  — 
11.  Another  council  of  the  chiefs  is  called,  and  the  people  pray  : 
Send  away  the  Ark  of  the  God  of  Israel  that  it  may  return  to  its 
place]  only  thus  can  they  hope  to  escape  extermination.  The 
author  adds  in  explanation :  For  there  was  a  deadly  panic]  the 
word  is  used  of  the  tumult  of  a  routed  army,  Dt.  f'^.  Is.  22^,  "^ 
adds :  the  hand  of  God  was  exceeding  heavy  there,  but  #  asserts 
that  the  panic  was  violent  when  the  Ark  of  God  came  there.  Pos- 
sibly both  forms  are  later  expansions  of  the  text.  — 12.  The  tumult 
was  caused  not  merely  by  fear  of  death,  but  by  actual  suffering : 
The  men  who  did  not  die  were  smitten  with  tumours,  and  the  cry 
of  the  city  went  up  to  heaven]  cf.  Ex.  2-^. 

6.  D'''?b;;3]  The  word  u-hoy  occurs  only  in  this  passage  and  in  Dt.  28^", 
though  the  singular  occurs  as  a  proper  name  Say.  The  root  seems  to  mean 
to  swell,  and  so  the  word  would  appropriately  be  used  of  any  tumour  or  boil. 
In  later  Hebrew  it  seems  to  have  b£ea.^plied  only  to  haemorrhoids,  and  to 


V.  6-12  41 

have  become  a  vulgar  word.  No  other  reason  can  be  given  for  the  Massoretic 
substitution  of  onno  in  the  Qre,  than  that  the  latter  was  a  more  decent  name 
for  the  same  affliction.  The  copies  of  (§  show  much  variation  Kal  i^^^ejev  avroi^ 
ei's  rds  vavs  ^  :  Kal  i^^^pa(Tav  et's  ras  vavi  aiirwv  ^.  The  sAips  seem  out  of  place 
here,  so  that  we  are  unable  to  accept  this  reading.  (3^  has,  along  with  the 
rendering  just  quoted  :  Kal  iirdra^ev  aiiToiis  els  rds  edpas  avrdiv,  which  shows 
the  earliest  meaning  given  to  □''Vbj.',  cf.  IL  et  perctissit  in  secreliori  parte 
natiwn.  Josephus  has  the  same  idea  when  he  says :  "  they  died  of  dysentery, 
a  sore  disease  and  one  that  brought  the  most  painful  death;  before  their  soul 
could  be  released  by  an  easy  death  they  brought  up  their  bowels  eaten  away 
and  destroyed  by  the  disease."  The  same  interpretation  of  di'?d>'  may  have 
been  in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  Ps.  78^'';  cf.  also  ©^  in  its  rendering  of  Dt. 
28''^^  ets  TT\v  idpav.  Whether  vavs  in  the  passage  before  us  (<5)  is  equivalent 
to  ISpa,  as  supposed  by  Schleusner,  must  be  decided  by  a  Greek  scholar. — 
n>'?i3j-i-iNi  ma'KTiN]  is  evidently  superfluous,  and,  as  it  is  not  rendered  by 
@,  we  may  safely  omit  it. 

@  in  its  turn  has  an  addition:  /cat  /xicrov  r^s  xi^pas  avrijs  ave<pvri(jav  fvues' 
Kal  iyivero  cr{ivxv(yi.s  Oavdrov  fieydXr]  eV  r^  7r6\€j,  The  mention  of  mii:e  here 
is  consistently  carried  on  by  similar  additions  in  v.i°  (lacking  in  iS^  but  con- 
firmed by  I)  and  in  6^.  In  6'*-  "■  ^^  the  mice  appear  also  in  ^.  It  is  evident 
that  we  must  choose  one  consistent  recension  —  either  adopting  (@  throughout 
or  else  striking  out  the  mice  altogether.  In  favour  of  the  latter  alternative  is 
the  general  rule  that  the  shorter  text  is  more  likely  to  be  original;  secondly, 
the  text  of  ^  reads  with  perfect  smoothness  up  to  the  point  where  the  golden 
mice  are  first  mentioned,  and  where  they  are  mentioned  they  read  like  inter- 
polations; and  thirdly,  the  explicit  assertion  in  6*  one  plague  ivas  upon  you  all, 
could  not  have  been  made  in  this  form  if  the  author  had  known  that  two 
plagues  had  been  sent.  I  conclude  on  these  grounds  that  the  mice,  wherever 
they  appear,  are  the  result  of  late  redactional  insertion.  —  7.  nnxi]  seems  to 
be  a  mistake  for  iidnm.  The  phrase  '?nis'''  ihSn  jnx  is  appropriate  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Philistines,  as  has  been  remarked  above. —  8.  So]  is  lacking  in  (§. 
—  'j-id]  is  evidently  the  native  name,  Jos.  138  Jd.  38.  Conjectures  as  to  their 
powers  are  found  in  Stark,  Gaza,  p.  136  ff,  —  nj]  cf.  GAS.,  Geog.  p.  194  f. — 
ao'']  We  also  speak  colloquially  of  coming  around  to  a  place  eyen  where  no  cir- 
cuit is  necessary.  ®  adds  ds  VidQa  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  —  9.  ipn  laon  i-inx] 
(S  seems  to  have  read  laon  nnN  or  inx  aon  nnx,  but  the  construction  of  ^  is 
not  without  analogies.  — ^^<a  nVnj  nninn  Tiya  nini—ii  inni]  is  confused,  and 
Kl.  (followed  by  Bu.)  proposes  to  omit  nini  i\  It  seems  to  me  more  prob- 
able that  the  words  ixa  nVnj  nninn  are  secondary.  The  panic  is  here  prema- 
ture.—  ■nnir''i]  the  verb  is  found  only  here.  The  corresponding  Arabic 
word  means  to  have  a  cracked  eyelid.  — 10.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out 
that  the  verse  is  possibly  an  intruder.  —  X\:i\>'f\  on  the  site,  cf.  Robinson, 
BI^.  II.  228;  GAS.  Gcog.  p.  193;  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  187. -non]  rl  d-nearpi- 
xf/are  ®  is  more  animated,  and  perhaps  original.  —  11.  3'J"i]  (S  points  3j:':.\ 
For  PiDTCinc  6  has  only  nninD  and  is  perhaps  right,  for   a  death-dealing 


42  I  SAMUEL 

panic  would  hardly  be  accurate  —  ma  might  arise  from  duplication  of  the 
two  letters  just  preceding.  —  mjs]  is  abruptly  introduced;  we  should  expect 
na3.ii  or  n-133  ■';.  (S  omits  -\^  and  connects  mao  with  nmnr:.  p"or  the  rest 
of  the  verse,  also,  <S  has  a  different  reading :  w%  d<TTj\dev  Ki^wrbi  6eov  'l<Tp. 
iKei.  This  may  have  arisen  by  the  corruption  of  T'  inc  mao  into  jnN  N2;,  or 
the  reverse  may  have  taken  place.  But  the  sense  is  complete  at  n^yn  without 
either  of  the  additions.  — 12.  This  verse  joins  very  well  on  to  the  preceding 
in  the  shorter  form  that  has  been  suggested.  For  ipc-mS  -,;;.[<  ai^-jxHi :  koX  oi 
fwyrej  Kai  ovk  dtroOavdyTes  (3-  — a'D::'n]   no^nrn  17  codd.  (DeR.). 

VI.  1-VII.  1.  The  return  of  the  Ark.  — The  Philistines  after 
taking  council  as  to  the  proper  method,  send  the  Ark  back  to  its 
own  country  with  a  votive  offering.  The  returning  palladium  is 
received  at  Beth  Shemesh,  but  there  also  works  disaster.  It  is 
therefore  transferred  to  Kirjath  Jearim,  where  it  finds  a  resting 
place. 

The  section  is  evidently  connected  with  what  precedes.  But  it 
is  possible  that  we  have  not  the  complete  narrative.  We  look  for 
the  conclusion  of  the  account  concerning  Ekron  (or  Gath,  if  Ekron 
is  not  original),  but  instead  are  simply  told  how  long  the  Ark  was 
in  the  ^eM  of  the  Philistines.  The  actors  who  consult  the  necro- 
mancers here  are  not  the  Tyrants  who  had  been  called  to  help  the 
Ekronites,  but  the  people  as  a  whole.  While  therefore  we  con- 
cede the  coherence  of  the  narrative  in  its  general  features,  we 
must  admit  that  these  differences  point  to  its  composite  nature. 
With  them  coincides  the  change  from  the  hand  of  Go^  5^^,  to  the 
Ark  of  Yahweh,  6^ 

1.  The  Ark  of  Yahweh  7vas  in  the  field  of  the  Philistines']  David 
dwelt  ifi  the  field  of  the  Philistines  while  in  possession  of  Ziklag 
2f-  ",  SO  that  we  cannot  here  claim  the  field  zs  the  open  country 
in  distinction  from  the  cities,  cf.  Jd.  5^  At  the  end  of  the  verse 
(§  adds  :  and  their  land  swarmed  with  mice,  which  is  adopted  by 
Bu.  as  a  part  of  the  text.  Reasons  against  this  have  been  given 
above.  —  2.  The  PhiHstines  seek  advice  from  the  priests  and  the 
diviners]  who,  as  conversant  with  divine  things,  would  know  how 
to  placate  the  offended  deity.  The  diviners  are  elsewhere  coupled 
with  the  soothsayers  or  the  prophets,  Is.  3-  Jer.  zf  2(f.  Balaam 
is  called  a  diviner  Jos.  13^^.  Micah  speaks  of  the  priests  as  giving 
an  oracle,  and  the  prophets  as  divining  (3").     In  Arabic  also  the 


VI.  1-5  43 

kahin  (the  same  word  is  in  Hebrew  the  priest)  is  a  diviner.  Tell 
us  with  what  we  shall  send  it  to  its  place']  the  demand  shows  that 
they  expect  to  offer  a  present  of  some  kind.  —  3.  The  reply  em- 
phasizes the  need  of  the  trespass  ofifering  :  If  ye  are  sending  the 
Ark  away]  the  participle  treats  the  future  action  as  already  begun 
in  the  intention  of  the  actors,  cf.  Jer.  31^,  Is.  65^^  You  must  not 
send  it  away  empty]  the  phrase  is  elsewhere  used  of  sending  one 
away  with  empty  hands,  Job  22''^  Gen.  31*^  Dt.  15'"'.  What  is 
meant  is  at  once  explained  :  for  you  shall  surely  repay  him  a  repa- 
ration] the  verb  is  used  of  giving  back  or  taking  back  what  has 
been  wrongfully  taken  away,  Gen.  14^*^  20^  2  S.  9'.  The  transi- 
tion is  easy  to  the  requiting  of  a  wrong  either  by  punishment, 
Jd.  (f",  or  by  reparation,  Ex.  21^''.  The  endeavour  of  the  Philistines 
is  to  recompense  Yahweh  for  the  wrong  done  him.  The  remainder 
of  the  verse  as  it  stands  in  ^  says  :  then  you  shall  be  healed  and  it 
shall  be  known  to  you  why  his  hand  does  not  turn  from  you]  which 
must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  hand  of  Yahweh  would 
be  heavy  upon  them  so  long  as  they  refused  this  acknowledgment. 
But  the  text  may  not  be  sound.  To  the  question  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  required  present  the  answer  is  :  the  number  of  the  Tyrants 
of  the  Philistines,  five  golden  tumours,  for  ofie  plague  was  upon  you 
and  your  Tyrants]  the  bearing  of  this  upon  the  question  of  the 
mice  which  are  here  introduced  (as  golden  mice)  by  ^  has  already 
been  noted.  It  should  be  remarked  that  Budde,  who  is  large- 
hearted  enough  to  admit  the  mice  in  v},  finds  it  impossible  to 
retain  them  here.  In  fact,  they  and  the  tumours  cannot  both  have 
been  original  in  this  place.     They  are,  besides,  lacking  in  (§. 

The  ingenious  hypothesis  of  Hitzig  should  be  noticed :  that  the  mice  were 
symbols  of  the  pestilence,  so  that  the  votive  offerings  were  five  golden  mice 
simply,  and  the  misunderstanding  of  this  led  to  the  confusion  in  the  text. 
Wellhausen  came  to  the  same  conclusion  independently  of  Hitzig.  There 
seems  to  be  no  Hebrew  analogy  to  strengthen  this  supposition,  and  it  seems 
pretty  certain  that  if  the  earliest  author  of  this  account  had  known  of  the 
assumed  symbolism  he  would  have  indicated  it  in  some  way. 

5.  And  you  shall  [thus]  give  glory  to  the  God  of  Israel]  recog- 
nizing his  power  as  God,  Jer.  13''"'.  Perchance  he  7vill  lighten  his 
hand]  which  had  been  heavy  upon  them.  The  first  half  of  the 
verse,  which  duplicates  the  preceding  verse,  is  best  omitted. — 


44  i  SAMUEL 

6.  The  priests  exhort  the  Philistines  not  to  be  obstinate  in  their 
opposition  to  Yahweh,  putting  their  exhortation  in  the  form  of 
rhetorical  questions  :  JV/iy  will  you  harden  your  hearts']  after  the 
manner  of  the  Egyptians,  who  furnish  a  frightful  example  :  lit. 
make  your  hearts  heavy.  The  same  verb  is  used  Ex.  8"'^  9^  (J). 
Was  it  not  after  he  made  sport  of  them  that  they  let  them  go  ?]  the 
subject  of  the  first  verb  is  Yahweh,  cf.  Ex.  10-  (J).  —  7.  Instruc- 
tions as  to  the  proper  way  of  sending  the  Ark  back  to  its  people. 
A  new  cart  should  be  made,  for  one  that  had  been  used  would 
have  been  already  profaned.  The  animals  to  draw  the  cart  were 
to  be  two  milch  cows  upon  which  the  yoke  had  not  come]  they 
were  to  be  unbroken,  for  the  same  reason  that  the  cart  must  be 
new,  Th.  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  red  heifer  must  be 
one  that  had  never  been  yoked.  Num.  19^,  and  cites  from  Ovid: 
nullum  passa  jugwn.  In  order  to  test  the  will  of  Yahweh  the 
cows  were  to  be  yoked  to  the  cart,  but  you  shall  leave  their  calves 
behind  them  in  the  house]  so  that  the  natural  inclination  of  the 
mothers  would  keep  them  from  going  away.  —  8.  They  are  to 
place  the  Ark  on  the  cart :  ayid  the  golden  objects  which  you  shall 
have  repaid  him  as  a  reparation]  the  construction  shows  that  the 
matter,  being  determined  upon,  is  certain  to  be  done  — you  shall 
place  in  a  box  at  its  side]  the  word  translated  box  occurs  only  in 
this  account.  —  9.  The  behaviour  of  the  cattle  would  show 
whether  Yahweh  wished  to  return  to  his  own  land  :  If  it  goes  on 
the  way  to  its  own  border,  to  Beth  Shemesh,  then  he  has  done  us 
this  great  harm]  the  identification  of  Yahweh  and  the  Ark  is  com- 
plete and  we  might  equally  well  translate  :  If  he  goes  on  his  way 
to  his  own  border,  etc.  But  if  7iot,  then  we  shall  knoiv  that  it 
was  not  his  hand  that  smote  us  —  it  was  an  accident  that  came  to 
us]  the  way  is  left  open  in  case  the  behaviour  of  the  Ark  should 
not  be  what  they  expect.  Beth  Shemesh  was  probably  the  nearest 
Israelite  town  to  Ekron.  It  was  counted  to  Judah,  2  K.  14" 
Jos.  15^'',  and  lay  on  one  of  the  natural  roads  from  the  Shephela  to 
the  hill  country. 

1.  After  o^ann  koX  k^i^taiv  t)  7^  ai^rwi'  fx.ia.%  (g.  —  2.  On  the  kind  of  divina- 
tion practised  by  the  CDp  we  have  light  in  Ezek.  21^^.  Cf.  also  Stade,  GVI.  I. 
p.  505;  Wellhausen,  Skizzen,  III.  p.  I26f.;  Driver  on  Dt.  1 8^°.  —  ijpin]  with 
two  syllables  written  defective  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  vowel  letters,  — 


VI.  6-y  45 

naa]  on  the  pointing  Ges-''.  §  102^. — 3.  2>n'?r:;J  we  should  add  cs  with  7 
MSS.  (5S  (Dr.).  —  d;'n]  the  meaning  of  the  word  seems  sufficiently  evident 
from  the  examples  given  above.  We  may  add  Gen.  26'°,  where  Abimelech 
says  that  Isaac  had  nearly  brought  upon  him  a  fine.  In  the  legal  system  the 
trespass-offering  is  an  endeavour  to  compensate  Yahweh  for  infringement  of 
his  rights,  cf.  BDB.  s.  v.  atrx.  —  iNsnp]  as  the  priests  were  not  yet  certain  that 
Yahweh  was  the  sender  of  the  plague  (cf.  vs.^)  the  assurance  seems  premature 
that  they  should  be  healed.  One  is  tempted  to  read  ix-in  or  unap.  For  c^*?  y^^J^, 
(@  renders  koX  i^i\a<T9ri<T€Tai  vfuv  and  then  reads  the  rest  as  a  question :  ivAy 
should  not  his  hand  turn  from  you?  This  is  favoured  by  the  tense  of  the 
verb.  But  the  probability  does  not  seem  sufficient  to  establish  the  reading  of 
@  rather  than  J^.  —  4.  ir\\  iSd>']  anr  'laa;?  nrcm  which  is  added  by  J^,  is  lacking 
in  (S  and  therefore  suspicious.  —  oVdS]  some  MSS.  oaSj^  :  @S  represent  simply 
dd'?.  —  5.  The  half  verse  (down  to  V'^X'^)  duplicates  the  preceding  verse  and  is 
therefore  superfluous.  The  sense  is  perfectly  good  without  it,  and  part  of  it 
is  lacking  in  ©.  We.  regards  it  as  a  gloss.  —  '?{<ti:'i  in'?N^]  ti^  Ki^ptcjJ  (@  may  be 
original,  having  been  changed  so  as  not  to  have  the  most  sacred  name  in  the 
mouth  of  the  uncircumcised.  — 6.  SSynn]  the  verb  in  this  stem  seems  to  mean 
he  amitsed  himself  tvith  another,  or  at  the  expense  of  another.  Saul  fears  that 
the  Philistines  will  amuse  themselves  by  torturing  him,  31*,  cf  Jer.  38^^.  The 
anthropomorphism  need  cause  no  surprise  in  view  of  such  a  passage  as  Ps.  2*.  — 
7.  i-'y  inp]  does  not  seem  to  occur  elsewhere  without  designation  of  the  mate- 
rial. —  nSj;?]  as  the  vehicle  had  two  wheels,  the  word  is  properly  rendered  cart. 
The  word  is  used  Gen.  45^®,  where  it  designates  the  '  wagon '  used  for  the  trans- 
port of  persons,  and  Num.  7*,  where  it  designates  the  vehicle  on  which  the  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  Tabernacle  (though  not  the  most  sacred)  are  to  be  carried.  It 
recurs  in  the  account  of  the  transfer  of  the  Ark  to  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of 
David.  According  to  Erman  {^Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  p,  491)  the  word  w^as 
adopted  in  Egyptian  as  the  name  of  the  baggage  wagon  (or  cart)  drawn  by  oxen, 
in  distinction  from  the  chariot  drawn  by  horses.  —  m'^y]  is  the  participle  of  ^yy 
to  give  suck,  cf.  Is.  40I1. — idn]  the  verb  is  used  of  harnessing  to  the  chariot, 
Gen.  4629  2  K.  9^^  —  p  is  used  of  the  young  of  animals.  Job  39*  and  elsewhere. 
—  nno]  the  house  of  the  family  is  also  the  home  of  the  cattle.  —  8.  Sn]  is  so 
evidently  a  mistake  for  *?«  that  we  wonder  at  any  one's  making  it.  The  inter- 
change is  frequent  in  precisely  those  books  which  have  a  badly  transmitted  text, 
so  that  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  careless  scribes  rather  than  to  the  authors.  It 
is  in  fact  difficult  to  believe  that  the  two  words  could  be  confused,  so  long  as 
Hebrew  was  a  living  language.  Cf.  BDB.  s.  v.,  note  2.  —  i'^d]  is  a  word  of  very 
wide  meaning;  implements,  instruments,  vessels,  ornaments  are  all  included 
under  it.  —  Drarn]  the  perfect  indicates  that  in  intention  they  have  already 
given  the  recompense.  —  ij-\N3]  pointed  with  the  article,  which,  however,  may 
mean  no  more  than  the  box  which  was  necessary  for  the  purpose.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  punctuators  may  have  supposed  the  uiN  a  necessary  part  of  every  cart. 
The  word  is  generally  taken  to  mean  box  or  chest,  though  some  suppose  a  bag 
intended.    Bochart  makes  it  a  Philistine  word,  Hierozoicon,  II,  36.  The  versions 


46  I  SAMUEL 

f  vidcntly  have  no  more  light  than  we,  ^^  ti-  fi^fian  ^tptxOAv,  where  the  last 
word  is  probably  an  attempt  In  transfer  the  Hebrew  w<ird,  ev  d^iiari  being  the 
translation,  d^/xa  represents  ."ij-^yr,  in  Lev.  24''  and  elsewhere,  and  something 
might  be  said  in  favour  of  setting  the  votive  offerings  in  a  row  by  the  side  of  the 
.\rk.  But  the  evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  assure  us  of  a  variant  reading  here. 
S  N'r^TJia  evidently  has  the  root  rji  in  mind  and  makes  the  sense  put  them  in 
7-everence  by  its  side,  for  which  some  might  argue.  But  if  the  author  wished  to 
give  a  warning  of  this  kind  he  would  connect  it  with  the  handling  of  the  Ark, 
not  with  the  votive  offerings  alone.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  word  tJiN  occurs 
in  vs.i'- 1^  both  of  which  are  late  insertions  into  the  narrative.  —  nxc]  the  Torah 
roll  was  also  to  be  put  by  the  side  of  the  Ark,  Dt.  31^''.  —  9.  iSiaj  lii]  in  the 
direction  of  his  own  territory,  cf.  Ex.  131^  Num.  21^^  i  S.  13I*.  On  the  site 
of  Beth  Shemesh,  the  modern  Ain  Shems,  cf.  GAS.  Geog.  p.  219,  Lagarde, 
OS.  p.  237;   Rob.  BR-.  IL  p.  233  ff. 

10.  The  advice  adopted ;  the  cart  is  made  and  the  kine  are 
yoked.  — 11.  And  they  placed  the  Ark  of  Yahweh  on  the  cart] 
the  rest  of  the  verse  seems  to  be  a  late  insertion.  The  variations 
in  the  text  of  (§  show  that  different  attempts  were  made  to  con- 
form its  text  to  ^.  The  interest  of  the  original  narrator  is  in  the 
behaviour  of  the  cattle,  and  he  passes  over  the  subordinate  mat- 
ters. — 12.  And  the  kine  took  a  straight  course  on  the  Beth  She- 
mesh road ;  in  the  highway  they  went,  lowing  as  they  went,  and 
did  not  turn  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left'\  the  apparent  redun- 
dancy is  due  to  the  author's  desire  to  make  the  miracle  plain. 
The  lowing  of  the  kine  shows  their  natural  desire  to  return  to 
their  calves.  The  Tyrants  followed  as  far  as  the  Beth  Shemesh 
line,  — 13.  At  this  time  the  people  of  Beth  Shemesh  were 
engaged  in  harvesting  the  wheat  in  the  valley  up  which  the  Ark 
came.  At  such  times  the  whole  village  goes  forth  to  the  field. 
They  lifted  up  their  eyes  and  saw'\  a  form  of  detailed  description 
common  in  Hebrew,  And  came  rejoicing  to  meet  it']  should  be 
read  with  (3.  — 14.  The  Ark  came  to  the  field  of  Joshua  the  Beth- 
shetnshite  and  stood  still]  this  is  an  important  item,  as  the  stop- 
ping indicated  the  will  of  Yahweh  as  to  his  abiding  place.  For 
the  next  clause  we  should  probably  read  :  and  they  set  there  a 
great  stone]  as  an  altar,  atid  they  split  the  wood  of  the  cart  and 
offered  the  kine  as  a  burnt-offering  to  Yahweh]  an  appropriate 
welcome,  Araunah  also  offers  the  implements  of  the  oxen  for 
wood,  and  the  oxen  themselves  as  sacrifices,  2  S.  24--.  — 15.    Tlie 


VI.  io-i8  47 

verse  is  superfluous,  ^'^  joins  directly  to  '^  The  Ark  has  already 
been  lifted  from  the  cart  —  this  we  know  because  the  cart  has  been 
burnt.  The  burnt  offering  has  been  olTered.  The  only  reason  for 
the  verse  is  found  in  the  mention  of  the  Levites.  A  late  editor  or 
scribe  could  not  reconcile  the  free  handling  of  the  Ark  by  the 
men  of  Beth  Shemesh  with  the  legal  prescription,  and  therefore 
inserted  the  Levites.  These  are  utterly  foreign  to  our  whole  nar- 
rative up  to  this  point.  Yet  they  alone  (on  the  later  theory)  were 
empowered  to  touch  the  sacred  things,  not  only  the  Ark  but  the 
chest  and  its  contents.  Hence  the  insertion.  It  is  possible  also 
that  the  author  did  not  like  the  great  stone,  and  so  made  it  in  this 
verse  only  the  pedestal  for  the  Ark.  — 16.  The  five  Tyrants 
having  seen  their  object  attained  returned  to  Ekron  the  same  day. 
— 17.  The  verse  (with  ^'^^)  is  another  late  insertion,  a  recapit- 
ulation after  the  method  of  the  Priestcode  and  the  Chronicler. 
It  is  free  with  its  gold,  according  to  the  precedent  set  by  these 
writers,  for  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  original  author  contem- 
plated golden  mice  for  all  the  cities,  towns,  and  hamlets  of  the 
Philistines.  — 18.  The  first  half  should  be  omitted  with  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  The  rest  seems  to  affirm  :  Witness  is  the  great 
stone  by  which  they  set  the  Ark  of  Yahiveh  ;  to  the  present  day  it  is 
in  the  field  of  Joshua  the  Beth-shejnshite'\  other  memorial  stones, 
Gen.  31^^  Jos.  24^. 

11.  Sn]  for  '^y  as  so  often.  —  onnnta  .  .  .  M-\^r\  nxi]  the  half  verse  is  not 
objectionable  on  the  ground  of  Hebrew  style  as  is  shown  by  Dr.,  Notes.  But 
comparison  of  the  copies  of  @  shows  so  many  variations,  in  the  words  and  in 
their  arrangement,  that  we  must  suppose  the  original  (5  to  have  been  supple- 
mented in  various  ways  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  ^.  onnn'J  in  the  text 
is  also  an  indication  of  interpolation,  for  the  original  narrative  has  D'-Vijy  as  the 
name  of  the  plague ;  though  some  MSS.  here  conform  to  the  usage  elsewhere, 
reading  ani'^ij;'  in  the  Kt.  We.  strikes  out  all  but  tjinh  pni;  Bu.  remands  the 
whole  to  the  margin.  — 12.  The  construction  is  not  free  from  difficulty.  — 
njns'^i]  older  form  of  the  third  person  feminine  plural,  Ges^^.  §47^';  Bottcher 
sees  in  it  a  dual,  Lehrhtich,  §  931  ^.  The  form  is  Qal  with  assimilation  of  the  \ 
This  stem,  however,  means  to  be  straight  or  to  be  right,  whereas  to  go  in  a 
straight  path  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  a  Piel  or  Hiphil,  Prov.  9''''  15"^^.  It 
does  not  seem  violent  therefore  to  change  here  to  nj-ir."!,  though  analogous 
verbs  are  followed  by  the  direct  object  or  by  the  infinitive  with  ^,  cf.  Ex.  8^* 
2  S.  15I*.  Possibly  ima  is  an  error  for  p-n  which  we  expect.  —  nnx  n'l'Dca] 
the  one  highway  implies  that  various  others  were  within  reach.    A  n'^DC  is  a 


48  1  SAMUEL 

road  made  by  throwing  up  the  earth.  —  1>J1  i^n]  the  adverbial  clause  describ- 
ing continuous  action,  Gen.  S^  12^  Jos.  6^  2  S.  3}^.  — 13.  vuv  pia  is  here  put 
for  the  inhabitants  and  followed  by  the  plural,  cf.  Hos.  5^,  px  n'3  ij'nn. — 
iNTii  an'j'';;-nx  inc"i]  the  phrase  occurs  in  the  Hexateuch  several  times,  always 
in  JE,  but  in  both  J  and  E,  ^.^.,  Gen.  131^- 1*  (J)  3110-12  (£),  also  in  Jd.  19" 
(assigned  to  J)  2  S.  iS^*  Jer.  3"^  132'  Is.  49^8  60*  Zech.  s^-s.  The  prophetic 
passages  are  all  in  the  imperative,  in  which  the  detailed  expression  is  easily 
accounted  for.  —  mxi'r]  ds  dTravTrjcnv  avrrjs  @  points  to  iPNipS  which  should 
be  restored,  cf.  Jd.  19'  (We.).  — 14.  Diyi  DB*  iDj?ni]  /cat  tcrTTiffav  iKu  nap' 
airy  (gB  evidently  renders  ncj;  Dtf  ninyi.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the 
original  had  both  verbs  :  zV  stayed  and  they  placed  there  by  it  —  iT'Cj'ii  ic;;ni 
my  a;;',  and  that  one  verb  dropped  from  one  recension  and  the  other  from 
the  other  —  or  is  D^'i  Dir  an  original  db'  iCtt'M  which  became  illegible?  — 
nSnj  ]3n]  it  is  conjectured  by  Bu.  that  the  stone  was  set  up  as  a  ma^^ebnh. 
But  the  immediate  context  favours  an  altar.  The  proximity  of  the  Ark  and 
the  necessity  of  offering  sacrifices  in  its  honour  argue  for  an  altar.  Doubtless 
a  viaf^eba  would  be  set  up  as  soon  as  the  dwelling  of  Yahweh  should  be 
arranged.  A  case  strictly  parallel  does  not  occur.  Jacob's  stone  was  a 
ma^^eba  according  to  E  (Gen.  281^-22^^  i^ut  it  was  destined  to  mark  a  per- 
manent sanctuary,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  ma^^eba  in  Gilead,  Gen.  31*6 
(E).  A  memorial  stone  was  raised  by  Joshua,  2\-^^-,  and  the  same  was 
done  by  Samuel  at  Ebenezer  according  to  a  late  passage,  i  S.  7I2.  Saul's 
altar,  14^3,  is  more  like  the  account  in  our  text  than  any  other  mention  of  a 
stone.  Various  heaps  of  stones  are  mentioned  as  memorials,  but  present  no 
close  resemblance,  at  least  in  the  recension  of  the  Old  Testament  which  is  in 
our  hands.  — 15.  The  glossatory  character  of  the  verse  is  pointed  out  by  We. 
—  *?«]  16  MSS.  have  hy  which  alone  is  in  place.  — 17.  nna]  is  evidence  of 
interpolation,  as  already  shown.  — 18.  S2N  n>'i]  makes  no  sense.  The  meadow 
(if  it  were  allowable  to  translate  so)  in  which  the  Ark  rested  could  not  be  one 
of  the  villages  of  the  Philistines.  For  '?3N  read  }3«,  with  @,  and  point  the 
other  word  ipi  as  was  first  suggested  by  We.  The  emendation  is  accepted  by 
so  valiant  a  defender  of  the  traditional  text  as  Keil.  The  insertion  of  the 
article  before  px  seems  to  be  unnecessary. 

19.  The  verse  affirms  that  Yahweh  smote  some  of  the  people. 
The  received  text  seems  to  give  as  a  reason  that  they  looked  upon 
the  Ark.  There  is,  however,  no  other  indication  that  this  author 
thought  it  sinful  to  look  upon  the  Ark.  Had  he  thought  so,  he 
would  have  shown  what  precautions  were  taken  by  the  Israelites 
before  the  battle  to  prevent  this  profanation,  and  would  for  this 
cause  have  aggravated  the  plague  sent  upon  the  Philistines.  ® 
has  a  whole  clause  which  has  fallen  out  of  "^  and  which  relieves 
the  difficulty  :   The  sons  of  Jeconiah  did  not  rejoice  with  the  men 


VI.  I9-VII.  I  49 

of  Beth  Shemesh  ivhen  they  looked  upon  the  Ark  of  Yahweh'\  by 
adopting  this  we  avoid  the  awkward  repetition  of  the  word  trans- 
lated and  he  smote,  which  in  ^  comes  at  the  beginning  of  the 
verse,  as  well  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  clause  :  And  he 
smote  among  them  severity  ?nen'\  the  anger  of  Yahweh  was  not 
always  easy  to  account  for.  Such  an  occasion  for  it  as  the 
indifference  of  the  sons  of  Jeconiah  is  not  stranger  than  some 
others  of  which  we  have  a  record.  To  the  seventy  men,  the 
present  text  adds  ungrammatically  fifty  thousand  men  —  doubtless 
a  gloss.  The  various  attempts  to  explain  the  words  scarcely 
deserve  attention.  The  oldest  is  that  of  the  Targum,  which 
renders  seventy  men  of  the  elders  and  fifty  thousand  of  the  con- 
gregation. Kimchi  represents  the  traditional  interpretation  to 
be  seventy  men,  of  the  worth  of  fifty  thousand.  Kimchi's  own 
theory  is  that  asyndetically  the  expression  means  simply  fifty  thou- 
sand and  seventy  men.  —  20.  The  people  ask  two  questions,  the 
first  indicative  of  their  fear  —  who  is  able  to  stand  before  Yahweh 
this  holy  God?  The  hohness  of  Yahweh  is  his  apartness  from  the 
world.  This  makes  it  impossible  to  approach  him  except  after 
special  ceremonial  preparation,  and  his  displeasure  is  fatal  to 
those  who  approach  him  without  that  preparation  (consecration). 
The  question  of  the  Beth-Shemshites  shows  their  despair  of  meet- 
ing Yahweh's  requirements.  They  regard  his  presence  as  a  con- 
stant source  of  danger  to  them.  The  second  question  is  a  prac- 
tical one  :  To  whom  shall  he  go  up  from  us  ?~\  the  verb  indicates 
that  some  place  in  the  hill  country  was  to  be  chosen.  —  21.  The 
place  chosen  is  Kirjath  Jearim.  The  name  evidently  means  City 
of  Thickets.  It  is  mentioned  in  Jos.  15^,  where  it  is  identified 
with  Baalah  ;  in  Jos.  15®*  it  is  called  Kirjath  Baal,  cf.  18'*.  Euse- 
bius  *  places  it  ten  (or  nine)  miles  from  Jerusalem  on  the  road  to 
Lydda.  It  is  not  yet  certainly  identified  with  any  existing  site. 
Probably  the  name  Kirjath  Baal  indicates  that  the  town  was 
already  a  sanctuary.  On  this  account  the  men  of  Beth  Shemesh 
chose  it  as  the  place  of  the  Ark,  and  the  people  of  Kirjath  Jearim 
found  it  natural  that  they  should  have  such  an  offer  made  them. 
—  VII.  1.   They  therefore  came  and  brought  up  the  Ark,  and 

*  OS,  234,  95  and  271,  40. 


5Q  I  SAMIKI. 

brought  it  to  the  house  of  Abinadab'\  of  whom  we  know  nothing 
further.  The  house  was  situated  on  the  hill  on  which  the  town 
was  built.  To  provide  an  appropriate  attendant,  they  consecrated 
Eleazar  his  son  to  keep  the  Ark'\  nothing  is  said  of  his  belonging 
to  the  priestly  family  or  tribe. 

19.  "I'll]  anticipates  unpleasantly  the  next  clause :  /coi  ovk  ricrfx^vKrav  ol  viol 
'lexovlov  (&.  As  the  Greek  verb  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, we  are  left  to  surmise  its  original.  Kl.'s  conjecture  in'j3''  ^:2  nn  n*?!  is 
probably  correct  (adopted  by  Bu.),  cf.  Ex.  i8^  Ps.  21''.  —  d>?3]  should  be  cor- 
rected to  an2  with  (S.  —  S'^n  ^Sk  O'la'sn]  the  words  are  a  late  insertion,  appar- 
ently unknown  to  Josephus,  and  recognized  as  a  gloss  by  Keil.  Whethei 
they  were  a  marginal  note,  intended  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  later  plague 
(2  S.  24)  where  seventy  thousand  fell,  cannot  be  determined.  —  i*73Kn>i] 
Gen.  37^*  Ex.  33*  (E).  n'^nj  njo  n^n  occurs  Jos.  10^"  Jd.  11^^  (also  ascribed 
to  E).  —  20.  On  the  idea  of  holiness,  cf.  WRSmith,  Feligion  of  the  Semkes, 
p.  135,  Smend,  AlUestamentliche  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  333,  Duhm's  Commen- 
tary on  Isaiah,  i*.  —  21.  On  the  site  of  Kirjath  Jearim,  Moore  on  Jd.  iS^^, 
GAS.  Geog.  p.  226.  The  essay  of  Poels,  Le  Sanctuaire  de  Kirjath-Jearim 
(Louvain,  1894),  is  a  harmonistic  attempt  to  identify  Kirjath  Jearim,  Gibeon, 
Gibeah,  and  Mizpah,  and  so  to  show  that  the  law  of  a  single  sanctuary  was  in 
force  in  the  time  of  Samuel. 

VII.  2-17.  Samuel  delivers  the  people.  —  During  the  time  of 
the  sojourn  of  the  Ark  at  Kirjath  Jearim,  Samuel  turns  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  to  the  need  of  repentance.  At  his  exhortation 
they  put  away  the  strange  gods.  A  great  assembly  is  called  at 
Mizpah,  where  the  people  openly  confess  their  sins.  The  Phihs- 
tines  take  occasion  to  invade  the  country,  but  at  Samuel's  prayer 
Yahweh  interferes  and  throws  them  into  confusion;  so  they 
become  an  easy  prey  to  Israel.  The  victory,  which  is  commem- 
orated by  a  memorial  stone,  is  so  complete  that  the  PhiHstines  do 
not  invade  the  country  again  all  the  days  of  Samuel.  Samuel  is 
established  as  supreme  magistrate  of  the  people. 

The  contradiction  between  the  statements  here  made  and  what 
we  know  of  the  actual  history  is  complete.  The  conquests  of 
Saul  and  David  are  here  attributed  to  Samuel,  who  occupies  the 
position  of  the  theocratic  ruler  —  comparable  only  to  Moses.  The 
author's  theory  of  history  is  like  that  of  the  Deuteronomistic 
editor  of  the  Book  of  Judges  —  if  possible  more  mechanical  than 
his.      The  people  are  enslaved   because  they  have  worshipped 


VII.  1-3  51 

strange  gods.  No  sooner  do  they  return  to  Yahweh  than  he 
returns  to  them  and  deUvers  them.  The  deliverance  is  accom- 
plished by  a  miraculous  intervention.  No  human  warrior  (like 
the  Judges)  is  needed.  For  this  reason  we  may  assume  that  the 
section  is  even  later  than  the  pragmatic  framework  of  the  Book  of 
Judges.  That  it  is  later  than  the  preceding  chapters  of  the  life  of 
Samuel  seems  evident.  The  call  of  Samuel,  at  any  rate,  is 
designed  to  establish  him  as  a  prophet  rather  than  as  judge  and 
ruler.  That  this  chapter  was  composed  with  a  view  to  what  pre- 
cedes seems,  however,  plain  enough ;  and  equally  plain  that  it 
was  originally  designed  to  ignore  Saul  altogether. 

In  Jer.  15I  we  find  Yahweh  saying:  "Though  Moses  and  Samuel  should 
stand  before  me,  my  soul  would  not  be  towards  this  people."  Co.  (^Einl^.  p. 
99)  argues  that  Jeremiah  has  our  present  account  in  mind  and  the  reasoning 
is  adopted  by  Bu,  {RS.  p.  178)  and  Dr.  {LOT^.  p.  178).  The  coordination 
of  Moses  and  Samuel  is  undoubtedly  striking.  But  Jeremiah's  conception  of 
them  seems  to  be  that  they  were  prophets  like  himself — for  it  is  his  own 
intercession  which  is  rejected  and  the  rejection  justified  by  the  mention  of  his 
predecessors.  The  passage  does  not  prove  more  than  the  existence  of  a  tradi- 
tion of  Samuel's  pvophetic  activity.  The  present  narrative  seems  to  represent 
a  more  advanced  stage  of  theocratic  theory. 

2.  The  intention  of  the  verse  is  evidently  to  say  that  from  the 
time  of  the  Ark's  return  the  people  received  a  new  impulse. 
Unfortunately  the  main  verb  is  obscure  and  probably  corrupt. 
We  should  probably  read  :  From  the  day  the  Ark  dwelt  at  Kirjath 
Jearim  all  the  house  of  Israel  turned  after  Yahweli]  the  inserted 
clause  :  the  days  were  many  and  became  twenty  years  is  probably 
secondary. — 3.  If  with  all  your  heart"]  the  clause  is  put  first  for 
emphasis.  The  passages  in  which  it  occurs  are  comparatively  late, 
Dt.  11'''  13''  Jos.  22^  I  Sam.  12-*  Jer.  29^^  Joel  2'^  You  are  [now] 
returning  to  Yahweh]  the  expression  betrays  the  same  conception 
which  is  contained  in  the  phrase  strange  gods  which  follows,  cf.  Dt. 
31^®  Jer.  5'^  Jos.  24-".  The  Ashtaroth  seem  an  afterthought  here, 
as  in  some  other  passages.  The  word  is  the  plural  of  the  name 
which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  vocaUzed  (probably  wrongly)  as 
Ashtoreth.  The  well-known  goddess  of  the  Canaanites  (properly 
Astarte)  is  elsewhere  associated  with  Baal.  An  Astarte  of  the 
Philistines  is  mentioned   i  Sam.  31^*^.      And  prepare  your  heart 


52  I  SAMUEL 

towards  Yahweh  your  God\  a  late  formula,  2  Chr.  12"  20^  30'* 
Ezr.  7^*^.  And  serve  him'\  that  is  worship  hiin,  in  this  sense  the 
word  is  Deuteronomic.  That  he  may  deliver  yoii\  the  form  of 
the  verb  indicates  that  this  is  the  purpose  of  the  preceding  imper- 
atives.—  4,  The  preaching  is  effectual:  The  Sons  of  Israel  put 
away  the  Baals']  the  word  is  used  as  equivalent  to  the  foreign 
gods  above.  —  5.  Samuel  announces  a  general  assembly  at  Miz- 
pah~\  doubtless  the  same  place  afterwards  occupied  by  Gedaliah 
as  the  capital  of  the  country,  Jer.  40.  It  is  identified,  since  Rob- 
inson, with  Neby  Samwil,  a  prominent  hill  five  miles  north  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  place  is  a  sanctuary  (or  the  sanctuary)  also  in  Jd. 
2o\  —  6.  The  assembly  engages  in  pubhc  expression  of  sorrow 
for  sin  :  They  drezo  ivater  and  poured  it  before  Yahweh]  a  rite 
not  elsewhere  mentioned.  It  must  be  symbolical  of  contrition. 
Fasting,  which  is  the  second  observance  mentioned,  is  elsewhere 
expressive  of  sorrow.  IVe  have  sinned  in  relation  to  Yahweh]  Dt. 
I*'  Jd.  10^".  That  Samuel  y«^?^<?^  the  people  in  Mizpah  is  prob- 
ably to  be  taken  in  the  sense  in  which  other  rulers  are  said  to 
judge.  He  heard  the  cause  of  the  oppressed  and  secured  their 
rights. 

2.  nic  anr;'  vn^i  D'-r^n  i3-\m]  the  only  way  we  can  fit  the  words  into 
the  present  text  is  by  making  them  a  parenthesis,  and  even  then  it  is  more 
natural  to  say  'ui  m  ci^^ni.  It  seems  that  the  whole  sentence  is  a  gloss, 
not  merely  r\yv  anry  vn>i  (Bu.).  Possibly,  however,  it  is  a  corruption  of 
something  which  cannot  now  be  recovered.  (5^  kv  elprjvriis  confirmed  by  I,  and 
may  point  to  some  statement  about  Shiloh.  —  iijm]  gives  no  suitable  mean- 
ing. The  verb  means  ^0  lament  for  the  dead,  Mic,  2*  Ez.  321^.  But  the  return 
of  Yahweh  could  not  be  an  occasion  for  such  mourning.  (g-^B  ^^g  iw^l3\e\l/ev, 
(B^  Kal  iir4a-Tp€\p€,  both  which  point  to  i:d>\  ST  conjectures  only,  as  is  shown 
by  Dr.,  and  SiiL  seem  to  have  read  inri  (Cappel,  Critica  Sacra,  p.  364).  It 
seems  best,  with  Ew.,  Bu.,  to  adopt  the  reading  of  (S.  —  3.  D333'7"SD3"aN] 
the  phrase  occurs  in  D  frequently,  usually  with  the  addition  of  cdj  Sjai.  On 
the  literary  usage  which  shows  a^'^  (not  3*^)  to  be  the  form  characteristic  of 
E,  D,  and  Deuteronomistic  editors,  cf.  BDB.,  s.  v.  —  "i3jn  inSN-nN  iTDn]  the 
phrase  occurs  Gen.  35-  Jos.  24^8  Jd.  iqI^,  all  which  are  assigned  to  E^  by 
recent  editors,  cf.  also  2  Chr.  33^^.  —  nojn  'n'^x  are  gods  of  foreign  countries, 
like  i3jn  >j2  men  of  foreign  countries.  —  4.  cVj.'an]  cf.  Jd.  2^-^^,  where 
also  the  Baals  and  Astartes  are  the  gods  and  goddesses  of  the  heathen,  see 
Moore's  note.  On  Baal,  Baudissin  in  PRE^.  II.  p.  323  flf.,  WRS.,  Pel.  Sem. 
p.  92  ff.  The  god  and  goddess  are  mentioned  together  by  Eshmunazar  in  his 
inscription,  1.  18.     On  Astarte,  Baudissin,  PRE^.  II.  p.  147  ff.,  and  of  the 


VII.  3-12  53 

older  literature,  Selden,  De  Diis  Syris,  II.  2.  —  5.  nnoxcn]  the  name,  which 
means  ihe  watchtower ,  generally  has  the  article.  On  the  identification,  cf. 
Robinson,  BR'-.  I.  p.  460,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  168.  —  6.  13d;m]  @  adds  on  the 
ground.  Such  phrases  are  easily  inserted,  and  therefore  suspicious. — db*] 
lacking  in  (55  must  be  exscinded  for  the  same  reason. 

7.  The  Philistines  heard  that  Israel  had  assemble d'\  the  oppor- 
tunity for  plundering  an  unwarlike  company  was  not  to  be  lost. 
Josephus  correctly  understands  that  the  people  had  come  without 
arms.  —  8.  Israel  has  recourse  to  spiritual  weapons  :  Do  not  be 
silent,  so  as  not  to  cry  to  Ya/nveh  thy  God'\  cf.  Ps.  28^  Job  13''^; 
thy  God  i3  seems  more  appropriate  than  our  God  ^.  Several 
MSS.  of  iQ  add  at  the  end  of  the  verse  :  And  Samuel  said :  Far 
be  itfrotn  me  to  refrain  from  crying  to  Yahweh  my  God  for  you. 
—  9.  In  his  worship  Samuel  took  a  sucking  lamb'\  no  emphasis 
is  to  be  laid  (as  some  have  supposed)  on  the  comparative  insig- 
nificance of  the  offering.  A  lamb  of  the  first  year  is  enjoined  as 
the  regular  burnt  offering  in  Ex.  2(y^^-  Lev.  23^-  Num.  6^^  And 
offered  it  as  a  whole  bur^it  offering  to  Yahweh']  the  burnt  offering 
is  the  present  with  which  one  approaches  the  divine  king.  To 
Samuel's  prayer,  Yahweh  answers  by  audible  voice,  as  is  more 
fully  set  forth  in  the  next  verse,  cf.  Ex.  19^^  — 10.  While  Samuel 
was  engaged  in  offering  the  burnt  offering,  the  Philistines  advanced 
to  the  attack.  But  Yahweh  thundered  with  a  great  voice  that  day 
against  the  Philistines  and  routed  them]  cf.  Jd.  4^^  and  its  poetical 
parallel,  ^^-  ^K  In  the  present  passage  the  interference  of  Yahweh 
is  so  pronounced  that  the  rout  begins  before  any  active  effort  is 
made  by  Israel.  At  the  battle  of  Bethhoron,  where  Yahweh  routed 
the  Canaanites  by  casting  great  stones  from  heaven  upon  them 
(Jos.  10"),  the  Israelites  were  an  armed  force,  as  they  were  at 
the  Kishon.  The  interference  of  Yahweh  for  his  people  by 
thunder  and  lightning  is  a  not  uncommon  feature  of  poetic  the- 
ophanies,  2  S.  22"  i  S.  2"^  Is.  66^  Cf.  also  Ps.  (iZ''^  77".  — 11.  The 
people  had  only  to  pursue  the  flying  foe,  which  they  did  till  below 
Beth  Car]  the  place  is  nowhere  else  mentioned,  and  the  text 
has  possibly  suffered. — 12.  A  memorial  stone  is  set  up  between 
Mizpah  and  Yeshana]  see  the  note  on  6'^  The  name  Yeshana 
here  is  restored  from  {3  and  S>.  The  name  in  |^  is  probably  cor- 
rupt.    What  follows  in  ^  makes,  further,  a  double  difificulty,  for 


54  J  SAMUEL 

it  says  simply :  Hitherto  has  Yahtveh  helped  us,  whereas  it  was 
not  only  to  this  point  that  Yahweh  had  helped  them,  but  beyond 
it ;  and,  moreover,  there  is  no  declaration  concerning  the  object 
of  setting  up  the  stone.  Conjectural  emendation  gives  us  :  This 
is  a  witness  that  Yahweh  has  helped  us,  which  alone  is  appropriate 
in  the  context.  — 13.  The  Philistines  were  subdued  and  came  no 
more  into  the  border  of  Israel']  the  extravagance  of  the  statement 
is  evident.  — 14.  The  cities  which  the  Philistines  had  taken  from 
Israel  were  restored,  from  Ekron  to  Gath]  these  two  were  nearest 
the  territory  of  Israel.  The  author  evidently  means  to  include 
Ekron  and  Gath  in  the  list  of  those  restored.  The  territory  of 
these  was  also  recovered,  and  there  was  peace  between  Israel  and 
the  Afnorite']  that  is,  the  Canaanitish  peoples.  —  Samuel's  reign 
(as  we  may  call  it)  lasted  as  long  as  he  lived.  — 16.  His  custom 
was  to  go  about  to  the  principal  places,  —  Bethel,  Gilgal,  and 
Mizpah,  all  known  as  sanctuaries,  —  and  administer  justice.  — 
17.  He  officiated  also  at  Ramah,  his  home,  and  there  he  built  an 
altar  to  Yahweh]  the  author  does  not  take  the  view  of  the  Priest- 
code  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  one  sole  altar.  .To  the  Deuteronomic 
view  the  one  legitimate  sanctuary  was  not  chosen  until  the  time 
of  Solomon. 

7.  li'apnn]  with  pluperfect  force.  —  "^n]  is  doubtless  to  be  read  or  under- 
stood as  S",  which  is  the  proper  word  when  a  hostile  attack  is  described.  — 
8.  pyin]  for  the  force  of  the  preposition  cf.  his  eyes  were  dim  from  seeing;  i.e., 
so  as  not  to  see.  Gen.  27^  —  9.  n^a]  a  rare  and  apparently  late  word,  Is.  40^1 
6525.  —  in^i'M  is  doubtless  to  be  read,  with  the  Qre.  —  ^''^3]  describes  the  burnt 
offering  as  wholly  consumed  upon  the  altar,  Dt.  T)!^'^  Lev.  6^^^.  — 10.  '?nid'^'  ^"l•'1 
n't'i'D]  cf.  the  similar  construction  2  K.  13-^  19^".  —  osn-'i]  the  verb  is  used  of 
'striking  with  panic  terror'  (Moore  on  Jd.  4^^).  — 11.  is  T'^'i;  ST  reads  Beth 
Sharon;  %  has  Beth  }'>j/irt«  as  in  v.^^;  Kl.  suggests  y?,?/// /('(^row.  — 12.  \i>'^'\ 
the  word  is  appropriate  for  a  sharp  rock  or  peak.  In  connection  with  Mizpah 
we  rather  expect  the  name  of  a  town,  and  this  is  given  by  (@S  who  read  r\-^z'^r\, 
evidently  the  Benjamite  town  mentioned  2  Chr.  131^.  This  reading  is  adopted 
by  Graetz  (^Gesch.  der  Juden,  I.  p.  157)  followed  by  most  recent  expositors. — 
n:n"ii']  is  not  explicit  enough,  whether  the  njn  be  taken  of  space  or  time. 
Wellhausen  seems  first  to  have  diiicovered  that  the  first  word  must  be  ^v.  He 
therefore  restores  ■'3  x^n  ly,  for  which  Bu.  substitutes  13  inn  m;',  which  seems  no 
improvement.  — 13.  iVJ3"'i]  cf.  Jd.  3^''  ii^s.  —  ki^S  np  ifjO^'N^i]  15'^  Jd.  1321. 
— 14.  n:3i:'ni]  there  is  no  other  instance  of  the  active  voice  with  cities  as 
the  subject;    perhaps  we  should  read  njaanni  which  is  favoured  by  @,  cf. 


VII.  I2-VIII.  55 

Jer.  27^*.  —  From  Ekron  to  Gath~\  (5'^  has  from  Askkelon  to  Azob.  In  Azob 
We.  sees  an  allusion  to  Zeph.  2*.  — 15.  asi:'^]  the  allusion  to  the  function  of 
the  judge  as  described  in  the  Book  of  Judges  is  palpable.  This  author  de- 
scribes the  activity  in  detail  in  what  follows.  — 16.  l^^ni]  of  customary  action, 
Dav.,  Syntax,  §  54  R,  i.  —  njrj  n:i>  i-in]  is  heavy,  but  is  supported  by  Zech. 
14^^.  32D  is  used  of  going  about  to  various  places  in  order,  2  Chr.  17^. — 
'U1  S3  ns  Si<na'i"nN]  is  tautological.  It  is  probable  that  the  scribe  had  in  mind 
the  SNnr^'nN  of  the  verse  below  and  inserted  it  here.  —  niDi|icn]  (g  had 
0'.ripr:n,  which  may  possibly  be  original  (Cappel,  Notae  Criticae,  p.  434). — 
17.   too-']  the  pausal  form  seems  unexplained,  Ges-^.  §  29  i,  note. 

VIII.  The  demand  for  a  king.  —  In  Samuel's  old  age  he 
makes  his  sons  judges,  but  they  do  not  follow  his  example  in 
their  administration  of  the  office.  The  people  thereupon  demand 
a  king.  The  demand  is  offensive  to  Samuel  and  also  to  Yahvveh, 
who  describes  it  as  rebellion  against  him  and  as  in  line  with  the 
people's  customary  depravity.  Without  hope  of  converting  them, 
but  as  a  testimony  against  their  folly,  Samuel  describes  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  king  is  likely  to  carry  on  his  office.  As  was 
expected,  the  people  persist  in  their  demand,  and  Samuel  is  com- 
manded to  accede  to  it.  The  account  as  it  now  stands  concludes 
with  the  dismission  of  the  people,  but  was  originally  continued  by 
the  choice  of  a  king  by  lot  as  now  read  in  lo^^'^''. 

The  section  is  homogeneous  down  to  ^^^  and  directly  continues 
the  preceding  account.  It  is  also  of  late  date.  In  fact,  it  is 
hardly  conceivable  that  the  conception  of  the  monarchy  as  essen- 
tially evil  and  in  itself  a  revolt  from  the  theocracy  could  have 
arisen  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  For,  however  bad  the  indi- 
vidual kings  of  the  house  of  David  might  be,  there  was  always  a 
hope  (well  illustrated  by  Isaiah)  that  the  ideal  government  would 
come  to  view  in  the  reign  of  a  righteous  king.  The  phrase 
manner  of  the  kingdom  used  in  this  passage  has  reminded  most 
critics  of  the  similar  phrase  in  Deuteronomy  (17""^"),  and  some 
have  argued  that  this  passage  was  anterior  to  that.  But  on  com- 
parison it  is  seen  that  the  abuses  held  up  by  Samuel  here  are  not 
touched  upon  in  Deuteronomy.  Nothing  is  there  said  about 
impressing  the  people  for  forced  labour  and  taking  their  property 
without  compensation,  which  are  the  evils  here  made  prominent. 
Had  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  known  our  passage,  he  could 
hardly  have  refrained  from  legislating  against  these  abuses.     And 


56  I  SAMUEL 

it  cannot  be  argued,  on  the  other  hand,  that  our  author,  if  later, 
would  have  shown  his  dependence  on  Deuteronomy,  for  the 
abuses  there  forbidden  —  multiplying  horses,  taking  many  wives, 
and  accumulating  treasure  —  could  not  be  effective  as  an  argu- 
ment with  the  people. 

Stade  places  the  section  later  than  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Wellhausen 
gives  the  argument  summarized  above  in  favour  of  a  date  posterior  to  the 
Judaic  monarchy  {Comp.  p.  246).  Bu.  argues  for  priority  of  this  as  compared 
with  Deut.  {RS.  p.  184),  and  is  followed  by  Co.  at  least  in  the  earlier  editions 
of  his  Einleitims. 


■ns' 


1-5.  The  occasion  of  the  demand.  —  When  Samuel  became 
old,  he  appointed  his  sons  judges  for  Israel.  —  2.  That  both  should 
be  settled  at  Beersheba  is  surprising,  and  two  places  were  proba- 
bly named  originally.  Josephus  gives  ojie  in  Bethel  and  one  ifi 
Beersheba.  —  3.  The  common  experience  of  Orientals  was  illus- 
trated :  they  turned  aside  after  gain  and  took  bribes  and  wrested 
justice~\  so  far  there  seems  ground  for  the  complaint  of  the  peo- 
ple.—  4.  The  Sheikhs  act  for  the  people,  as  in  4^  Num.  i6^\  — 
5.  The  desire  for  a  king  is  here  motived  by  the  maladministration 
of  justice.     In  v.^"  it  is  due  to  a  desire  for  a  leader  in  war. 

6-9.  The  demand  is  sinful.  —  The  view  of  the  author  is  evi- 
dently that  the  theocracy  is  the  divinely  appointed  constitution 
for  Israel,  and  that  the  substitution  of  another  form  is  treason  to 
God.  He  does  not  seem  to  recognize  that  Samuel  was  chargeable 
with  fault  in  not  correcting  the  abuses  of  his  sons'  government, 
nor  does  he  tell  us  how  Yahweh  would  give  them  relief  Yahweh's 
prejudgment  is  on  the  side  of  Samuel,  whose  anger  he  shares.  — 
7.  The  grievance  of  Samuel  is  adopted  by  Yahweh  :  Hearkeii  to 
the  voice  of  the  people  accordijig  to  what  they  keep  saying\  the  tense 
implies  importunity.  For  it  is  not  thou  whom  they  have  rejected, 
but  it  is  I  whom  they  have  rejected  from  beifig  king  over  them']  the 
pronouns  are  made  emphatic  by  their  position.  —  8.  The  main 
sentence  says  :  Like  all  the  deeds  they  have  done  to  me  .  .  .  have 
they  done  to  thee.  Parenthetically  the  deeds  are  described :  they 
have  forsaken  me  and  served  other  gods']  Jd.  2^'  10^^  i  K.  9^ 
(apparently  Deuteronomistic) .  —  9.  The  people  are,  however,  to 
be  left  without  excuse :    Thou  shalt  solemnly  testify']   Gen.  43^ 


VIII.  i-i;  57 

Jer.  ii'  —  the  method  of  the  king  who  shall  rule  over  therti]  that 
is,  his  customary  behaviour.  Yahweh  will  allow  him,  perhaps 
authorize  hiin,  so  to  act. 

1.  O'tf  is  used  of  appointing  officers,  Dt.  17^^  2  S.  8^*.  —  2.  The  statement 
of  Josephus  cited  above  {Ant.W.  32)  is  adopted  by  Graetz  and  Ewald. — 
3.  13113  A7,  V3-\-i3  Qre.  There  seems  no  reason  for  preferring  the  latter  ex- 
cept that  usage  is  on  the  side  of  the  plural.  —  rjii]  turned  aside  from  its 
proper  course,  Dt.  16^'.  >'S3  is  generally  used  of  unrighteous  gain,  Ex.  18^* 
Jer.  6^^. — 4.  Va]  is  lacking  in  (@^,  which  reads  dvSpes  for  ■'jpr.  —  6.  nain  y-iii] 
Gen.  2111-12  (E)  i  S.  188  2  S.  ii25- 27._l,l,q^„j  ^.f_  Jer.  32I6  42*.  — 7.  For 
-iCN  '73'?  we  should  perhaps  read  Ti'ND  with  (5.  —  "'3]  assigns  a  reason  why 
Samuel  should  not  hesitate — it  was  not  a  personal  concern.  —  8.  v.:v]  (5 
adds  ^^,  which  is  adopted  by  most  recent  commentators.  —  ''ja?;;^]  specifies  the 
acts  intended  by  x:.'';. 

10-18.  The  king's  method.  —  Samuel  repeated  all  the  words 
of  Yahweh  to  the  people  ivho  7vere  asking  of  him  a  king']  as  though 
he  had  one  in  his  possession.  — 11.  This  is  the  way  of  the  king 
who  shall  rule  over  you  :  Your  sons  he  will  take  and  place  in  his 
chariots  and  ajnong  his  horsemen,  and  they  shall  run  before  his 
chariots']  the  runners  before  the  chariot  continue  in  the  East 
down  to  the  present  day,  and  their  office  is  an  honourable  one. 
— 12.  And  he  shall  make  them  captains  of  thousands  and  captains 
of  hundreds]  reading  with  (§.  The  author  counts  on  very  small 
military  ambition  in  Israel,  a  view  which  would  argue  for  a  late 
date.  The  people  would  also  be  forced  to  plough  and  reap  for  the 
king,  atid  to  make  his  arms  and  his  chariot  fu7-niture.  — 13.  The 
women  would  not  be  exempt  from  conscription,  but  would  be 
compelled  to  serve  as  petfumers]  perhaps  we  should  read  as 
embroiderers  with  S ;  and  as  cooks  and  as  bakers]  of  which  the 
king's  kitchen  would  need  many.  — 14.  Oppression  will  affect 
not  only  persons  but  also  property ;  fields  and  vineyards  will  be 
seized  and  given  to  the  king's  servants.  — 15.  Heavy  taxes  will  be 
laid  :  Your  grain  fields  and  your  vineyards  he  will  tithe  and  give 
the  proceeds  to  his  eunuchs  and  to  his  servants]  the  Oriental  thinks 
of  the  king  as  wealthy  enough  to  dispense  with  such  methods  of 
raising  money,  which  are  therefore  hated  and  resented.  — 16.  He 
would  exact  the  service  of  their  slaves  and  their  best  cattle]  so 
is  to  be  read.  — 17.  The  tithing  will  be  extended  to  sheep  and 
goats;   and  the  Israelites  will  be  slaves  instead  of  freemen. — 


58  I  SAMUEL 

18.  The  result :  Vou  shall  cry  out  in  that  day  on  account  oj  the 
king  which  you  shall  have  chosen  for  yourselves']  the  sting  is  in 
the  fact  that  their  misery  will  be  self-inflicted.  For  this  reason 
also,  Yahweh  will  not  answer. 

10.  iDNii]  is  not  frequent  with  the  accusative,  as  here. — 11.  isnij  for 
which  (@  seems  to  have  read  d^X"i>,  is  doubtless  original.  — 12.  DV.:''?i]  the  peri- 
phrastic infinitive  is  illustrated  by  Dr.,  Te?ises'^,%  206  and  and  Dav.,  Syntax, 
§  94,  R.  4.  It  should  be  noted  that  several  of  the  examples  cited  are  of  suspicious 
integrity,  the  1  having  arisen  by  duplication  of  a  preceding  '.  In  the  present 
case,  however,  the  reading  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  (§.  We  assume  an  ellipsis 
of  vn,  the  full  form  being  □11:''?  vr\\  Captains  of  fifties  in  |^  is  replaced  by  cap- 
tains of  hundreds  in  @,  while  Sb  has  both,  and  adds  and  captains  of  tens.  (3 
seems  original. — 13.  mnp-\^]  preparers  of  unguents,  of  which  the  Orientals 
are  notoriously  fond.  S  seems  to  translate  ni2|'>-\'',  which  would  be  equally  ap- 
propriate.—  mn^'j':']  the  cook  is  also  the  butcher.  — 14.  v\3>b]  Graetz  con- 
jectures i^Gesch.  der  Juden,  I.  p.  164)  that  we  should  read  vj2"",  as  the  servants 
are  spoken  of  in  the  next  verse.  There  is,  however,  no  external  evidence  for  the 
reading.  — 16.  Dsmn^i]  koX  to,  ^ovKdXia  v/j.Qv  (5,  pointing  to  ODnpa',  which 
is  undoubtedly  original.  The  correction  was  made  by  Cappellus  (Critica 
Sacra,  p.  247). —  inDN'?DS  nr>'i]  the  only  parallels  are  Lev.  y'^*  Ez.  15^  We 
should  expect  inasSna  niB'j;S,  cf.  i  K.  5^°  9'^^.  The  unusual  construction  led  a 
scribe  to  substitute  nir'j-'i,  which  was  read  by  i3.  —  17.  JKS  is  small  cattle  in  dis- 
tinction from  neat  cattle  (ip3).  — 18.  (S  adds  at  the  end  of  the  verse  :  Because 
you  chose  a  king  for  yourselves.     This  is  at  least  correct  interpretation. 

19-22.  The  expostulation  was  fruitless  :  The  people  refused  to 
Us  ten  to  the  voice  of  Samuel  and  said :  No  /  But  a  king  shall  be 
over  US']  this  obstinacy  is  parallel  to  their  treatment  of  Moses.  — 
20.  The  reason  here  assigned  for  their  desire  is  the  example  of 
foreign  nations.  Our  king  shall  judge  us]  possibly  in  the  sense 
of  vindicating  them,  or  of  delivering  them  from  their  enemies. 
But  as  the  account  begins  with  the  miscarriage  of  civil  justice,  the. 
author  may  have  this  still  in  mind.  The  administration  of  justice 
was  always  a  prominent  function  of  the  king.  Fighting  his  peo- 
ple's battles  was  also  his  work.  This  author  seems  to  forget  that 
Samuel  had  secured  them  peace.  —  21,  22*.  When  the  report  of 
the  people's  continued  demand  is  brought  to  Yahweh,  he  con- 
sents to  gratify  them  :  Hearken  to  their  voice  and  make  a  king 
rule  over  them. — 22''.  The  half  verse  is  a  later  insertion.  The 
original  account  joined  lo^'  directly  to  8^^*.     The  compiler  was 


VIIT.  iS-TX.  2  59 

obliged  to  dismiss  the  people  to  their  homes,  in  order  to  insert 
the  following  incident  taken  from  another  source. 

19.  On  the  Dagesh  in  n*?  cf.  Ges.-*',  §  20 g,  and  Baer's  dissertation  De  pri- 
marum  vocabulortim  literarum  dagessatione  prefixed  to  Liber  Proverbiorum, 
ed.  Baer  et  Delitzsch  (1880).  Some  MSS.  have  iS  in  the  text,  while  (5  seems 
to  have  read  n*?  1^.  — 20.  Uioati'i]  on  the  force  of  the  verb  cf.  Moore's  note  on 
Jd.  3^°.  —  irncn'??:]  is  given  by  Ginsburg.  Many  editions  and  MSS.  have 
unnnVr:.  For  the  phrase  go  out  before  iis  cf.  Jd.  4'*.  —  22.  no'roni]  is  the 
perfect  with  waw  consecutive  continuing  the  imperative.  The  second  half 
of  this  verse,  in  which  Samuel  dismisses  the  people  to  their  homes,  is 
inserted  to  allow  the  inclusion  of  the  following  account  in  the  narrative.  The 
document  we  have  just  read  originally  made  Samuel  at  once  call  an  assembly 
at  Mizpah,  where  a  king  is  chosen  by  lot.  This  is  recognized  by  most  recent 
scholars. 

IX.  1-X.  16.  The  adventure  of  Saul.  —  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish, 
is  sent  by  his  father  to  seek  the  asses  which  have  strayed.  He 
does  not  find  them,  but  comes  into  contact  with  Samuel,  who 
anoints  him  (secretly)  as  king  over  Israel. 

After  what  has  been  said  in  the  Introduction,  it  is  needless  to 
point  out  that  we  have  here  the  beginning  of  a  separate  docu- 
ment, —  a  life  of  Saul,  —  which  differs  in  all  respects  from  the 
one  we  have  just  been  considering.  It  is  the  earliest  and  most 
reliable  of  the  sources  which  relate  the  origin  of  the  monarchy 
in  Israel. 

1-4.   Introduction  of  Saul,  and  occasion  of  the  journey. — 

There  was  a  man  of  Gibeah  of  Benjamin]  so  we  should  probably 
read.  The  place  should  be  mentioned  at  the  outset.  Kish  is 
described  as  a  man  of  some  position  in  the  community :  a  mighty 
man  of  valour  is  more  than  the  Hebrew  intends  to  say.  —  2.  He 
had  a  son  named  Saul  in  the  prime  of  life  and  goodly]  the  words 
do  not  imply  that  he  was  in  his  adolescence  ;  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  his  position  in  the  household,  it  does  not  imply  im- 
maturity. So  long  as  his  father  lived  he  would  be  under  his 
authority,  and  there  is  no  necessary  contradiction  between  the 
language  used  here  and  the  later  account,  according  to  which 
Saul  had  a  son  already  grown.  The  name  of  Saul  is  probably 
abbreviated  from  a  longer  form  meaning  Asked-of-God.  The 
clause  at  the  end  of  this  verse  is  probably  a  late  insertion.  — 


f)0  ^  SAMUEL 

3.  The  asses  belonging  to  Kish  have  strayed,  and  Saul  is  sent 
with  one  of  the  servants  to  seek  them.  —  4.  Correcting  the  num- 
ber of  the  verbs  by  the  versions,  we  get :  They  passed  through  Mi. 
Ephraim  and  crossed  into  the  land  of  Shalisha  and  did  not  find 
them,  and  they  crossed  into  the  land  of  Shaalim  and  they  were  not 
there,  and  they  crossed  into  the  land  of  Benjamin  and  did  not 
find  theni]  the  districts  of  Shalisha  and  Shaalim  are  not  identified. 

1.  pni'pa]  the  fact  that  he  was  a  Benjamite  is  related  again  at  the  end 
of  the  verse,  and  We.'s  conjecture  that  we  should  read  ps^j3  n>'3JD  is  plau- 
sible. —  T21  C'^N"[3]  is  not  without  analogy,  at  least  ^jis''  C'>n  is  found  2  S. 
20^  Est.  2^.  But  it  is  unusual  to  terminate  a  genealogy  by  saying  son  of  a 
Benjamite.  It  is  probable  that  p  is  the  error  of  a  scribe  who  expected  to 
continue  the  genealogy.  —  S>n  iiaj]  the  phrase  seems  to  mean  no  more  than 
a  man  zuell  to  do ;  cf.  BDB.,  s.v.  "r^n.  —  2.  'Ui  i^Jw'c]  the  clause  recurs  in 
lo^s,  where  it  is  entirely  appropriate  (at  Saul's  first  appearance  in  public). 
Here  it  seems  to  have  come  in  from  there  by  a  late  hand  (Bu.).  —  3.  nu.-iNn] 
the  she-asses  seem  to  have  been  especially  prized,  Job  i^.  —  U'^iS]  cf.  Dav., 
Syntax,  §  28,  R.  5.  —  Nj]  after  the  imperative  softens  the  command.  — 
nnNTiN]  is  unusual,  perhaps  a  scribal  error;  but  a  precisely  similar  instance  is 
found  Num.  16'''.  nnx  is  pointed  in  both  cases  as  a  construct  and  might  be 
regarded  as  made  definite  by  this  relation,  Konig,  Syntax,  §  288  f.;  cf.  also 
Dav.,  Syntax,  72,  R.  4.  —  anj;:  is  used  of  servants  not  infrequently.  At  the 
end  of  this  verse  O^S  add :  and  Saul  arose  and  took  one  of  the  servants  of  his 
father  and  xvent  to  seek  the  asses  of  Kish  his  father  —  one  of  the  rather  numer- 
ous instances  of  agreement  of  (B^  with  S. — 4.  The  verbs  which  are  partly 
singular  and  partly  plural  in  f§  should  be  all  plural  as  in  (S.  For  Shalisha  and 
Shaalim  the  versions  give  a  confusing  variety  of  equivalents,  but  none  which 
help  us  to  a  better  text.  A  Baal  Shalisha  is  mentioned  in  the  region  of  Sama- 
ria 2  K.  4*2_  Shaalim  has  been  conjectured  to  be  an  error  for  Shaalabim 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Beth  Shemesh,  Jd.  I^  I  K.  4^.  It  seems  easier 
to  combine  with  the  Si'W  yiN'  of  13I''. 

5.  The  verse  indicates  that  they  had  planned  further  search 
when  Saul  suddenly  proposes  to  abandon  the  effort :  They  had 
come  into  the  land  of  Zuph']  a  part  of  Benjamin  —  7vhen  Saul  said 
.  .  .  :  Let  us  return,  lest  my  father  cease  thinking  of  the  asses  and 
be  atixious  about  US']  the  verb  means  to  have  fears,  Jer.  1 7*  38^' 
42^*^  Is.  57".  —  6.  The  servant  has  a  different  idea:  There  is  a 
man  of  God  in  this  city ;  and  the  man  is  honoured,  all  that  he 
says  surely  comes  true]  the  title  man  of  God  is  frequent  in  the 
account  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.     The  commendation  of  the  seer  is 


IX.  3-IO  6 1 

to  induce  Saul  to  apply  to  him  for  an  indication  :  Perchance  he 
may  tell  us  the  way  on  which  we  came  out^  the  journey  is  not  yet 
complete,  and  we  may  yet  be  rightly  directed.  What  they  want 
is  guidance  in  order  to  complete  the  mission  on  which  they  have 
started.  —  7.  Saul  objects  that  to  approach  a  great  man  a  present 
is  necessary,  and  this  is  not  at  hand  :  And  suppose  we  go,  what 
shall  we  bring  the  man  ?  The  question  is  raised  which  confronts 
them  if  they  agree  to  carry  out  the  plan  of  the  servant.  The 
bread  is  gone  from  our  sacks'\  this  would  suffice  if  there  were  any, 
cf.  lo*.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  obscure.  —  8.  The  servant 
relieves  the  difficulty.  He  has  a  quarter  of  a  shekel  of  money\  a 
small  coin  containing  about  sixty  grains  of  silver,  but  proportion- 
ately much  more  valuable  then  than  now.  And  thou  shall  give  it 
to  the  jnan  of  God'\  a  slight  change  of  the  text  is  necessary,  as 
Saul  must  be  the  giver. — 9.  The  verse  tells  us  that  the  prophet 
of  to-day  was  formerly  called  a  seer.  It  interrupts  the  connexion 
here,  however,  and  seems  to  be  a  marginal  note  which  has  crept 
into  the  text.  — 10.  The  objection  being  met,  Saul  consents : 
And  they  went  to  city  whei'e  the  mati  of  God  mas']  the  city  is 
intended  by  the  editor  to  be  Ramah.  The  original  account,  how- 
ever, may  have  named  another  place. 

5.  lis]  cf.  I^  2C  connects  it  fancifully  with  hds  and  translates :  the  land 
in  which  was  the  prophet.  —  6.  Nrnjn]  cf.  Gen.  la^i  i  K.  221^;  the  phrase 
invites  favourable  consideration  of  the  proposition  which  follows.  —  For  the 
imperfects  of  repeated  experience  cf.  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  44  a,  Dr.,  Tenses  ^,  §  33  a. 
—  7.  n:m]  the  case  at  first  sight  seems  to  be  one  where  we  should  expect 
jn  if.  But  cf.  BDB.  sub  voce.  —  nnitrn]  occurs  only  here;  the  versions  are 
at  a  loss,  and  the  word  is  possibly  corrupt.  Cappellus  (^Notae  Criticae, 
p.  435)  supposes  @  to  have  read  nivscr.  We  expect  atid  we  have  nothing  elst 
to  bring.  But  this  cannot  be  got  out  of  the  text.  —  uns  hd]  also  is  abrupt 
and  awkward  (some  Hebrew  editions  have  nci).  I  therefore  suspect  corrup- 
tion too  deep-seated  to  be  healed.  —  8.  \-ipji]  <@  seems  to  have  read  nnj), 
but  it  is  better  to  correct  to  innji  (Kl.),  which  will  more  readily  account  for 
the  corruption.  —  9.  In  v.^  Samuel  has  been  called  DTiSs  ciK,  on  which  see 
the  note  to  2^^.  The  verse  now  before  us  calls  him  a  Seer  (hni),  a  word  used 
twice  by  Isaiah  (28^  30^").  elsewhere  only  in  this  passage  and  in  Chronicles 
(i  Chr.  922  2628  2929^  dependent  on  the  account  before  us,  and  2  Chr.  \G'^'^ 
where  it  is  applied  to  Hanani).  The  rarity  of  the  word  led  a  scribe  to  insert 
this  verse  as  an  explanation,  which,  however,  has  fallen  into  the  wrong  place; 
it  belongs  after  v.^^.    The  conception  of  the  prophet  (ni3j)  which  it  betrays 


62  I  SAMUEL 

is  that  of  a  clairvoyant  to  whom  one  may  come  for  the  discovery  of  lost  arti- 
cles. On  the  bearing  of  the  gloss  on  questions  of  criticism  cf.  Briggs,  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch-,  p.  150.  —  D'jt;'^]  occurs  Dt.  21°.  —  N"»i"''']  the 
tense  indicates  what  was  customary  in  the  past. 

11.  As  they  were  going  tip  the  ascent  of  the  city\  cf,  2  S.  15''", 
they  met  maidens  coming  out  to  draw  water'\  the  usual  duty  of  the 
young  women  of  the  village,  as  we  see  from  the  case  of  Rebecca 
Gen.  24^^*^^  One  well  or  spring  supplied  the  whole  village.  — 
12.  To  the  inquiry  of  Saul  whether  the  Seer  is  here,  they  answer : 
He  is  !  Behold  he  is  before  you.  Just  Jiow  he  came  to  the  city. 
The  rest  of  the  verse  explains  the  situation  more  distinctly :  For 
the  people  have  a  sacrifice  today  on  the  Bamah'\  at  this  period  of 
Israel's  history  each  town  had  its  sanctuary  on  a  hill  in  the  vicin- 
ity. Hence  the  name  high-place.  This  one  had  a  building  for 
:he  accommodation  of  the  worshippers.  — 13.  As  soon  as  you 
come  to  the  city  you  shall  find  him,  before  he  goes  up  to  the  Bamah 
to  eat^  the  sacrifice  is  a  feast — "the  essential  rite  was  eating  the 
flesh  of  the  victim  at  a  feast  in  which  the  god  of  the  clan  shared 
by  receiving  the  blood  and  fat  pieces  "  (BDB).  The  importance 
of  Samuel  is  such  that  the  people  will  not  eat  until  he  cones,  for  he 
is  to  bless  the  sacrifice']  it  should  be  noted,  however,  that  blessing 
the  sacrifice  is  not  a  priestly  function,  and  there  is  no  ritual  neces- 
sity for  Samuel's  presence.  — 14.  The  two  strangers  follow  the 
advice ;  but  as  they  come  into  the  city  gate  Samuel  comes  out 
towards  them  on  his  way  to  the  Bamah.  — 15.  The  verse  is  a 
digression,  showing  how  SaiTiuel  had  been  prepared  for  the  inter- 
view :  Yahweh  had  told  Samuel]  lit.,  had  uncovered  his  ear,  cf. 
2o^^-  22^-^'  2  S.  7^.  — 16.  About  this  time  to-morrow]  Ex.  9^*  (J) 
I  K.  19'  20*'.  Thou  shall  anoint  him  prince  over  my  people  Israel] 
the  word  translated  prince  (TJ:)  is  not  used  in  Hexateuch  or. 
Judges,  but  is  found  several  times  in  Samuel  and  Kings,  i  S.  10^ 
13"  25^  2  S.  5^  6^^  7*  I  K.  i^,  etc.  It  is  also  found  in  Chronicles, 
which  is  probably  influenced  by  the  earlier  books,  and  in  some 
other  late  passages.  The  passages  in  Samuel  seem  to  belong  to 
the  same  stream  of  narrative,  except  2  S.  7*.  Ajid  he  shall  save 
my  people  from  the  hand  of  the  Philistines]  the  sentence  is  a 
direct  contradiction  of  7^^"^.  For  I  have  seen  the  affliction  of  my 
people]  the  text  of  (§.      The  evident  view  of  the  author  is  that 


IX.     ll-2t  63 

the  king  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  not  that  there  is  sin  in  asking 
such  a  gift :  J^or  their  cry  is  come  to  ///<?]  Ex.  3''.  We  may  note 
that  anointing  is  a  rite  of  consecration  for  things,  as  Jacob's  mag- 
gebah,  Gen.  31''^  (E),  the  Tabernacle,  Ex.  40^  (P),  as  well  as  per- 
sons, I  K.  19^**  (prophets).  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the 
significance  any  different  in  the  case  of  kings.  — 17.  When  Sam- 
uel saw  Saul  Yahweh  answered  hini]  that  is,  the  question  raised  in 
his  mind  :  Behold  the  man  of  whom  I  said  to  thee :  He  shall  rule 
over  my  people.  — 18,  19.  Saul  questions  Samuel :  Where  is  the 
house  of  the  Seer?  Samuel  replies  to  the  intent  of  the  question 
rather  than  its  form  :  /  am  the  Seer :  go  before  me  to  the  Bamah'\ 
he  politely  gives  Saul  precedence.  In  the  morning  I  zvill  dismiss 
thee']  the  guest  goes  away  with  the  permission  of  his  host.  All 
that  is  in  thine  heart]  implies  that  Saul  had  more  questions  to 
ask  than  those  about  the  asses ;  moreover,  this  one  is  answered  at 
once,  without  waiting  for  the  morrow.  —  20.  Saul's  mind  is  set  at 
rest  concerning  the  asses  that  strayed  now  three  days  ago]  and 
more  important  matters  are  hinted  at :  To  whom  belong  the  de- 
sirable things  of  Israel?  Is  it  not  to  thee  and  to  thy  father'' s  house? 
The  meaning  cannot  be  called  certain.  But  it  does  not  seem  out 
of  place  that  Saul's  ambition  should  be  raised  to  the  office  within 
his  reach.  —  21.  Saul's  answer  shows  becoming  modesty:  Ami 
not  a  Benfamite,  of  the  least  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  is  not  my 
clan  the  least  of  all  the  clans  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  ?  The  asser- 
tion (put  in  the  form  of  a  question)  must  not  be  taken  too  hte- 
rally.  Saul's  father,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  a  man  of  stand- 
ing in  the  community. 

11.  oiS;?  nnn]  the  circumstantial  clause,  Dav.,  Syntax  §  141.  In  some 
cases  the  clause  is  followed  by  njm,  which  is  read  by  (5^  "here.  —  nra]  in 
this  place  as  Ex.  24I*  (E).  — 12.  nnc  i^oo'^]  why  they  should  hasten  is  not 
clear.  As  pointed  out  by  Lagarde  (^Anm.  ztir  Griechischen  Uebersetz  d.  Pro- 
verbien,  p.  iii)  @  read  U2^ish,  which  he  supposed  to  imply  that  ina  was  made 
up  of  the  final  letter  of  a3"'JsS  and  the  first  two  of  ns-in.  This  last  word,  how- 
ever, is  not  represented  in  @,  and  it  seems  better  to  read  Nin  ddijd^  (Bu.). — 
Dvn^j]  better  orn;,  with  @  (We.)  cf.  Gen.  25^1  i  Sam.  2^^.  — 13.  p-iins] 
some  MSS.  and  edd.  prefix  1.  —  orna]  the  form  we  have  restored  above.  On 
the  repetition  of  the  accusative  cf.  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  197.  6.  Of  the  examples 
cited,  2  K.  927  seems  the  only  exact  parallel.  —  14.  nsi  .  .  .  D'Nj]  the  partici- 
ples indicate  the  flow  of  events  —  they  were  just  coming  into  the  city  gate 


64  »  SAMUEL 

when  Samuel  met  them.  -\>>n  iina  was  conjecturally  emended  to  ipttri  "jma 
by  Th.,  and  the  emendation  is  adopted  by  most  moderns,  being  confirmed  by 
v.^*.  The  received  text  makes  no  difficulty,  as  the  village  was  probably  small 
and  compact  and  the  two  men  would  soon  reach  the  centre  of  it.  But  as  it  is 
necessary  to  read  alike  in  the  two  verses  it  seems  better  to  restore  lyu-n  here 
than  iv^  in  v.^*  (K.k).  — 15.  nVj]  with  pluperfect  force.  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  76, 
Obs.;  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  39  c.  — 16.  ^D>-nN  \niN-i]  ©Spread  ■•cj?  ij;-rN  \-i>ni, 
which  is  evidently  original,  cf.  Ex.  3"  (E)  2  K.  14^6.  On  the  meaning  of  the 
verb  T\V2  cf. an  article  by  Meinel,  ZATIV.  XVIII. p.  i  ff.  — 17.  ■'.■^t:x  t.:'n]  con- 
cerning whom  I  said ;  a  similar  expression  in  v.^^  Gen.  3^"  Jd.  7*. — ii>']  the 
verb  nowhere  else  has  the  meaning  io  rule.  It  means  to  shut  up  (the  heav- 
ens) Dt.  11^",  io  restrain  (an  animal)  2  K.  ^*,to  check  (one's  words)  Job  4^. 
But  such  a  meaning  seems  inappropriate  here,  and  we  must  suspect  the  text. 
Kl.  proposes  -\'i'^  on  the  ground  of  (Sp^et  (5^^  _.  Kurdp^ei  (S^,  cf.  Jd.  9^^  Is. 
32^  — 18.  SNiSiypN]  the  verb  is  generally  found  with  ^a,  —  unless  Num.  4^^ 
be  an  exception,  —  and  this  preposition  should  probably  be  restored  here.  — 
ni-iN]  seems  to  imply  that  the  object  sought  is  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  cf. 
I  K.  13I-.  —  19.  (&  has  /am  he  instead  of  /  am  the  Seer.  —  an^rsij  the  pre- 
ceding verb  is  in  the  singular,  addressed  to  Saul  alone,  so  that  we  should 
restore  n'r'jsi  here.  —  20.  a^s^n]  We.  and  Bu.  omit  the  article.  But  as  the 
prophet  has  in  mind  the  particular  three  days  which  have  just  elapsed,  the 
article  seems  in  place.  Cf.  Lev.  25^1 :  it  shall  produce  a  crop  sufficient  for  the 
three  years  —  cjrn  Z'^-Z'^  —  where  we  must  understand  the  three  years  you 
have  in  mind,  for  they  have  not  been  described.  —  20.  ^2]  is  omitted  both 
times  by  (5.  —  rirn]  the  two  possible  translations  are  represented  in  the  desire 
of  Israel  (AV.)  and  [all]  that  is  desirable  in  Israel  (RV.).  The  latter  is 
favoured  by  ©  and  adopted  by  Kl.,  Dr.,  Ki.,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Hag.  2^, 
where,  however,  we  should  read  a  plural  (and  so  possibly  here).  —  21.  ^japc] 
occasional  instances  occur  of  an  ancient  construct  ending  in  1  (Jd.  20^'^  cited 
by  We.) ;  such  a  form  may  be  represented  in  the  second  ^!33tt'  (instead  of 
B3!f).  "The  construction  with  p  is  sometimes  virtually  a  superlative." 
Dav.,  Syntax,  §  34,  R.  4. 

22-25.  Saul  is  Samuel's  guest. — The  room  into  which  they 
are  brought  is  apparently  a  hall  built  for  the  express  use  of  wor- 
shippers at  the  Bamah,  in  their  sacrificial  feasts.  Saul  and  his 
servant  are  given  the  place  of  honour  at  the  head  of  the  guests. 
The  simplicity  of  manners  is  indicated  by  the  equal  treatment 
of  Saul  and  his  servant.  There  were  present  about  thirty  men, 
probably  the  heads  of  families  or  the  freemen  of  the  village. — 
23.  Saul's  coming  had  been  anticipated,  as  we  see  by  Samuel's 
command  to  the  cook  :  BriJig  the  portion  which  I  gave  to  thee, 
concerning  which  I  said  to  thee  ■•  Set  it  by  thee']  in  Arabia  also  it 


IX.    22-25  65 

was  customary  to  set  aside  a  choice  portion  for  an  honoured 
guest.*  —  24.  In  obedience  to  the  command  the  cook  lifted  the 
leg  and  the  rump\  the  choice  part  of  the  sacrifice,  and  the  one 
still  regarded  as  the  portion  of  honour  by  the  fellahin.  The  rest 
of  the  verse  is  obscure  and  apparently  corrupt.  It  says :  Behold 
what  is  left']  but  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  guests  had  not  begun 
the  meal  until  Samuel  appeared.  And  the  clause  :  For  it  was  kept 
for  thee  to  the  time  appointed,  saying,  the  people  I  have  called'] 
is  nonsense.  With  due  reserve  I  propose  below  an  emendation 
which  gives  the  sense  :  Behold,  the  meal  is  served  /  Eat  /  For  to 
the  appointed  time  we  have  waited  for  thee  to  eat  with  the  guests] 
if  this,  or  something  Hke  it,  were  the  original  reading,  we  see  that 
Samuel  had  directed  the  villagers  to  wait  for  his  coming,  which 
was  of  course  politeness  to  his  guest.  —  25.  After  the  feast,  they 
came  from  the  Bamah  to  the  city,  and  they  spread  a  bed  for  Saul 
on  the  roof,  and  he  lay  down]  the  text  of  the  last  clause  "^  is  here 
also  unintelligible  (in  this  context),  and  must  be  corrected  by  (§. 
For  sleeping  on  the  roof,  we  have  abundant  examples  in  modem 
Oriental  hfe,  though  no  other  Old  Testament  example  has  come 
under  my  observation.  The  verse-division  should  include  the  first 
word  of  the  following  verse  with  this. 

22.  nnas''?]  the  n3rS  is  a  chamber  in  a  palace,  Jer.  36^'^,  or  in  the  temple, 
Jer.  35^'*;  one  was  also  in  use  at  Shiloh  according  to  i  Sam.  I^^  @. — 
0'>Nnpn]  those  invited,  the  guests.  —  D'urSu'D]  ixrel  (^BofiT^Kovra  @.  The  larger 
number  is  the  less  likely  to  be  original.  —  23.  n3E3^]  cf.  S^^.  —  njcn]  i*. — 
■'niDN  ib'n]  as  in  v.^'.  —  24.  n'Sj?n]  the  intention  is  to  read  the  preposition 
^hy  with  the  article  and  pronominal  suffix.  No  other  instance  of  such  a  con- 
struction has  been  pointed  out  (Dr.,  Azotes)  ;  and  if  the  construction  were  allow- 
able, it  would  not  be  appropriate  here,  for  pirn  is,  of  course,  the  leg  with 
the  Jlesh  upon  it.  The  slight  change  into  niSsn  seems  first  to  have  been 
proposed  by  Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  380,  and  has  everything  to  commend  it. 
The  reading  is  apparently  suspected  by  the  Talmud,  for  the  Gemara  asks 
(Aboda  Zara,  25")  :  What  was  it  that  was  upon  the  leg?  to  which  Rabbi 
Johanan  answers,  it  zvas  the  leg  and  the  rump.  Other  passages  from  Talmud 
and  Midrash  are  cited  by  Dr.  The  parallel  in  the  custom  of  the  fellahin  of 
to-day  is  noticed  by  Nestle,  Marginalien  und  Materalien,  p.  13.  If  n>S!<n 
was  the  original  reading,  as  accepted  by  We.,  Bu.,  Dr.,  Brown  (Lexicon),  we 
can  see  a  reason  for  the  mutilation  of  the  word,  for  the  h^Sn  was  to  be  burned 

*  Wellh.,  Skizzen,  III.  p.  114. 


66  1  SAMUEL 

upon  the  altar.  The  editors  supposed  it  impossible  for  Samuel  to  be  ignorant 
of  this  "  Mosaic  "  ordinance.  Kl.  proposes  n^Son,  which  seems  to  have  no 
superiority  to  the  reading  just  considered.  The  difficulty  of  the  rest  of  the 
verse  is  admitted.  The  people  do  not  ordinarily  eat  until  Samuel  comes,  much 
less  would  they  proceed  without  him  when  he  had  made  preparations  for  a 
guest;  iNw'jn  therefore  cannot  be  right.  —  \nNip  D>n  -i?:nS]  seems  absolutely 
unintelligible  in  the  context.  For  ^nNnp  .  .  .  -ivia*?  >:i  <S  gives  Srt  els  fiaprvpiov 
T^deirai  (xoi  wapa  roiis  dWovs  •  a.7r6Kiv^€  ((S"-  has  irapaT^OeiKd  aoi  irapa  toO 
XooO).  This  is  better  than  |^,  but,  as  pointed  out  by  Dr.,  y\p,  which  we 
should  assume  as  the  original  of  a-rroKvl^e  (so  Ew.  and  We.),  is  not  used  in 
biblical  Hebrew  in  the  sense  of  taking  food;  and  after  Saul  has  been  exhorted 
to  eat,  it  is  superfluous  to  add  /a//  to.  The  conjectures  of  the  commentators 
scarcely  call  for  attention,  except  that  of  Bu.,  who  restores  at  the  end  iS  ncB' 
D-'Nipn  oy  VdnV.  More  radical  treatment  seems  to  be  necessary.  What  we 
expect  is  a  polite  invitation  to  Saul  as  the  guest  of  honour  to  begin  the  meal, 
because  the  guests  were  waiting  his  lead.  First,  then,  it  seems  necessary  to 
read  -\v.Z't\  for  nNrjn,  nsi:'  being  flesh  prepared  for  the  table,  Ex.  21^''  Ps.  78-°. 
Samuel  says :  Behold  the  meat  is  set  before  thee,  as  we  should  say,  the  meal  is 
served.  For  ^S"^lCl^'  I  would  substitute  i"?  mnx,  we  have  waited  for  thee,  in 
which  case  n>'ia  would  be  the  time  to  which  Samuel  and  the  other  guests  had 
agreed  to  wait  for  the  expected  stranger.  —  pn  oj?  SsnS  I  adopt  from  Bu.  in 
place  of  the  useless  \-iNip  ojjn  noxS.  —  25.  inatyM  :jjn~*?;?  '?iNB'"Dy  nai^i]  Is 
evidently  out  of  joint,  for  they  certainly  did  not  rise  in  the  morning  until  after 
Samuel  called  Saul,  which  follows;  Kal  SiicTptaffav  ti^  Saoi)X  iifi  T<j3  du/jMri. 
Kal  iKoip.ijdy]  @  evidently  represents  asti'M  Jjn  S;?  SiNtt''?  nonM.  The  text  is 
corrected  accordingly  by  recent  expositors  from  Schleusner  down.  Keil  alone 
hardens  his  heart. 

IX.  26-X.  8.  Saul  is  anointed  by  Samuel.  —  He  also  receives 
signs  confirmatory  of  the  prophetic  commission,  and  is  encour- 
aged, after  the  signs  shall  have  been  fulfilled,  to  act  according  to 
his  own  judgment.  At  the  rising  of  the  dawn  Samuel  called  to 
Saul  on  the  roof'\  for  the  time  of  day  cf.  Gen.  19^^  32^  ^  Jos.  6^'. 
The  original  text  seems  to  have  added  only  :  a7id  they  went  out 
into  the  street'^  all  three  together,  as  is  evident  from  the  next 
verse.  —  27.  They  were  going  down  in  the  edge  of  the  city  when 
Satnuel  said'\  the  construction  is  similar  to  v.".  Say  to  the  lad 
that  he  pass  on"]  the  addition  of  ^  :  and  he  passed  on  breaks  the 
connexion,  and  must  be  exscinded.  But  thou  stand  here  that  I 
may  tell  thee  the  word  of  God^  which  for  the  present  concerns 
Saul  alone.  —  X.  1.  The  vial  of  oil  is  described  by  the  same  word 
which  is  used  in  the  description  of  another  prophet's  anointing  of 


IX.  26-X.  3  6"] 

a  king,  2  K.  9'  \  And  poured  it  upon  his  head]  the  act  of  anoint- 
ing could  not  be  more  clearly  described.  Ajid  kissed  him'\  an  evi- 
dence of  personal  affection,  for  kissing  is  nowhere  an  act  express- 
ive of  fealty  to  a  king;  the  kissing  of  an  idol  i  K.  19'*  Hos.  \y 
can  hardly  be  called  parallel.  A  part  of  Samuel's  words  have  tallen 
out  of  |l^,  and  the  whole  must  be  restored  as  follows  :  Has  not 
Yahweh  anointed  thee  as  prince  over  his  people  Israel?  And  thou 
shalt  reign  over  the  people  of  Yahweh  and  shall  save  them  frojn  the 
hand  of  their  enemies  round  about.  And  this  shall  be  the  sign 
that  Yahweh  has  anoi?ited  thee  over  his  heritage  as  prince'\  it  is 
possible  that  theological  prejudice  has  had  something  to  do  with 
the  mutilation  of  the  text,  for,  to  the  later  view,  Saul  did  not  act- 
ually save  Israel  from  their  enemies.  —  2.  As  Saul  has  no  reason 
for  delaying  longer,  we  may  suppose  that  the  signs  which  follow 
occur  on  the  road  from  Ramah  to  Gibeah  (Saul's  home).  Unfor- 
tunately we  are  not  able  to  identify  either  Ramah  or  the  otht  r 
points  mentioned,  except  Bethel.  When  thou  goestfrom  me  to-dav 
thou  shalt  meet  tivo  men  at  the  tomb  of  Rachel  in  the  boundary  of 
Benjamin']  the  boundary  here  mentioned  must  be  the  boundary 
between  Ephraim  and  Benjamin,  for  the  district  of  Zuph  was  in 
Ephraim.  It  is  impossible  therefore  to  identify  the  Tomb  of 
Rachel  here  mentioned  with  the  traditional  site  south  of  Jeru- 
salem. As  Jeremiah  hears  Rachel  weeping  for  her  children  in 
Ramah  (31^^),  and  as  her  children  are  Joseph  and  Benjamin,  we 
naturally  suppose  her  tomb  located  in  the  boundary  of  their 
respective  territories.  To  make  Samuel's  home  in  Judah  in  order 
to  bring  Saul  home  by  the  traditional  Tomb  is  to  violate  all  the 
probabiHties.  The  next  word  is  unintelligible.  The  men  would 
tell  him  :  Thy  father  has  dismissed  the  matter  of  the  asses  and  is 
anxious  for  you,  saying :  What  shall  I  do  for  my  son  .?]  the  state 
of  things  anticipated  by  Saul,  9^.  —  3.  The  second  sign :  Thou 
shalt  pass  on  thence  and  co77ie  to  the  Oak  of  Tabor]  supposed  by 
some  to  be  identical  with  the  tree  of  Deborah,  between  Ramah 
and  Bethel,  Jd.  4'.  This  can  hardly  be  called  probable.  The 
grave  of  Deborah  (Rebecca's  nurse)  is  also  put  in  this  region  by 
Gen.  35**  and  associated  with  it  is  an  oak  —  the  Oak  of  Weeping. 
In  the  number  of  sacred  trees  which  once  abounded  in  the 
country,  there  is  no  need  to  merge  these  three  into  one.     The 


68  I  SAMUEL 

three  men  he  should  meet  going  up  to  God  at  Bethel,  the  ancient 
sanctuary,  would  have  their  offerings  with  them  :  otie  carrying 
three  kids,  one  carrying  three  baskets  of  bread  ~\  the  reading  is  con- 
jectural, based  on  the  paucity  of  the  three  loaves  in  ^.  Twenty 
loaves  are  easily  carried  by  a  man,  2  K.  4^-,  and  would  be  no 
more  than  the  equivalent  of  the  skin  of  wine  borne  by  the  third 
member  of  the  party.  —  4.  The  men  should  be  so  impressed  by 
Saul's  bearing  that  they  would  salute  him  and  give  him  two  loaves, 
an  earnest  of  the  backsheesh  to  be  paid  later  to  the  king.  — 

5.  The  third  sign  :  Afterivards  thou  shalt  come  to  Gibe  ah  of  God~\ 
apparently  the  full  name  of  Saul's  home,  for  he  goes  directly  to 
his  house  after  meeting  with  the  prophets.  Where  is  the  Resident 
of  the  Philistines']  evidently  the  same  mentioned  in  13^,  though 
the  location  there  given  is  Geba.  And  it  shall  be  at  thy  coming 
thither  thou  shalt  meet  a  band  of  prophets  coming  down  from  the 
Bamah  unth  a  lyre  and  tambourine  and  flute  and  harp  before 
them  while  they  engage  in  prophesying]  it  must  be  evident  that  we 
have  here  a  company  of  dervishes  engaged  in  their  religious  exer- 
cises. The  enthusiastic  nature  of  these  exercises  is  evident  from 
the   later    narrative   and    from    the    parallel   account,    19^*"^*. — 

6.  And  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  will  rush  upon  thee]  the  same  verb 
is  used  to  describe  the  enthusiasm  which  seized  the  earlier  heroes 
of  Israel,  Jd.  14^  etc.  Afid  thou  shalt  prophesy  with  them  and  be 
turned  into  another  man]  it  is  worth  remarking  that  in  the  later 
account,  i6^^  the  Spirit  comes  as  a  result  of  the  anointing.  The 
verb  used  to  describe  the  transformation  effected  in  Saul  is  the 
same  found  in  Ex.  7^*  (E),  where  the  rod  is  changed  into  a  ser- 
pent and  Ex.  7^'-^  (E),  where  the  waters  are  turned  into  blood. 
—  7.  The  coming  to  pass  of  the  signs  will  justify  Saul  in  doing 
whatever  the  occasion  demands]  cf.  Jd.  9*^  —  for  he  will  be  sure  of 
the  divine  help.  —  8.  The  verse  is  an  evident  interpolation  into 
the  earliest  narrative,  but  not  necessarily  late.  It  commands  Saul 
to  go  down  to  Gilgal  and  to  wait  there  seven  days  for  Samuel. 

26.  P"3U'm]  is  a  corruption  of  iyi'^\  originally  the  conclusion  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  —  Pi'^i';]  some  copies  have  ri^;"3  (Ginsb.).  —  njjn]  Qre  is 
doubtless  correct.  —  on'j;']  lacking  in  (S,  is  superfluous.  Probably  the  origi- 
nal text  was  without  explicit  subject  (Bu.  omits  Snicb'i  Nin  following  We.). 
y^n  is  whatever  i3  outside  the  house.  —  27.    "^a?')]  gives  the  purpose  of  the 


X.  3-8  69 

command.  —  layi]  is  superfluous  and  is  lacking  in  (SS.  —  ovd]  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  tell  him  to  stand  t/its  very  minute,  whereas  in  contrast  tothe/aw- 
imr  on  of  the  servant  it  would  be  natural  to  tell  him  to  stand  here.  We  should 
probably  emend  to  ai"?.-!  with  Kl.  —  X.  1.  For  kissing  the  king,  Gen.  41*" 
and  Ps.  2^'^  might  be  cited,  but  the  text  in  both  is  suspicious.  —  -|n;'D"o  «<'?n] 
the  construction  is  apparently  smooth.  But  as  in  the  next  verse  Samuel  goes 
on  to  give  the  signs  which  are  to  come  to  pass,  it  is  evident  that  something  is 
missing.  (5  inserts  after  nSh  the  sentence  given  above,  and  this  is  adopted  as 
original  by  Th.,  We.,  Kl.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.,  and  Ginsb.  (margin).  It  has  dropped 
out  by  homeoteleuton.  —  i.n^nj]  cf.  26^^  2  S.  14I8  21^  Jer.  161".  —  2.  We 
have  assumed  that  Samuel's  home  was  at  Ramah,  though  this  document  no- 
where so  aflirms.  If  the  assumption  be  correct,  Ramah  can  hardly  be  identi- 
fied with  Er-Ram,  which  is  only  three  miles  away  from  Gibeah.  GASmith 
suggests  Beit  Rima  on  the  western  edge  of  Mt.  Ephraim,  while  Ew.  (^GVI^. 
III.  p.  31,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  21)  puts  it  at  Ram  Allah,  about  ten  miles  north  of 
Jerusalem.  The  tradition  which  puis  Rachel's  tomb  near  Bethlehem  seems 
to  go  back  to  Gen.  35^^  (E)  48^  (J),  but  must  be  later  than  Jeremiah,  as 
shown  above.  The  present  text  of  Genesis  seems  to  be  interpolated  in  these 
two  passages.  —  nsSxa]  is  intended  to  contain  the  name  of  a  place  —  in 
Zelzach.  But  the  definition  is  already  precise  enough.  The  name  of  the 
place  from  which  the  men  were  coming  would  be  appropriate,  in  which  case 
from  Zelah,  the  burial  place  of  Kish  in  a  later  passage  2  S.  2\^^,  might  be 
conjectured.  (@  has  a  confused  variety  of  readings,  one  of  them  possibly 
going  back  to  D^nVs,  leapitig,  which  is  adopted  by  Ew.  in  grosser  Eile ;  an- 
other (@^)  seems  to  reproduce  anns  meridie  %.  — jxii]  should  probably  be 
pointed  as  the  participle  (Bu.).  —  3.  noVni]  the  verb  is  used  of  the  quick 
motion  of  the  whirlwind,  Hab.  i^i,  once  apparently  of  transgressing  the  com- 
mandment, Is.  24^.  It  does  not  seem  especially  appropriate  here,  therefore, 
and  the  text  may  not  be  sound.  —  inn  ^Vn]  the  conjecture  which  identi- 
fies this  with  the  Palm  of  Deborah  is  due  to  Ew.  {GVI.  III.  p.  31,  E.  Tr.  III. 
p.  21).  —  pii^d]  for  reasons  given  above,  the  conjecture  of  Kl.  oiVd  is  plau- 
sible and  adopted  by  Bu.,  but  iSd  seems  more  likely,  cf.  9'^. — 4.  DnS"'nt:'] 
5yo  drrapxttJ  dprwv  (3  evidently  had  mD3,  probably  a  corruption  of  an  original 
nnD3.  —  5.  Sn]  found  in  the  current  editions  is  lacking  in  almost  all  MSS. 
(De  Rossi)  and  omitted  by  Ginsb.  —  •'3xj]  we  should  read  TTi:  with  (glL. 
The  word  means  (i)  an  officer  or  prefect ;  (2)  a  garrison  of  soldiers  ;  (3)  a 
pillar.  As  Jonathan  smote  the  one  in  question  it  seems  most  likely  to  have 
been  a  single  officer  stationed  by  the  Philistines  as  representative  of  their 
authority.  —  inn]  the  form  is  unexpected;  Dr.  compares  2  S.  5-*  where  also 
a  divine  message  is  given.  But  there  the  message  is  a  command  and  natu- 
rally employs  the  jussive,  which  is  inappropriate  here.  It  seems  necessary, 
therefore,  to  correct  to  n^ni.  The  verb  yjo  means  he  came  suddenly  upon 
something.  —  San]  a  string,  but,  as  we  use  band,  not  necessarily  a  company 
>n  single  file.  — '1J1  Dn^jri'^i]  the  whole  is  a  circumstantial  clause.  The  names 
of  the  musical  instruments  here  mentioned  are  translated,  as  nearly  as  may 


70  I  SAMUKL 

be,  in  the  foregoing.  An  elaborate  discussion  is  found  in  Weiss.,  Die  Musi- 
kalische  Instrumente  in  d.  Jleiligen  Schr.  des  Allen  Teslamenles,  Graz.  1895. 
—  7.  Bu.  inserts  ''d  before  nr.s  on  the  ground  of  0.  But  this  does  not 
seem  necessary.  —  8.  That  the  verse  does  not  belong  to  the  original  narrative 
should  be  evident.  It  flatly  contradicts  the  preceding  command  to  Saul,  to 
act  according  to  his  own  judgment  and  the  leadings  of  Providence.  It  ev.. 
dently  prepares  for  the  paragraph  i-^'^^  which  also  is  an  interruption  to  the 
flow  of  the  narrative.  The  interpolation  is  recognized  as  such  by  We.  (  Comp. 
245,  248),  Stade  {GVI.  I.  p.  211),  Co.,  Bu.  I  have  given  reasons  in  the 
introduction  for  thinking  the  insertion  not  so  late  as  is  generally  supposed. — 
Seven  days  shall  thou  wait .  .  .  then  I  will  tell  thee'\  on  the  construction  cf. 
Moore,  Judges,  p.  350. 

9-16.  The  return  of  Saul.  —  The  author  condenses  his  account, 
dwelUng  only  on  the  third  of  the  three  expected  signs.  Possibly 
the  narrative  was  once  fuller.  He  now  says  that  as  Saul  turned 
to  go  from  Samuel  God  gave  him  another  understanding\  the 
words  do  not  seem  inappropriate  here,  though  they  do  not  ex- 
actly correspond  to  the  place  of  Saul's  '  conversion  '  in  the  pre- 
diction, v.'".  It  is  psychologically  quite  comprehensible  that  the 
impulse  should  anticipate  the  predicted  order  of  events.  — 10.  He 
came  thence  to  Gibeah']  seems  to  be  the  correct  reading.  The 
rest  of  the  verse  is  sufficiently  clear  from  v.^.  —  Atid  he  played  the 
prophet  in  the  midst  of  theni]  the  verb  is  apparently  denominative. 
— 11.  The  result  in  the  minds  of  the  people  is:  that  every  one 
7vho  knew  him  in  times  past  and  saw  him  raving  with  the  proph- 
ets said  each  to  his  fellow :  What  now  has  come  npon  the  son  of 
Kish  ?  The  Hebrew  sentence  is  awkward,  and  perhaps  should 
be  emended,  but  the  general  sense  is  clear.  The  question  is 
repeated  in  anotlier  form  :  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets']  the 
implication  is  that  his  former  life  had  been  of  a  very  different 
kind  from  theirs.  — 12.  The  first  clause  is  perfectly  plain  in 
meaning  in  itself  considered,  but  entirely  unintelligible  in  this 
context:  Afid  a  man  from  there  answered  and  said :  And  who  is 
their  father?  As  generally  interpreted,  the  question  is  intended 
to  say  :  the  son  of  Kish  is  as  much  to  be  expected  among  them  as 
any  one  else  ;  prophetic  inspiration  does  not  depend  up07i parentage. 
But  this  is  so  patent  a  fact  that  it  seems  needless  to  call  attention 
to  it.  The  question  what  has  happened  to  the  son  of  Kish?  does 
not  mean  that  Saul's  parentage  was  such  that  he  could  not  be 


X.  9-16  Jl 

expected  to  prophesy,  but  that  his  known  individual  character 
was  such  that  his  prophesying  was  a  surprise.  On  this  theory  the 
question  who  is  their  father  is  indeed  pia  quidem  vox  sed  quae 
ipsi  questioni  non  satisfecit  (Schm.).  Such  an  answer  could 
hardly  be  composed  by  our  author.  The  original  reading  seems 
to  be  lost.  Because  of  this  incident  a  proverb  circulated  in  the 
form  :  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?  The  Rabbinical  expos- 
itors see  in  the  question  of  v."  an  expression  of  surprise  that  the 
son  of  so  lowly  a  man  as  Kish  should  be  found  in  such  distin- 
guished company.  The  reverse  is  more  likely,  for  Kish  has  been 
described  as  a  well-to-do  man,  and  it  is  evident  from  some  pas- 
sages in  the  historical  books  that  the  prophets  did  not  stand  high 
in  the  estimation  of  the  people.  — 13.  After  a  time  Saul  ceased 
prophesying  and  went  dow7i  to  the  house']  on  the  reading  see 
the  note  below.  — 14.    Saul's  uncle  asks   about  the  journey.  — 

15,  16.  His  further  question  as  to  Samuel's  word  only  brought 
out  the  reply  :    Why/  he  told  us  that  the  asses  were  found. 

9.  n^ni]  should  be  "'n>i.  The  scribe  was  misled  by  the  preceding  series  of 
verbs  (Dr.).  —  ir^jono]  Jer.  48^^  is  the  nearest  parallel.  —  lonn]  Zeph.  3^, 
cited  by  Dr.,  protects  the  verb  here  (contra  Kl.).  —  2S]  our  word  heart  hardly 
expresses  the  idea,  which  is  that  his  mind  was  illuminated,  of.  BDB.  s.v.  — 
10.  DU'  iN3^i]  /cat  epxerai  ixeWev  (g.  As  the  servant  has  been  lost  sight  of  for 
some  time  @  seems  to  be  correct.  But  if  we  adopt  D'J'D  it  seems  clear  that 
something  has  dropped  out.  — 11.  ly^v'^D  >^^1]  the  nearest  parallel  seems  to 
be  2  S.  2^^  where  we  have  xan-^o  Mil  followed  by  ncpii  in  the  apodosis.  But 
the  point  is  here  not  that  a//  who  knew  him  saw  him,  but  that  all  who  knew 
him  and  saw  him  asked  the  question.  It  seems  better  and  more  vigorous 
therefore  to  make  icnm  begin  the  apodosis  and  omit  Dj;n  with  IL.  For  the 
construction  cf.  Nu.  21^,  where  however  the  other  tense  is  used.  —  httid]  on 
the  form  of  the  question  BDB.  s.v.  nr.  — 12.  D'i'D]  seems  to  have  been  read 
onn  by  <S.  — anox]  iraT7]p  ai/rov  <3&  I  seems  to  give  no  help.  ^T  interprets: 
and  who  is  their  master  ?  —  which  seems  as  irrelevant  as  the  ordinary  transla- 
tion.— 13.  r\r:^i^'\  As  Saul  met  the  prophets  coming  from  the  Bamah  he 
would  probably  not  go  on  thither  but  to  his  home.  We.  therefore  conjectures 
•"i^'^n.  There  he  would  meet  his  uncle  who  appears  in  the  next  verse. — 
14.   The   uncle  on  the  father's  side  would  have  almost  a  father's  claim. — 

16.  "^MH  -"jn]  the  adverbial  infinitive  strengthens  the  verb:  he  told  us,  sure ! 
The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  relegated  to  the  margin  by  Bu.  perhaps  cor- 
rectly.    It  really  adds  nothing  to  the  sense. — 'CB'  ncN  ncx]  is  lacking  in  @^. 

On  the  meaning  of  n^jj. — The  word  is  obscure  and  we  can  do  little 
more  than  note  the  bounds  of  our  ignorance.    The  word  does  not  seem  to  l)c 


^2  1  SAMUEL 

Hebrew  in  its  origin,  as  the  verb  exists  only  in  the  denominative  forms.  It  is 
however  a  good  Semitic  form,  like  n^xp  a  harvester,  n\iD  an  overseer.  As 
these  examples  show,  nouns  of  this  form  usually  describe  a  person  who  devotes 
himself  steadily  to  the  particular  action  indicated  by  the  root.  The  only  clue 
to  the  root  meaning  of  n3j  is  in  Arabic  where  it  means:  (l)  he  uttered  a  Icnv 
voice  or  sound,  (2)  he  was  elevated,  (3)  he  ivent  from  a  land  to  another  land. 
Hoffmann  (ZATJV.  HI.  p.  87)  explains  (2)  to  be  he  rose  into  view,  he  comes 
from  another  region,  where  we  cannot  see  him,  into  our  own.  He  therefore 
supposes  the  ni3J  to  be  one  zvho  rises  [is  roused]  frotn  his  sluggishness  under 
the  injluence  of  a  divine  inspiration.  This  seems  rather  forced,  however,  and 
as  the  organs  of  supernatural  communication  notoriously  chirp,  or  mutter,  or 
give  forth  a  murmuring  sound,  it  seems  most  likely  that  the  nabi  was  originally 
the  fnutterer.  Later  we  find  Saul  N3jnD  under  the  influence  of  an  evil  spirit, 
where  the  utterance  of  inarticulate  sounds  would  probably  be  one  of  the 
phenomena.  The  prophet  is  elsewhere  called  insane  —  >'J"'d  —  where  also 
the  utterance  of  incoherent  sounds  is  probably  one  of  the  symptoms,  2  K.  9^1 
Jer.  29-8.  The  account  of  the  nebiim  in  the  text  reminds  us  strongly  of  the 
priests  of  the  Syrian  goddess  described  by  Lucian.  The  '  prophets '  of  Baal, 
also,  rave  about  the  altar,  i  K.  i8"-^. 

17-27.  The  public  choice  and  anointing  of  Saul.  —  Samuel 
calls  the  people  to  Mizpah  and  by  the  sacred  lot  selects  a  king. 
The  lot  falls  upon  Saul  who  is  found  after  some  search  and  anointed. 
He  is  received  by  some  with  enthusiasm  while  others  are  indifferent. 

The  account  continues  8^*  directly.  Having  expostulated  with 
the  representatives  of  the  people  at  Ramah,  Samuel  is  finally 
directed  to  yield  to  their  desires.  He  therefore  (in  this  para- 
graph) calls  an  assembly  of  the  whole  people  to  the  sanctuary  at 
Mizpah.  If  the  whole  intervening  story  is  left  out,  the  narrative 
is  without  a  break.  The  style  is  homogeneous ;  Mizpah  is  the 
place  of  assembly  here  and  in  7  ;  the  author  here,  as  in  8,  ex- 
presses the  idea  that  the  monarchy  is  a  rejection  of  Yahweh. 

Our  paragraph  seems  to  be  homogeneous  down  to  -^*.  After  this,  we  may 
suspect  that  the  dismission  of  the  people  to  their  homes  is  intended  to  prepare 
the  way  for  11 — the  original  continuation  of  ^sa  being  12'.  I  find  no  reason 
for  suspecting  i7-i9a^  with  Cornill,  or  ^^^^  with  Budde.  The  evidences  for  a 
comparatively  late  date  are  the  same  here  as  in  other  parts  of  the  same  docu- 
ment. In  accordance  with  his  general  theory  Bu.  derives  the  paragraph 
from  E. 

17.  A  general  assembly  of  the  people  is  called  at  Mizpah  as 
in  7.    T'he  reason  for  the  choice  of  Mizpah  may  be  the  same  that 


X.  17-24  71 

influenced  the  author  of  Jd.  20.  —  18.  Yahweh  again  reproaches 
the  people  with  ingratitude  :  /  brought  you  up  from  Egypt  and 
delivered  you  from  the  hattd  of  Egypt,  and  from  the  hand  of  all 
the  kingdoms  that^vere  oppressing  you~\  the  construction  is  unusual, 
and  it  is  possible  that  the  passage  has  been  interpolated.  — 19. 
Their  sin  is  rejection  of  Yahweh  :  rvho  has  been  your  saviour'\  the 
same  word  is  used  of  the  judge,  Jd.  3^^.  The  author  has  the  idea 
which  is  illustrated  in  the  occurrence  described  in  y''^*.  And  ye 
said:  No  I  but  a  king  shall  thou  place  over  us'\  the  reference  is 
evidently  to  8'^  In  order  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  desire  he 
commands  them  to  station  themselves  before  Yahweh  (who  would 
choose  among  them)  :  by  your  tribes  and  by  your  thousands']  the 
thousand  is  a  subdivision  of  a  tribe  Jd.  6'^  —  20,  21.  The  choice 
is  made  by  the  sacred  lot,  each  tribe  coming  by  its  representatives 
before  the  oracle  and  receiving  the  answer  yes  or  no,  until  the 
proper  one  is  found.  The  account  is  parallel  to  Jos.  7^^'*,  where 
however  there  are  four  stages  instead  of  three.  In  the  first  stage 
the  tribe  of  Benjamifi  is  taken.  This  tribe  was  brought  by  its 
clans  afid  the  clan  of  the  Matrite  was  taken]  the  name  occurs 
nowhere  else,  and  some  have  supposed  an  error.  One  of  the 
sons  of  Benjamin  in  Gen.  46^^  is  Beker,  which  may  be  the  original 
here.*  We  should  now  insert  with  (§  :  and  he  brought  near  the 
clan  of  Matri  man  by  man]  the  clause  has  fallen  out  of  ^  but  is 
necessary  to  the  sense.  Kish  would  represent  the  household  now 
chosen.  Among  his  sons  the  name  of  Saul  finally  came  out,  but 
the  man  himself  was  not  to  be  found.  —  22.  To  the  question  : 
Did  the  man  come  hither  ?]  the  oracle  replied  :  He  is  hidden  in 
the  baggage]  out  of  modesty  of  course.  Slight  changes  in  the  text 
of  this  and  the  following  verse  will  be  noted  below.  —  23.  One 
ran  and  fetched  hi7n  thence  and  as  he  stood  among  the  people  he 
was  taller  than  all  the  people  from  his  shoulder  upward]  a  head 
taller,  as  we  should  say.  A  Lapide  quotes  from  the  Aeneid : 
cunctis  altior  ibat  (of  Anchises),  and:  toto  vertice  supra  est  (of 
Turnus),  and  similar  language  from  Pliny  concerning  Trajan. 
Before  the  invention  of  firearms,  personal  strength  was  essential 
in  a  leader,  as  indeed  it  is  still  among  the  Arabs. f  —  24.    At  the 

*  Ew.,  G  F/3.  II  I.  p.  33  (E.  Tr.  III.  p.  23) .  t  Doughty,  II.  p.  27  sq. 


74  I  SAMUEL 

presentation  to  the  people,  they  shout :  May  the  king  live  /  the 
usual  greeting  to  a  ruler,  2  S.  16^"  i  K.  i^-^^  2  K.  11'-.  The 
Emir  of  Hayil  in  Central  Arabia  is  saluted  with  :  O,  long  of  days  ! 
and  his  subjects  in  speaking  of  him  say :  God  give  him  long 
life  !  *  Whether  this  account  originally  added  that  Samuel  anointed 
Saul  is  not  certain,  but  this  is  rendered  probable  by  the  language 
of  15'.  —  25*.  Samuel  recited  before  the  people  the  custom  of  the 
kingdom  and  wrote  it  in  a  book  and  deposited  it  before  Yahweh']  it 
seems  impossible  to  understand  this  of  anything  else  than  the 
custom  of  the  king  already  recited  in  8'-'''*.  This  was  threatened 
as  the  penalty  of  the  people's  choice.  As  they  have  persisted  in 
their  choice,  the  threat  will  be  carried  out.  The  document  is  laid 
up  before  Yahvveh  as  a  testimony,  so  that  when  they  complain  of 
tyranny  they  can  be  pointed  to  the  fact  that  they  have  brought  it 
upon  themselves. 

25''-27.  The  original  document  seems  to  have  joined  12^  (Sam- 
uel's farewell)  directly  to  ^°^.  The  rest  of  this  chapter  is  inserted 
to  give  room  for  1 1  in  which  Saul  appears  still  as  a  private  citizen. 
In  the  theory  of  the  editor  he  did  not  assume  kingly  power  at 
once,  because  the  people  did  not  recognize  him,  or  at  least  a 
considerable  part  did  not  recognize  him,  as  king.  When  Samuel 
dismissed  the  people  there  went  with  Saul  only  the  brave  men 
whose  heart  God  had  touched']  the  phrase  does  not  occur  else- 
where (Jer.  4^*  is  different)  but  the  meaning  is  sufificiently  evident. 
But  the  base  men]  lit.  sons  of  belial,  Jd.  19^^,  said ;  How  shall 
this  fellow  save  us .?]  with  a  touch  of  contempt  in  the  form  of 
the  question.  In  consistency  they  brought  hi^n  no  present]  cf.  9^. 
There  is  no  thought  as  yet  of  fixed  taxes.  The  two  words  at  the 
end  of  this  verse  in  ^  belong  to  the  next  section. 

17.  p;'j;^]  the  Hiphil  only  here,  but  pipn  is  found  in  the  meaning  he  called 
out  the  warriors,  2  S.  20^  Jd.  410- 13.  —  ig.  nin>  icn'hd]  the  usual  beginning 
of  a  prophetic  speech  as  22''.  —  ■'n^'?j?n]  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  usual 
in  E  but  not  confined  to  him.  —  D'sn'^n  niDSonn]  the  disagreement  in  gender 
may  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  the  participle  to  be  construed  ad  sensum. 
But  I  suspect  the  original  had  only  niD^DDn  which  a  scribe  found  too  sweeping 
and  tried  to  correct  by  insertion.     The  verb  vnS  is  used  Jd.  2^*  4^  al.,  usually 


*  Doujjjity,  II.  pp.  53,  226. 


X.  24-xi.  75 

in  Deuteronomistic  passages.  — 19.  crD.s-.]  of  the  people's  rejection  of  Yah- 
weh  8"  Num.  n-'  cf.  14^1  (late").  —  1':]  in  the  received  text  is  replaced  by  ^^'7 
by  the  Qrc  and  in  a  number  of  MSS.,  as  well  as  in  (gSEIL.  —  nini  ijqS  nsinn] 
Jos.  24I.  —  20.  3-1|1m]  exactly  as  in  Jos.  7!''.  —  21.  \'rr\sz'r:h Kt.:  vnnDcnS  Qr'e.  As 
the  next  verse  begins  with  1  the  original  may  have  been  simply  ninfliTD'?  ((S). 
After  ^TJ;~,  (5-^^  adds:  koI  Trpoffdyovaiv  rrjv  (pvXijv  Marrapel  els  dvdpas,  (@^ 
has  an  equivalent,  but  does  not  agree  verbally.  Probably  a  clause  of  this  sig- 
nificance has  dropped  out  of  |^  —  so  all  recent  scholars  suppose.  —  22.  i'?n::'1i] 
Kai  iTrrjpuTijffev  ^apiovriX  (3^  &.  Probably  the  original  was  simply  Sns'ii.  For 
the  next  clause  ^"N  a^n  -\r;  Njn,  @B  has:  el  epxerai  6  dvrjp  ifTavda.  This 
alone  corresponds  to  the  answer  which  follows,  and  we  restore  (with  Th.,  al.) 
tt'iNH  zh.i  N3n,  The  baggage  of  an  army  is  u>'?3n,  ly-^  251^. — 23.  isim]  read 
the  singular  with  (5;  the  unexpressed  personal  subject  with  the  singular  is 
appropriate  here.  —  24.  cn\s-i,-i]  with  daghesh  diriniens  Ges.-^  §  22  j.  — 13]  (5 
reads  p,  but  'a  nna  is  found  i6*3i''  2  S.  6^1  Dt.  iS^  21°.  —  z-;t\  Voj]  iv  irda-iv 
vfuv  @.  The  case  is  difficult  to  decide;  dd'?j3  is  perhaps  more  likely  to  have 
been  changed  (under  the  influence  of  the  □yn"'?3  which  precedes  and  follows) 
than  the  reverse.  —  li'i'i]  Kaityvuaavl^^;  the  Hebrew  seems  to  be  original. 
Before  \:-\^y  Bu.  inserts  by  conjecture  I'^r:'?  innrsM,  while  Co.  would  apparently 
insert  the  same  words  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
this  author  supposed  Saul  not  to  have  been  anointed,  and  that  the  allusion  in 
15I  is  an  interpolation.  The  command  to  Samuel  in  8-*  says  nothing  of 
anointing. — 26.  V^nn]  the  army  \%  out  of  place  here;  read  S^nn  'j3  with  (@ 
(Th.,  al).  —  32""a  □^n'^s  juj'irx]  no  similar  phrase  has  been  pointed  out. — 
27.  nt]  is  used  in  contempt,  21^^  25'^^  2  S.  13I'',  cf.  BDB.  s.v.  —  •^•nn'rD  ^n>i] 
the  words  are  a  corruption  of  two  which  originally  opened  the  following 
paragraph. 

Chapter  XI.  The  Ammonite  invasion,  the  part  taken  by  Saul, 
and  the  effect  on  his  fortunes.  —  Nahash  the  Ammonite  besieges 
Jabesh  Gilead,  and  the  people  offer  to  submit  to  him.  But  he 
will  put  scorn  upon  them  and  upon  all  Israel,  by  putting  out  every 
man's  right  eye.  His  contempt  for  Israel  is  seen  in  the  confi- 
dence with  which  he  allows  the  Jabeshites  to  seek  help  from  their 
kinsmen.  The  messengers  come  to  Gibeah,  where  the  people  are 
moved  to  pity,  but  also  to  despair.  Saul  alone  is  aroused  by  the 
message,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  heroic  measures.  At  his 
peremptory  summons  the  people  march  to  the  relief  of  the 
beleaguered  city.  The  Ammonites  are  taken  completely  by  sur- 
prise, and  the  deliverance  is  equally  complete.  In  recognition 
of  Saul's  kingly  quaHties,  the  people  make  him  king  at  Gilgal  with 
religious  rejoicing. 


76  I  SAMUEL 

The  piece  is  a  part  of  the  narrative  which  we  left  at  lo'*.  The 
tone  is  entirely  different  from  that  of  lo^'"^.  The  author  is  in 
ignorance  of  the  public  appointment  of  Saul  as  king.  The  mes- 
sengers from  Jabesh  come  to  Gibeah,  not  to  seek  Saul,  but  to 
appeal  to  the  people.  No  one  thinks  it  necessary  to  send  for 
Saul  to  the  field.  He  comes  home  at  the  regular  time,  and  then 
has  to  inquire  before  he  is  told  what  is  the  matter.  More  com- 
plete disregard  of  what  is  related  as  having  taken  place  at  Mizpah 
could  not  be  imagined.  On  the  other  hand,  the  entire  consonance 
of  this  chapter  and  9^-10^®  is  evident,  and  the  author  seems  to 
have  foreshadowed  this  event  when  he  says  :  do  as  the  occasion 
serves,  for  God  is  with  thee  (10'). 

The  resemblance  between  this  passage  and  some  of  the  early 
narratives  of  the  Book  of  Judges  is  plain.  The  integrity  of  the 
piece  has  suffered  in  w.  ^-"",  as  will  be  shown. 

1-3.  The  invasion  and  the  terms  offered.  —  //  came  to  pass  in 
about  a  month']  the  reading  is  that  of  (^.  —  Nahash  the  Ammonite] 
he  is  called  later,  king  of  the  Bne  Amnion.  The  name  means 
Serpent,  cf.  2  S.  1 7^  and  Nahshon,  Ex.  6"^  This  Nahash  lived 
until  some  time  after  David  was  settled  in  Jerusalem,  2  S.  10-. 
The  Ammonites  were  kindred  of  Israel  (Gen.  19^^"^),  but  always 
troublesome  neighbours,  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  1 1*.  In  the  theory  of 
the  Israelitic  writers  they  occupied  the  desert  east  of  Gilead, 
Dt.  2^'^"'''^^,  but  they  are  represented  as  claiming  the  territory 
as  far  as  the  Jordan.  Probably  they  were  not  scrupulous  about 
an  ancestral  tide,  but  like  the  Bedawin  of  the  present  day  asserted 
themselves  wherever  they  had  the  power.  —  And  besieged  Jabesh 
Gilead]  lit.  encamped  upon.  But  where  the  Bedawin  encamp 
upon  a  territory  they  destroy  it;  and  while  unable  to  undertake  a 
formal  siege,  they  quickly  reduce  a  walled  town  to  submission  by 
depriving  it  of  suppHes,  2  K.  25^  Jabesh  is  mentioned  Jd.  21  i 
S.  31"  2  S.  2*'  21^  and  in  Chronicles.  It  is  placed  by  Eusebius 
six  miles  from  Bella  on  the  road  to  Gerasa,  and  is  now  generally 
identified  with  Ed-Deir  on  the  Wady  Yabis,  which  appears  to 
preserve  the  ancient  name.  The  men  of  Jabesh  are  willing  to 
become  tributaries. — Make  terms  ivith  us  that7ve  may  serine  thee] 
the  Bedawin  frequently  reduce  the  towns  of  the  oases  to  the  con- 


^i-  1-3  77 

dition  here  in  mind,  receiving  a  percentage  of  all  crops.  The 
case  of  Khaibar  when  it  surrendered  to  Mohammed  is  in  point. 
The  covenant  here  asked  is  evidently  imposed  by  the  stronger 
party,  cf.  Jos.  9 ;  but  it  naturally  binds  him  to  cease  from  further 
molestation  when  it  has  once  been  ratified.  —  2.  The  reply  of 
Nahash  :  On  this  stipulation  I  will  make  terms  with  you :  the 
boring  out  of  every  man's  right  eye~\  lit.  by  boring  out  for  you  every 
right  eye.  Josephus  supposes  the  intention  to  be  to  make  them 
unfit  for  war.  But  the  Bedawy's  motive  is  probably  no  deeper 
than  the  pleasure  of  insulting  an  enemy  :  Thereby  I  iv  ill  put  igno- 
mifiy  on  all  IsraeP^  the  disgrace  of  Jabesh  would  be  a  gibe  in  the 
mouth  of  all  Israel's  enemies,  cf.  1 7^".  —  3.  A  respite  of  seven 
days  is  asked  :  That  we  may  send  messengers  through  all  the  terri- 
tory of  Israel,  and  if  there  be  none  to  save  us  we  ivill  come  out  to 
thee.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  #^  adds  that  they  sent  out  the 
messengers,  but  such  complementary  insertions  are  not  infrequent. 

1.  Kat  i'^eviidt)  ojs  /xerd  ixriva  (5'^^;  Kai  iyivero  fiera  /jLTJva  rjnepQiv  <S^ 
evidently  represents  a  variant  of  B'nnDD  >nii  which  is  found  in  |^  at  the  end 
of  the  preceding  verse  and  there  supposed  to  mean :  and  he  was  like  one 
holding  his  peace,  that  is,  in  reference  to  the  scoffs  of  the  crowd.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  the  author  should  make  a  comparison  when  it  would  be 
more  natural  to  say  directly  ajid  he  held  his  peace.  The  reading  of  @  is  restored 
in  the  form  cincr  in^i  by  Th.  and  adopted  by  most  later  scholars.  The  form 
^i'Tir.^s  is  possible,  as  we  see  from  Gen.  38"^*  cSa'DD,  but  as  the  ja  is  superfluous 
I  think  irin  idd  more  probable.  On  the  identification  of  Jabesh  Gilead,  Eu- 
sebius  in  OS.  268;  Moore,  Judges,  p.  446,  who  cites  the  recent  authorities. 
—  nna  uS-mo]  the  usual  formula,  Jos.  9!^  24^5  2  S.  5^  2  K.  1 1*.  The  term 
seems  to  have  originated  in  the  cutting  apart  of  a  victim,  cf.  WRSmith,  Eel. 
^■ifw.  pp.  297, 461;  Doughty,  II.  p.  41 ;  Valeton  in  ZAT IV.  12,^.  22"]  H.;  and 
Kraetschmar,  Die  Bundesvorstelling  im  AT.  (1896). — 2.  nNT3]  apparently 
the  3  of  price.  After  ddS  13  MSS.  and  <S^^  add  nn^.  But  the  omission 
makes  no  difficulty.  —  DoS  iipJ^]  f"  t"?  e^opi5|ai  vnCbv  ©^k  That  they  should 
do  the  mutilating  themselves  would  be  a  refinement  of  cruelty.  But  the  Bed- 
awy  might  not  so  regard  it.  —  ipj  is  used  of  the  ravens  picking  out  the  eye, 
Prov.  30I'';  the  Piel  in  the  same  sense  Jd.  16-1.  —  n^PDri]  <5^^  seems  to  omit 
the  suffix.  —  "^j]  omitted  by  (@b. — 3.  ,jp;j  &vbpes  @;  the  latter  is  favoured 
by  Bu.  on  the  ground  of  v.^.  But  the  conformity  is  more  likely  to  be  the  result 
of  correction  by  a  scribe  than  the  dissimilation.  —  uS  lin]  cf.  2  K.  4^^.  The 
protasis  with  ^-x'ssi  is  followed  by  perfect  with  waw  consecutive  as  in  Ex.  22- 
Num.  27^.  The  fact  that  pN  has  a  participle  under  its  government  does  not 
make  the  sentence  different  from  those  cited.  —  pciD]  with  the  accusative, 
as  in  1439  Jd.  6^^. 


yS  I  SAMUEL 

4  -7».  The  reception  of  the  message  by  Saul.  —  The  mes- 
sengers came  to  Gibeah  of  Saul~\  the  town  seems  to  have  gone  by 
this  name  later,  Is.  lo^.  There  were  several  other  towns  which 
bore  the  name  Gibeah.  (§  has,  to  Gibeah  to  Saul,  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  what  follows.  —  The  people  wept  aloud'\  Jd.  2^  21'-  i  S. 
30''  2  S.  13^.  —  5.  Saul  was  Just  C07ning  after  the  oxen  from  the 
field'\  as  already  noticed,  the  messengers  made  no  inquiry  for  Saul, 
no  care  was  taken  to  send  for  him,  no  special  attention  was  paid 
to  him  when  he  came  in  sight,  but  he  was  left  to  find  out  the 
cause  of  the  commotion  by  questioning  the  people.  All  this 
shows  that  it  was  not  on  account  of  Saul  that  the  messengers  came 
to  Gibeah.  —  6.  And  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh']  so  is  probably  to  be 
read  with  (§  and  some  MSS.  of  pf,  favoured  also  by  ST.  —  Ajid 
his  wrath  became  very  hot~\  in  Jd.  14^^  also  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh 
is  the  efficient  cause  of  wrath.  —  7*.  And  he  took  a  yoke  of  oxen 
and  cut  them  in  pieces']  the  verb  is  used  of  cutting  up  a  sacrificial 
victim,  I  K.  i8^'^  and  elsewhere;  in  one  instance  it  describes 
the  cutting  up  of  a  human  body  Jd.  19^  20^  In  this  latter  case 
also  the  pieces  are  sent  throughout  all  Israel.  The  threat  con- 
veyed is:  Whoever  comes  not  forth  after  Saul,  so  shall  his  oxen 
be  treated]  Ewald's  theory  that  the  oxen  were  slain  as  a  sacrifice 
is  without  support  in  the  text.  The  clause,  and  after  Samuel,  is 
probably  a  later  insertion. 

5.  N3]  is  apparently  the  participle.  —  ipa]  is  the  ploughing  cattle,  so  that 
Saul  had  been  tilling  his  field.  Classic  parallels  for  the  king  cultivating  his 
own  fields  are  given  in  Poole,  Synopsis.  —  6.  n'^sn]  the  same  verb  in  10*. — 
Dvi'^n]  some  MSS.  have  ^n^r\■^  which  is  favoured  also  by  ®.  iv:;r3  A?.,  u'-'w'3 
Qre ;  the  latter  is  more  vigorous. — '?Ni!:tJ'  inNi]  is  a  redactional  insertion 
(Co.). 

7t»-ll.  The  deliverance. — A  terror  from  Yahweh  fell  upon  the 
people  and  they  gathered  as  one  man]  the  terror  was  a  terror  of 
Yahweh  in  that  he  sent  it.  Its  object  was  Saul ;  the  people  were 
afraid  to  disobey.  For  they  gathered  #,  they  went  out  is  given  by 
1^.  —  8.  Bezek,  the  place  of  muster,  is  identified  with  Khirbet 
Ibzik,  "  thirteen  miles  northeast  from  Shechem  on  the  road  down 
to  Bethshan"  (G.  A.  Smith,  Geog.  p.  336).  The  location  is  well 
suited  to  be  the  starting-point  in  this  expedition,  being  nearlv 
opposite   Jabesh   Gilead.      The    enormons    numbers  —  the   Bne 


XI.  4-1'  79 

Israel  300,000  and  the  men  of  Judah  30,000  —  are  to  be  judged 
like  similar  data  elsewhere,  cf.  Jd.  20I  — 9.  And  he  said'\  Saul  is 
the  subject  ((!9) :  To-jnorrow  deliverance  will  come  to  you  zvhen  the 
sun  gnnvs  hot'\  Saul  had  detained  the  messengers  until  he  could 
give  a  definite  answer.  The  people  of  Jabesh  naturally  rejoiced 
at  receiving  the  assurance.  — 10.  To  keep  the  besiegers  in  false 
security,  the  men  of  Jabesh  promise  to  come  out  to  them  on  the 
next  day  :  And  you  shall  do  to  us  whatever  you  please^  lit.  accord- 
ing to  all  that  is  good  in  your  eyes,  cf.  3^*  1480.40  ^  g_  ^qM  ^^  j^24_  — 
11.  The  morrow  began  at  sunset  of  the  day  on  which  the  message 
was  sent,  so  the  army  doubtless  marched  all  night  as  Josephus  says. 
Saul  divided  his  troops  into  three  columns  as  did  Gideon,  Jd.  7^*^, 
and  Abimelech  Jd.  9^^.  The  advantage  of  attacking  on  different 
sides  at  the  same  time  is  obvious.  — And  they  came  itito  the  midst 
of  the  camp\  the  attack  was  not  discovered  until  the  Israelites 
were  already  in  the  midst  of  the  scattered  camp.  The  morning 
watch  is  mentioned  also  Ex.  14'*;  the  night  was  divided  into 
three  watches,  notice  the  middle  watch,  Jd.  7^^  —  And  they  smote 
Amnion  until  the  heat  of  the  day  and  there  was  .  .  .]  the  word  is 
probably  corrupt.  What  we  expect  is  a  statement  that  there  was 
a  great  slaughter  or  a  great  panic.  They  scattered  and  there  wej-e 
not  left  two  together. 

Note.  —  The  reason  for  rejecting  the  numbers  in  v.^  is  that  in  the  time  of 
Deborah  the  total  fighting  strength  was  40,000  men,  Jd.  5^,  and  under  great 
stress  Barak  was  able  to  bring  only  ten  thousand  into  the  field.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  Israel  had  greatly  increased  since  that  time;  the 
Philistine  oppression  indicates  the  reverse.  The  later  account  of  Saul's  cam- 
paigns makes  the  impression  that  he  at  no  time  commanded  a  large  force.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  ease  with  which  numbers'  increase  in  size  on  paper  is  seen 
from  <5  here  which  doubles  the  300,000  of  p),  while  Josephus  raises  it  to 
700,000. 

7b.  iNxn]  does  not  give  a  bad  sense,  but  as  (5  renders  i|"'>'S^i,  this  is  restored 
by  We.,  al.;  the  phrase  inx  "'^X3  is  used  with  verbs  meaning  to  gather,  Jd.  20^ 
Ezra  3I  Neh.  8^;  nowhere  with  Ni\  —  8.  A  Bezek  is  mentioned  in  Jd.  i* 
where  it  would  be  supposed  to  be  in  Judah.  (5  seems  to  have  read  in 
Ramah,  which  however  was  early  corrupted  to  Barnah  or  Bala  (I).  The 
identification  of  our  Bezek  with  Khirbet  Ibzik  is  as  old  as  the  fourteenth 
century,  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  i**.  —  9.  nsN^i]  koX  eijrec  (S^^^  is  apparently  correct. 
—  ■303]  on3  Qr'e  fixes  the  point  of  time  more  exactly.  — 10.  t:o'  •'•^;'J^  ncwij 
@  adds  to  Nahash  the  Ammonite  and  something  of  the  kind  seems  necessary. 


80  I  SAMUEL 

IJul  I  suspect  the  original  reading  to  have  l)een  only  •ym'^  n-iNM  and  that  the 
second  word  was  corrupted  to  •■j'js.  For  ao.T'^^r,  (3^^  gives  simply  to  ayadov, 
and  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred.  — 11.  c^rs-(]  of  the  divisions  of  the 
army,  Jd.  7I''  g^^^s  i  s_  i^it^  q^  t^g  double  accusative,  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  76. 
For  Amnion  @  gives  sons  of  Amnion  which  accords  with  almost  uniform  usage. 
—  a-'iN'^jn]  can  be  construed  (cf.  lo^i  2  S.  a^*),  but  it  is  extremely  awkward. 
Some  relief  is  given  by  changing  ^nn  to  ^7\-\  but  the  corruption  is  probably 
deeper. 

12-15.  The  installation  of  Saul. — The  people  demand  Saul 
as  king,  and,  going  down  to  Gilgal,  they  celebrate  a  feast  of  coro- 
nation —  except  that  we  hear  nothing  of  a  crown. 

The  paragraph  has  been  worked  over  to  fit  the  present  com- 
posite narrative.  Samuel  probably  had  no  place  in  the  original 
document  —  the  related  section,  9^-10^^,  makes  him  only  the  seer 
of  a  single  town.  There  is  no  reason  why  he  should  accompany 
Saul  to  the  war  or  why  he  should  officiate  at  his  public  recogni- 
tion. But  in  vv.^-""  we  find  Samuel  acting  as  leader  and  recog- 
nized authority.  There  is  reason  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  these 
verses  in  their  present  shape  are  the  redactional  bonds  between 
the  two  streams  of  narrative.  Verse  ^,  on  the  other  hand,  may 
be  a  fragment  of  the  original  narrative,  but  something  must  have 
stood  between  it  and  v.". 

12-15.  The  evidences  of  adaptation  to  the  present  situation  found  in  w.^2-i< 
are  emphasized  by  We.  {Comp.  p.  243)  and  Stade  {GVI.  I.  p.  212).  The  three 
verses  are  regarded  as  an  interpolation  by  Co.  {Einl^.  p.  100),  and  Bu.  {JiS. 
p.  173).     Driver  specifies  only  v.^'*  as  redactional  {LOT^.  p.  176). 

12.  JVho  is  he  who  says :  Saul  shall  not  reign  over  us  ?'\  the 
negative  is  omitted  in  the  current  Hebrew,  but  found  in  (^SQT  as 
well  as  some  MSS.  —  13.  And  Saul  said~\  the  traces  of  a  reading 
and  Samuel  said  are  of  no  value.  Saul's  magnanimity  is  the 
point  of  the  reply.  —  Not  a  man  shall  be  put  to  death\  the  verb 
in  this  form  is  generally  used  of  inflicting  death  as  a  penalty.  — 
14.  Samuel  proposes  to  go  to  Gilgal  and  renezu  the  kingdotn 
there"]  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Gilgal  here  men- 
tioned is  any  but  the  well-known  sanctuary  in  the  Jordan  valley, 
not  far  from  Jericho  (Jos.  4'^-^  Jd.  2^).  The  word  renew  the  king- 
dom is  a  palpable  allusion  to  the  preceding  account,  and  therefore 
redactional.     On  the  other  hand,  Gilgal  seems  to  belong  to  the 


XI.  I2-XII.  8i 

main  stratum,  for  otherwise  the  people  would  have  been  invited 
again  to  Mizpah.  — 15.  They  made  Saul  king]  the  verb  is  the 
same  used  in  S^''.  —  There  before  Yahweh  in  GilgaT\  the  repeated 
mention  of  Gilgal  seems  superfluous,  but  is  perhaps  intended  to 
bring  out  the  importance  of  the  occasion.  —  They  sacrificed  there 
sacrifices,  peace  offerings]  the  phrase  sacrifices  of  peace  offerings 
is  more  common.  The  rendering  peace  offerings  is  conventional, 
as  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  is  unknown.  It  designates 
the  offerings  in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  flesh  forms  a  sacrifi- 
cial meal.  The  rejoici?ig  before  Yahweh  is  a  prominent  element 
in  early  worship. 

12.  iSc  SiNii']  may  possibly  be  a  question  without  the  interrogative  particle, 
but  of  the  examples  cited  as  parallel  some,  at  least,  do  not  belong  here.  Either 
the  n  or  the  negative  has  dropped  out ;  and  as  the  latter  has  external  authority 
Q&SbW)  it  seems  best  to  restore  it.  Kl.'s  conjecture :  Father  let  Sheol  rule 
over  us  !  may  be  cited  as  a  curiosity.  — 13.  Sxt;']  ^aiJ.ovr]X  @b  ;§  ^  mere  cleri- 
cal error.  — 14.  Gilgal  in  this  passage  might  be  supposed  to  be  the  Gilgal  in 
Mt.  Ephraim,  2  K.  2^.  But  elsewhere  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  the  Gilgal  in  the 
Jordan  valley  is  intended.  So  in  lo*  where  T<^^^^^^  is  appropriate  only  to  the 
lower  site,  cf.  131'-^.  The  name  (usually  written  or  pointed  with  the  article) 
means  the  circle  and  designated  a  circle  of  sacred  stones,  a  cromlech,  cf.  Dr. 
on  Dt.  11^'',  Moore  on  Jd.  2^.  For  the  location  we  have  Jos.  419-20^  Eusebius 
OS.  p.  243,  Baedeker  Pal'^.  p.  167.  —  cnnji]  the  Piel  seems  to  occur  in  late 
passages.  Kl.  tries  to  make  it  mean  let  us  inaugurate  the  kingdom,  so 
avoiding  reference  to  the  earlier  anointing.  But  this  is  not  supported  by  any 
other  passage.  — 15.  i^Sci]  @  reads:  Kai  exP"''"' 2a^ioii?j\  ^/cei  [t6v  Saoi>\] 
«'s  /Sao-tX^a.  The  shorter  text  seems  original.  —  a^nSr]  may  be  the  offerings 
which  show  the  undisturbed  relations  which  exist  between  God  and  the  wor- 
shipper, Stade,  G  VI.  I.  p.  496.     (S  inserts  koj  before  the  word  here. 

XII.  Samuel's  farewell  address.  —  Samuel  addresses  the  peo- 
ple, protesting  his  integrity  during  a  long  career.  The  people 
bear  him  witness.  He  then  reviews  Yahweh's  dealings  with  Israel 
from  the  time  of  Moses,  and  enumerates  their  backslidings,  the 
punishments  which  had  followed,  and  the  deliverances  which 
came  when  they  cried  to  Yahweh,  In  spite  of  this  experience 
they  had  not  trusted  Yahweh  in  the  recent  danger  from  Nahash, 
but  had  demanded  a  king.  If  they  and  their  king  should  fear 
Yahweh,  jt  might  yet  be  well.  But  if  they  should  be  rebellious, 
king  and  people  would  be  destroyed.     In  evidence  of  the  truth 


82  f  SAMUEI. 

of  his  words  he  offers  a  miracle,  and  Yahweh  sends  it  in  the  shape 
of  a  thunderstorm,  though  the  season  is  wheat  harvest.  The 
people  are  terrified,  and  confess  that  the  demand  for  a  king  is 
another  in  their  list  of  sins.  Samuel  encourages  them  that  Yahweh 
will  not  reject  them,  but  repeats  his  warning  against  defection. 

The  contrast  in  thought  and  style  between  this  section  and  the 
preceding  is  obvious,  and  equally  obvious  is  its  resemblance  to 
7,  8,  and  lo""^*.  Outside  the  Books  of  Samuel  the  nearest  paral- 
lel is  Jos.  24  —  Joshua's  farewell  address.  The  present  chapter 
seems  to  be  less  original  than  that,  and  is  possibly  framed  after  it 
as  a  model.  The  thought  and  language  remind  us  of  the  frame- 
work of  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  there  is  no  violence  in  the  sup- 
position that  this  address  once  closed  the  account  of  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  as  Joshua's  farewell  address  closed  the  account  of 
the  conquest  of  Canaan.  In  this  case  the  author  who  set  forth 
his  scheme  of  history  in  Jd.  2"-3®,  and  repeated  it  in  Jd.  lo*^^*, 
closed  his  book  (or  this  section  of  the  history  of  Israel)  with  this 
chapter  as  a  retrospect. 

On  the  relation  between  this  section  and  the  framework  of  the  Book  of 
Judges,  see  Moore,  Judges,  p.  xxiii.  Graf's  theory  that  this  was  the  closing 
section  of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  Judges  seems  disproved  "hy  the  style  and 
vocabulary,  as  does  Bu.'s  (^RS.  p.  182)  that  it  belongs  to  E-  which  he  puts 
before  650  B.C.  The  question  is  important  enough  to  warrant  a  somewhat 
detailed  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  section.  We  should  first  notice  that 
Bu.  strikes  out  a  number  of  clauses  as  Deuteronomistic  expansions.  But  there 
seems  to  be  no  evidence  for  such  a  working  over  of  the  chapter  as  this  would 
imply.  Leaving  these  in  the  text  we  note  the  following  affinities :  1.  ip^'cir 
DsSipa]  frequent  in  D.  —  2.  dd^joV  ^'?^nD]  Gen.  48i^(E).  —  3.  r\-vr:'\  frequent 
in  Sam.  and  Psalms.  —  ■'riprj;]  Lev.  19^^  Dt.  24^*  28'^^,  frequent  in  Ezek.  and 
the  second  Isaiah.  —  \Tii]  in  connexion  with  p^^  in  Dt.  28^  Am.  4^  and  in 
many  confessedly  late  authors.  —  -(D3  nil*?]  Num.  3S^i*"-  (P)  Am.  5I2.  —  3>'?>-n 
>r;]  Lev.  20*.— 4.  n-ixo]  Gen.  3928  40I5  (J)  Num.  22^8  (E)  Dt.  \f^.— 
6.  ni->  i;']  occurs  nowhere  else,  but  nearly  parallel  are  those  passages  in 
which  a  sacred  object  is  made  witness  to  a  declaration,  as  Jos.  222"  (P) 
Gen.  31**  (JE).  —  6.  r\-:?'f\  of  appointing  men  to  a  work,  i  K.  \2^^  2  K.  21^ 
Is.  28^^  Eccl.  2*.  —  Moses  and  Aarott']  usually  associated  in  P  and  Chr., 
nowhere  in  the  historical  or  prophetical  books  except  here  —  Moses,  Aaron, 
and  Miriam  stands  by  itself  (Mic.  6*).  —  ^^y'!^']  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt 
in  E,  D,  Hos.  12"  Jer.  16^*  23''  al.  and  in  redactional  passages.  —  7.  i2X'nn] 
Ex.  14I3  (J)  I  S.  lo^^.  —  noDB'Ni]  in  this  sense  Jer.  2'^  Ezek.  2o33*'-  jogj  ^2  ^nd 
other  late  passages.  —  mn>  nipix]  Jd.  5"  and,  with  a  different  shade  of  mean- 


XII.  1-3  S3 

ing,  Mic.  6°.  —  8.  anxc  apj;'  nj]  (Jen.  46''  Ex.  i*  (both  1').  —  mn>-S«  ipJ"'''J 
a  standing  phrase  of  the  Deuteronomistic  redactor  of  Jd.;  cf.  i  S.  7*-^  8^'. — 
3i3^rM]  Lev.  23-*3  Ezek.  361'- 3->.  —  9.  ^^3  -\J12>^]  Jd.  2"  3^42  10".  — 10.  unbh 
M2v;  >:)]  Jd.  io''\  3j>  is  used  of  forsaking  the  true  CJod,  Jd.  lo^**- '''  Dt.  28^" 
31!^  Jer.  i6'i  and  often  in  Kings.  —  D''^>'an]  Jd.  2^1,  cf.  2'^  where  the  Ashtaroth 
are  brought  in  as  here.  — 11.  cdow  ^'I:]  2  K.  i;-"*'.  —  aoDD  D^^niN']  Dt.  12I' 
2519  Jos.  23iJd.  2i*83*.  — n'j3  la-rni]  Dt.  1210.  — 12.  asaSn  nin>i]  Is.  3322  4315. 
— 14.  nin-'-rs  iNi''n~aN]  Dt.  6"  13  lo'^o  Jos.  24I*.  —  nin>  ifl-ns  ncp]  Num.  20-* 
2714  (P)  Dt.  !-«•«  9"3  I  K.  i32i-2«._15.  D33  nin''-i>  nn>ni]  Ex.  g^  (J)  Dt.  21^ 
Jd.  2i5  I  S.  7i3._l6.  crj>;^  n-7]  Dt.  i^o  434  29I  Ex.  720  (E).  — 17.  n^p  jn>i] 
Ex.  9'^^  (E).  —  ^wy"?  an^L!';'  icn]  the  infinitive  with  ^,  specifying  more  nearly 
what  is  meant  by  a  preceding  noun,  is  found  Gen.  18^^  (R)  Dt.  9^^  Jd.  9^^  (E) 
2  S.  13I6  I  K.  1619  Neh.  13'^.  — 19.  V3  ^^sr.n]  Gen.  20^^  (E)  Dt.  9^0,  frequent 
in  Jer.  —  20.  ^->nN3  niD.-i"'?^]  2  K.  18^  2  Chr.  34^*.  —  21.  inp]  notoriously  a 
late  word,  applied  to  false  gods  in  Is.  4129.  —  .,s,„p-j^s-j  Is.  44I0  Jer.  2*  al. — 
22.  nn-  ii-i^^J  Jd.  6^3  Is.  2^  Jer.  12'  Ps.  94I*.  —  ^^:•Z'  in;3]  cf.  Jos.  f  Is.  48* 
Ezek.  2o9- "•  22.  _  nin-i  S>Nin]  2  S.  72^  and  the  parallel  i  Chr.  17-^  Job  6^.— 
To  make  you  a  people  for  himself  A^  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  this  exact 
wording,  but  the  idea  is  frequent  in  Dt.  —  23.  nmi  innini]  Ps.  25*  27^1  32^. 
—  24.  The  first  half  of  the  verse  is  nearly  the  same  as  Jos.  24!'*^  —  With  all 
yotir  hearf\  Jer.  291^  Joel  2^2^  frequent  in  Dt.  with  the  addition  and  with  all 
your  soul.  —  ODsy  ^-\yr\']  Ps.  126-'- 3.  —  25.  i;-in  inn]  i  Chr.  2\^'^.  —  idD.-i] 
(jen.  I9'''- 1"  I  S.  2610  27I  Num.  16^^. 

It  must  be  evident  that  the  passage  shows  dependence  on  Dt.  and  acquaint- 
ance with  Jer.,  Ezek.,  and  possibly  later  writers.  The  identification  with  £2 
does  not  therefore  seem  well  grounded,  and  Graf's  theory  also  falls  to  the 
ground.  That  the  author  is  acquamted  with  1 1  is  seen  from  his  allusion  to 
Nahash. 

1-5.  Samuel  resigns  his  office.  —  He  opens  his  speech  by  stat- 
ing the  situation  :  /  have  hearkened  to  your  voice  .  .  .  and  have 
appointed  a  king  over  you :  Now,  behold !  the  king  is  walking 
before  you\  the  king  is  thought  of  as  a  shepherd  walking  before 
his  flock.  A  paraphrase  is  Num.  2  7^'^*"-  (P).  The  kingless  people 
are  sheep  7vithout  a  shepherd.  The  Homeric  parallel  is  well 
known.  —  But  as  for  7ne  f  am  old  and  gray  and  my  sons  are 
among  you'\  already  mature  men  who  show  that  their  father  is 
advancing  in  years.  Any  other  reason  cannot  be  imagined  for 
the  mention  of  the  sons  here.  —  And  f  have  7valked  before  you 
from  youth  until  this  day']  as  Saul  is  now  to  do  —  the  people 
walk  at  the  heels  of  the  leader,  25-".  —  3.  A  challenge  as  to  his 
own  fidelity  :  fJere  am  If  Testify  against  me~\  the  phrase  is 
generally  used  of  a  witness  who  testifies  to  a  crime.     The  ques- 


84  I  SAMUEL 

tions  which  follow  are,  perhaps  purposely,  cast  in  rhythmical  form 
with  assonance  at  the  end : 

Eth  shor  mi  lakdhti 
Wa-hamdr  mi  lakdhti 
We-eth  vii  \ishdkti 
Etii  mi  ra(fdthi 
U-miyyad  mi  lakdhti  kdpher. 

The  tendency  of  the  prophets  to  cast  their  oracles  in  poetic  form 
is  illustrated  elsewhere.  The  questions  all  refer  to  judicial  hon- 
esty, which  has  always  been  rare  in  the  East.  Frequent  enact- 
ments and  exhortations  in  the  Old  Testament  testify  to  the  venality 
of  the  judges  in  Israel.  Samuel  asks  :  Whose  ox  have  I  taken  i 
Or  whose  ass  have  I  taken  ?  He  then  puts  the  more  general 
questions  :  Whom  have  I  oppressed ?  Whom  have  I  maltreated? 
The  verbs  are  elsewhere  joined  to  describe  the  oppression  of  the 
weak  by  the  powerful.  Or  frotn  tvhose  hand  have  I  taken  a  gift, 
that  I  jnight  blind  tny  eyes  with  it?  The  different  reading  of  t^ 
will  be  discussed  below.  The  verb  meaning  blind '\%  found  Lev.  ao* 
2  K.  4^  Is.  i^^  Ezek.  22^.  That  a  gift  blinds  the  clear-sighted  is 
declared  Ex.  23^,  cf.  Dt.  i6^^  Testify  against  me,  and  I  will  restore 
it  to  you  .'  Such  seems  the  best  reading.  And  I  will  answer  you, 
which  has  been  proposed,  does  not  seem  appropriate,  and  would 
require  an  additional  word.  —  4.  The  people  acquit  Samuel,  in 
the  words  which  he  himself  has  used.  —  5.  He  solemnly  concludes 
his  attestation  by  making  Yahweh  and  the  king  witness  :  Yahweh 
is  witness  and  his  anointed  is  ■witness']  the  king  as  the  anointed  of 
Yahweh  meets  us  in  several  instances  in  the  later  history.  Doubt- 
less the  anointing  has  consecrated  the  king  so  that  he  is  appropri- 
ately introduced  in  this  connexion.  —  That  ye  have  not  found  ifi 
my  hand  anything']  that  would  be  a  cause  of  accusation.  —  And 
they  said :  He  is  witness]  confirmatory  of  what  Samuel  has  just 
said.  The  assertion  is  made  of  Yahweh  only,  who  is  the  principal 
person. 

1.  •'S  aniCN"ne*N  SaS]  is  superfluous,  but  this  author  is  diffuse  throughout. 
—  2.  l^incj  is  lacking  in  S.  —  ''JNi]  is  somewhat  emphatic  —  Saul  is  now 
your  leader,  but  I  for  my  part  have  been  your  leader  a  long  time.  —  3.  ''2  ij"] 
Ex.  20'*  Num.  358'  Dt.  19I6.  Before  each  clause  of  the  second  couplet  ® 
inserts  the  conjunction  or  (=  1).  — n  'r>  a^'^yNi]   seems  to  be  perfectly  good 


XII.  3-9  85 

Hebrew.  (S*^^  reads  koI  iijr(^57jjua ;  a-iroKpldriTe  Kar'  ifiov.  As  pointed  out  by 
Cappellus  i^Crilica  Sacra,  p.  265),  this  must  represent  ■'3  1J>'  D^'?;':!.  This  is 
adopted  as  original  by  Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Ki.,  and  has  influenced  Sirach  (46^^), 
as  pointed  out  by  Schleusner,  Thesaurus,  s.v.  vir6hy\fxa  (the  reading  is  found 
in  the  newly  discovered  Hebrew  fragments).  A  shoestring  is  proverbial  for  a 
thing  of  little  worth.  Gen.  14-*,  as  it  is  in  Arabic  (Goldziher  in  Jour.  Assyr. 
VII.  p.  296).  But  the  coordination  D''?;'J1  lijj  for  a  bribe  even  a  pair  of  shoes 
seems  strange.  We  should  expect  at  least  z-h-;i  c.i,  or  a^":;-:  nsi  (Kl.).  For 
this  reason  it  seems  best  to  retain  pj.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  pair  of 
shoes  in  Am.  2^  is  a  symbol  of  transfer  of  real  estate,  in  which  case  D'''?;'ji  iqd 
might  mean  gifts  of  money  or  deeds  of  real  estate  ;  and  this  may  be  the  origin 
of  the  Syriac  text  of  Sirach  quoted  by  Dr.,  gift  or  present.  After  13  ij^>"  we 
may,  however,  restore  o  ijv  (Bu.),  the  phrases  being  so  much  alike  that 
one  was  easily  lost;  I  is  conflate.  —  5.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  1"nm  Kt.  would 
be  possible,  but  to  the  solemn  adjuration  we  should  expect  the  whole  people 
to  reply.  The  margin  of  the  Massoretic  edition,  therefore,  emends  to  ncNn, 
which  is  found  in  the  text  of  some  editions,  and  is  represented  in  (SSILST. 

6-12.  The  historical  retrospect. —  Samuel  recites  the  benefits 
received  from  Yahweh  and  the  people's  ingratitude  in  return. 
The  beginning  of  the  paragraph  is  obscure  from  corruption  of 
the  text.  We  find  in  ^  only  Yahweh  who  appointed  Moses  and 
Aaron,  which  is  then  left  without  predicate.  Fairly  satisfactory 
is  the  reading  of  (^  :  Witness  is  Yahiveh,  though  it  may  not  be 
the  original.  —  Who  appointed  Moses']  is  the  accepted  transla- 
tion, though  who  wrought  zvith  Moses  is  possible,  and  is  perhaps 
favoured  by  the  following  verse.  —  7.  And  now  take  your  stand 
that  I  may  plead  with  you  concerning  all  the  just  deeds  of  Yahweh] 
this,  the  text  of  5^,  seems  to  give  a  good  sense.  The  expanded 
text  of  (§,  that  I  may  plead  with  you  and  make  known  to  you 
(generally  adopted),  seems  to  be  secondary.  The  reading  of  |^ 
is  supported  by  Ezek.  1 7"".  —  8.  The  historical  sketch  proper  now 
begins,  taking  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  as  the  starting-point :  When 
Jacob  came  to  Egypt  the  Egyptians  oppressed  them]  the  second 
clause  has  dropped  out  of  J^,  but  is  preserved  in  (§.  —  And  your 
fathers  cried  to  Yahweh  and  Yahweh  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  to 
bring  out  your  fathers,  and  made  them  dwell  in  this  place]  this  is 
to  be  preferred  to  and  they  made  them  dwell  |^,  "  which  is  just 
what  Moses  and  Aaron  did  not  make  them  do"  (Dr.).  —  9.  The 
deliverance  was  followed  by  ingratitude  :  Jhey  forgot  Yahweh  their 
Cod,  and  he  sokl  them  into  the  hand  of  Sisera]  the  phrase  is  often 


86  I  SAMUEL 

used  of  God's  delivering  over  his  people  into  the  power  of  their 
enemies.  It  is  evidently  connected  with  the  prophetic  view  of 
Israel  as  Yahweh's  spouse  whom  for  her  adulteries  he  sold  into 
slavery.  The  list  of  oppressors  here,  Sisera,  the  Philistines,  the 
king  of  Moab,  does  not  pretend  to  follow  the  order  of  the  Book 
of  Judges.  — 10.  The  repentance  and  confession,  followed  by  a 
prayer  for  forgiveness,  make  use  of  the  language  of  Jd.  lo^".  On 
the  Baals  and  the  Astartes,  cf.  above,  f.  — 11.  Yahweh  had  sent 
as  deliverers  Jefubbaal  and  Barak  and  Jephthah  and  Samuel'\ 
Barak  is  adopted  from  ^  instead  of  the  Bedan  of  ^1^,  a  name  not 
otherwise  known  except  in  the  genealogical  list  i  Chr.  7^'.  As 
the  present  passage  is  wholly  dependent  on  the  Book  of  Judges, 
it  is  unlikely  that  it  has  preserv^ed  for  us  the  name  of  a  deliverer 
otherwise  unknown.  Rabbinical  ingenuity  has  identified  Bedan 
with  y^/r,  Jd.  10^,  and  Samson.  The  introduction  of  Samuel  into 
the  list  occasions  no  surprise,  for  the  author  makes  him  no  whit 
below  the  greatest  of  the  judges  ;  and  the  very  point  of  the  argu- 
ment is  that  they  had  just  rebelled  against  him.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  reason  for  changing  the  text  at  this  point.  —  And  delivered 
you  from  the  ha?id  of  your  enemies  round  about  and  you  dwelt  in 
security\  almost  exactly  as  in  Dt.  1 2'".  The  point  of  view  is  pal- 
pably the  same  as  that  of  7^^  — 12.  The  author  is  so  dominated 
by  his  idea  that  he  represents  the  attack  of  Nahash  as  the  occa- 
sion of  the  demand  for  a  king  :  You  saw  that  Nahash  king  of 
Amnion  came  against  you']  Bu.  thinks  the  words  a  later  insertion, 
but  they  seem  necessary  to  the  sense.  —  And  you  said  to  me :  No  ! 
but  a  king  shall  rule  over  us,  when  Yahweh  your  God  is  your  king\ 
the  point  of  view  distinctly  affirmed. 

6.  T\S7\<\  SO  isolated  cannot  be  right :  Kf-yaiv  fxaprvs  Kvpios  (5  represents 
nini  t;  isnS  which  is  now  generally  adopted.  &  has  Va/iwe^  alojie  is  God 
and  @^  adds  o  Qi6s  to  Kvpios.  It  is  possible  therefore  that  the  original  was 
D^'^SN^  N'in  nin>  which  is  more  appropriate  to  this  fresh  start  in  the  speech. — 
HN  nry]  the  verb  is  unusual  in  the  sense  of  appointing  to  a  work,  but  the 
combination  occurs  just  l)elow  of  'working  'Mith  one.  The  rendering  of  %: 
■who  did  great  things  by  the  hand  of  Moses  is  probably  only  a  paraphrase. — 
7.  mp^S~S^  ns]  (5  prefixes  koX  airayye\u  i/fuv  on  the  ground  of  which  most 
recent  editors  insert  co^  m^jxi.  But  the  case  seems  to  be  one  in  which  the 
more  difficult  reading  should  be  retained.  The  />/us  is  lacking  in  I  (  Cod.  Goth. 
Leg.  apud  Vercellone).  —  8.    anso]  (S  adds  koX  frairtivucrfv  aiirovi  Alyuirroi  = 


XII.  9-17  8; 

onxo  DJJM  which  is  probably  original  (Dr.,  al.),  as  the  omission  can  be  ac- 
counted for  by  homeoteleuton.  On  the  other  hand  Jacob  and  his  sons  ©, 
instead  of  the  simple  Jacob,  seems  to  be  a  scribe's  expansion.  —  i>x'xim]  as  the 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  Yahweh's  activity  all  through,  e^riyayev  @'^  may  be 
right.  More  attractive  however  is  the  simple  change  of  pointing  to  in''XV1 
(We.)  which  makes  the  verb  subordinate  to  the  preceding.  —  :i3^;;m'>i]  here 
the  singular  is  decidedly  to  be  preferred  (We.),  supported  by  <B&.  —  9.  For 
Hazor  (S  has  Jabin  king  of  Hazor,  adopted  by  We. ,  Bu.  The  latter  is  in 
accordance  with  Jd.  4'^,  but  the  other  is  not  so  entirely  without  analogy  as  We. 
supposes;  cf.  i  K.  2^-.  — 10.  ir^NM  Kt.:  read  n^NM  Qre  and  versions. — 
nn.-iLv^n]  tols  d\(Tecrip  (§  as  in  f^*.  — 11.  S>'j-\>]  as  Jd.  8^^;  Deborah  is  read 
here  by  S  which  inserts  Gideon  later.  —  p3]  has  given  the  exegetes  much 
trouble.  ST  renders  it  }i;:'s::''on  the  theory  that  it  represents  p  p,  as  is  given 
by  some  of  the  Rabbinical  expositors  and  set  forth  by  Pseudo-Hieronymus  in 
his  Questiones  {Hier.  Op.  Ed.  Vallarsi,  III.  814).  Barak  ®S  which  is  read 
by  most  recent  scholars  (including  Keil)  is  the  most  suitable  name.  Ew. 
(GF/^.  II.  p.  514,  Engl.  Tr.  II.  p.  364)  revived  an  old  conjecture  mentioned 
by  Clericus  and  Michaelis  that  Abdon  is  the  original  name  (cf.  Jd.  121^). — 
'7NiD:y]  Samson  &'^  which  is  adopted  by  Kl.,  owes  its  place  to  the  theory 
that  Samuel  would  not  put  his  own  name  here.  But  the  writer  found  in 
Samuel  the  climax  of  the  address,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  changing  the 
text  or  supposing  "?xiD:;'"rNi  to  be  a  later  insertion  (Bu.  and  apparently  Dr.).  — 
n'jj]  the  accusative  of  condition,  Dav.  5j/«/i2jir,§  10  b.  — 12.  DJD'?a  a3^n'?K  ninii] 
the  clause  is  lacking  in  @.  The  view  which  it  expresses  is  found  also  in  Jd. 
823  (cf.  Moore's  note)  and  i  S.  8'. 

13-18.  The  threat  of  punishment  upon  people  and  king  in 
case  they  turn  aside  from  Yahweh,  and  its  attestation  by  a  miracle. 
— 13.  And  now^  frequently  marks  a  turn  in  the  discourse  or 
draws  a  conclusion  from  what  precedes,  Jos.  24"-^  Jd.  9'^  Be- 
hold the  king  which  you  have  chosen']  the  received  text  adds  which 
you  asked,  lacking  in  (§^.  Even  without  it  the  verse  is  overfull. 
And  behold !  Yahweh  has  set  over  you  a  king]  the  desire  has  been 
fulfilled.  — 14.  The  promise  in  case  of  obedience  :  If  you  fear 
Yahweh  .  .  .  then  you  shall  live]  on  the  reading  see  the  critical 
note.  — 15.  The  alternative  threat  uses  the  same  expressions : 
hearken  to  the  voice,  rebel  against  the  mouth.  The  penalty  threat- 
ened is  :  then  the  hand  of  Yahweh  will  be  against  you  and  your 
king  to  destroy  you]  the  text  of  |^  has  and  against  your  fathers 
which  is  absurd.  — 16.  In  confirmation  of  the  prophet's  word 
the  people  are  to  see  the  great  thing  which  Yahweh  is  about  to 
do]  namely,  send  a  thunder-storm   in  summer.  — 17.    Is  it  not 


88  I  SAMUEL 

wheat  hat-vest  to-day  /]  the  wheat  is  ripe  after  the  barley,  the  first 
of  which  is  cut  at  Passover.  In  this  season  rain  rarely  falls  in 
Palestine.*  /  ivill  call  upon  Yahweh  and  he  will  send  thunder  and 
rain']  lit.  voices  and  rain.  The  thunder  is  the  voice  of  Yahweh, 
Ps.  1 8"  29^  The  result  will  be  their  conviction  of  the  great  sin 
they  had  committed  in  ashing  a  king.  — 18.  The  event  was  as 
Samuel  had  predicted.  At  his  prayer  the  voices  and  the  rain 
came  :    and  all  the  people  feared  Yahweh  and  Samuel. 

13.  □.-I'r'N;;'  nrx]  omitted  in  (g"^  but  represented  in  ^^^  with  a  1  prefixed, 
as  is  the  case  in  many  MSS.  of  ^.  The  words  are  an  insertion  made  to 
counteract  the  impression  that  the  people  themselves  had  elected  the  king. 
The  shorter  text  is  noted  by  Capp.  A^otae  Ct-iticae,  p.  436,  and  is  adopted  by 
most  recent  critics.  —  njnt]  the  ^  is  omitted  by  9  MSS.  (DeR.)  and  %,  but  the 
latter  is  free  in  its  treatment  of  the  conjunctions.  — 14.  The  text  of  J§  is  usu- 
ally taken  as  "  a  protasis  ending  with  an  aposiopesis"  (Dr.  Notes)  :  If  ye  fear 
Yahweh  .  .  .  and  follow  .  .  .  after  Yahweh  your  God — the  conclusion  is 
left  to  the  thought  of  the  hearer.  But  the  protasis  is  unconscionably  long,  and 
there  is  no  such  reason  for  the  abrupt  breaking  off  as  we  readily  discover  in 
Ex.  32^2  (Moses'  impassioned  intercession).  To  begin  the  apodosis  with  DPini 
is  grammatically  the  correct  thing  to  do,  but  it  makes  an  identical  proposition : 
if  you  fear  Yahweh  .  .  .  then  you  7oill  follow  Yahweh.  ^'^  feels  the  difficulty, 
for  it  adds  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  koL  t^eAelraL  v/xas,  which,  however,  has 
no  other  authority.  We.  gives  an^m  as  the  reading  of  certain  Hebr.  MSS.  and 
in  one  recension  of  2t  we  find  ]nnni,  though  DeR.  denies  the  manuscript  au- 
thority and  finds  that  of  the  version  slight.  As  a  conjecture  the  reading  rec- 
ommends itself,  even  without  any  external  authority.  I  have  therefore  adopted 
it,  omitting  the  clause  D3^n'?N  mni  nnx,  which  was  probably  added  after  the 
corruption  to  anini  had  taken  place  (so  Kl.).  That  the  people  may  live  is 
frequently  given  as  the  end  of  obedience,  Dt.  4I  Am.  5I*.  —  15.  cd\-i3N3i]  is 
evidently  unsatisfactory:  nal  iwl  rhv  ^aaiKta  vfj.wv  (§»  is  what  we  require. 
But  (3^  is  probably  right  in. adding  f^oKodpsDa-ai  vfias  =  as^'JxnV,  for  this  alone 
could  give  rise  to  the  corrupt  reading.  The  text  of  (3^  is  adopted  by  KL,  Bu. 
Tanchum  and  Kimchi  make  D3\'"0N31  mean  and  -upon  your  ki7tgs,\)\i\.  this  is 
forced.  ^TS  translate:  as  it  was  upon  your  fathers,  and  are  followed  by  EV. 
—  but  this  does  violence  to  the  Hebrew.  — 16.  n.nyaj]  is  used  for  variety, 
'^ryi's  having  been  twice  used.  — 17.  lyi]  the  imperative  expressing  the  conse- 
quence of  the  preceding  verb,  cf  Gen.  20',  Konig,  Syntax,  364  i.  —  '^in::''^] 
where  we  should  say  in  asking.  This  construction  is  not  uncommon  in 
Hebrew,  cf.  Konig,  Syntax,  402  jr.  The  clause  which  ye  Jiave  done  in  the  eyes 
of  Yahweh  is  lacking  in  S.  — 18.    ind]  is  differently  placed  in  |^  and  (5,  and 

♦Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on  Amos  4",  is  cited  by  Clericus,  but  he  says  only 
that  he  has  never  seen  rain  in  the  latter  part  of  June  or  in  July, 


XTT.   T7-25  89 

therefore  suspicious.     We  have  had  occasion  to  notice  that  such  words  are  of 
easy  insertion. 

19-25.  The  peoples  confession  and  Samuel's  concluding  ex- 
hortation, —  The  people,  in  fear  of  death  because  of  this  crowning 
sin,  beseech  Samuel's  intercession  :  Pray  for  thy  servants  to  Yah- 
weh  thy  God]  that  Samuel  stands  in  a  special  relation  to  Yahweh 
is  evident  from  the  language.  —  20.  He  encourages  them  :  Ve, 
indeed,  have  done  this  evil,  only  do  not  turn  aside  from  following 
Yahiveh']  2  Chr.  25^  34''^.  —  21.  And  do  not  turn  aside  after  the 
nothings']  the  word  must  be  taken  collectively  on  account  of  the 
verbs  which  follow  :  Which  do  not  profit  and  do  not  deliver,  for  they 
are  nothing]  the  language  is  that  of  Second  Isaiah,  —  22.  They 
have  reason  to  be  hopeful :  For  Yahiveh  7vill  not  cast  a^vay 
his  people  for  the  sake  of  his  great  name]  for  the  verb  cf.  Jd.  6^'^ : 
and  nora  Yaliweh  has  cast  us  off.  That  Yahweh  will  save  his  peo- 
ple for  his  naf?ie's  sake  is  a  comparatively  late  conception,  Jos.  7'-' 
(P),  That  his  reputation  will  suffer  if  he  rejects  them  is  evident : 
For  Yahtveh  has  undertaken  to  make  you  a  people  for  himself  ]  on 
the  main  verb  cf.  'hlooxe,  Judges,  p.  47.  —  23.  The  prophet  will  do 
his  part :  For  my  part — far  be  it  from  me  that  I  should  sin  against 
Yahweh,  that  I  should  cease  to  pray  for  you]  to  neglect  his  media- 
torial opportunity  would  be  to  sin  against  both  parties.  —  24.  The 
condition  is  that  they  should  serve  Yahweh  with  steadfastness : 
For  you  see  what  a  great  thing  he  has  wrought  in  your  presence] 
not  for  you,  as  in  EV.  The  reference  is  to  the  miracle  just  wit- 
nessed.—  25.  In  case  of  persistence  in  evil  they  and  their  king 
shall  be  destroyed ;  the  verb  is  used  of  being  killed  in  battle  i  S. 
26'°  27^  and  probably  looks  forward  to  Saul's  death  at  Gilboa. 

19.  n;-i]  KoX  KUKias  r]fj.u>v  ©'';  we  expect  rather  pnth  r\-;-\n. — 20.  S3]  is 
lacking  in  (gk  —  21.  ■'3]  is  entirely  meaningless  (We.,  Dr.)  and  is  not  rep- 
resented in  the  versions.  A  scribe  may  have  written  nnxD  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  preceding  verse  and  afterwards  tried  to  make  it  fit  here  by  chang- 
ing the  first  letter  to  13.  —  22.  ^^sn]  juravit  IL  indicates  n'-s— ,  but  no  change 
is  necessary.  —  23.  •'djn  01]  the  casus  pendens,  Dr.  Tenses^,  §  196,  Dav.  Syn- 
tax, §  106.  —  JC  ^'?  n'?''Sn]  is  a  common  construction  :  it  is  too  profane  a  thing 
for  me  to  do,  cf.  Jos.  24^^.  — 1^13  ddpn  T'l-iini]  cf.  Ps.  25^- '^  32*  Pro  v.  4". 
— 1113]  should  probably  be  pointed  with  the  article  (Kl.,  Bu.).  —  24.  int] 
on  the  form  Stade,  Gram,  iii,  2.  —  24.  With  all  your  heart;  <5  prefixes  and. 
—  1NT  'd]  8t(  efSere  (5  =  QP'NT  o,  is  certainly  smoother. 


90  I  SAMUEL 

XIII.  and  XrV.  The  revolt  against  the  Philistines  and  the 
first  successful  attack.  —  Jonathan,  Saul's  son,  opens  the  war  for 
independence  by  slaying  the  resident  of  the  Philistines.  The 
enemy  immediately  invade  the  country  and  take  up  a  strong  posi- 
tion whence  they  ravage  the  land.  Saul's  force  melts  away  until 
he  has  only  six  hundred  men  left  and  does  not  feel  able  to  attack. 
At  this  juncture,  Jonathan  with  his  adjutant  makes  a  foolhardy 
assault  upon  a  detached  post  of  the  Philistines.  His  success 
throws  their  main  camp  into  confusion.  The  commotion  is  visible 
to  Saul  who,  without  waiting  for  the  answer  of  the  oracle  (which 
he  has  begun  to  consult),  musters  his  men  and  leads  them  against 
the  foe.  He  is  reenforced  by  deserting  Hebrews  from  the  Philis- 
tine camp,  and  the  day  is  spent  in  pursuing  and  plundering. 
The  success  is  less  pronounced  than  it  might  have  been,  because 
Saul  lays  a  taboo  on  the  eating  of  food.  Thereby  the  people 
become  too  faint  for  successful  pursuit,  and,  when  the  day  ends, 
fall  upon  the  captured  catde  in  such  haste  as  to  eat  with  the 
blood.  Saul  therefore  commands  a  large  stone  to  be  used  as 
an  altar,  and  the  animals  are  slain  at  it  without  further  ritual 
offence. 

The  sequel  is  unexpected  to  Saul,  for,  on  consulting  the  oracle 
with  reference  to  a  night  attack,  he  receives  no  reply.  He  under- 
stands that  Yahweh  is  angry  because  of  the  violation  of  the  taboo. 
The  guilty  party  is  sought  by  the  sacred  lot  and  discovered  to  be 
Jonathan.  He  confesses  that  he  ate  a  little  honey  in  ignorance 
of  his  father's  objurgation,  and  avows  his  willingness  to  die.  But 
the  people  intervene  and  redeem  him.  There  is  by  this  time  no 
thought  of  further  warfare,  and  the  campaign  terminates  without 
decisive  advantage  to  either  side. 

This  is  the  main  narrative.  It  is  interrupted  (besides  minor 
interpolations)  by  two  digressions;  one  (13^^^)  gives  us  at  Gilgal 
an  interview  between  Samuel  and  Saul  in  Avhich  the  latter  is  in- 
formed of  his  rejection;  the  second  (13^^^^)  describes  the  dis- 
armed condition  of  Israel.  At  the  end  of  the  section  (14*''"^')  we 
find  a  general  summary  of  Saul's  activity  which  may  have  been 
added  by  a  later  hand.  Aside  from  these,  the  story  is  clear  and 
connected,  and  we  have  no  difficulty  in  identifying  it  as  a  part  of 
the  life  of  Saul  which  began  in  9^-10", 


XIII.  1-3  91 

There  is  substantial  unanimity  in  the  analysis,*  and  in  the  connexion  of  the 
main  stream  of  the  narrative  with  the  earlier  account  of  Saul's  election,  'ihe 
reason  for  regarding  the  sections  separated  above  as  of  later  date  than  the  rest 
of  the  story,  lie  on  the  surface,  but  will  be  pointed  out  in  detail  in  the  course 
of  the  exposition.  The  student  may  be  referred  to  We.,  Comp.  jip.  246-248, 
Prol'^.  pp.  266-272;  Stade,  GVI.  I.  p.  215  ff.;  Kuenen,  HCO-.  pp.  371,  381; 
Budde,  1\S.  pp.  191  f.,  204-208,  and  his  text  in  SBOT.;  Cornill,  Einl^.-^. 
97  f.,  ZATW.  X.  p.  96  f.;  Kittel,  GH.  II.  p.  28  (the  results  in  his  translation 
in  Kautzsch,  IISA'J'.);   Driver,  LOJ'".  p.  175;  W.  R.  Smith,  O'J'JC'^.  p.  134. 

1.  The  verse  as  it  stands  in  |^  is  meaningless  and  evidently 
a  late  insertion.  —  2.  There  seems  no  difficulty  in  connecting  this 
verse  directly  with  ii'''.  As  soon  as  Saul  was  made  king  he  re- 
cruited an  army  of  three  thousand  men  :  and  two  thousand  were 
with  Saul  in  Michmash  and  in  Mount  Bethel^  we  naturally  sup- 
pose each  place  garrisoned  with  a  thousand.  Michmash  still  bears 
its  ancient  name,  and  is  a  village  on  the  north  side  of  a  narrow  val- 
ley south  of  which  lies  Geba.  The  location  is  given  by  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  as  nine  miles  from  Jerusalem  near  Ramah.  The  sides 
of  the  wady  on  which  it  is  located  are  still  very  steep.  Bethel,  now 
Beitin,  the  well-known  sanctuary,  was,  like  Michmash,  a  strong- 
hold. Both  were  occupied  by  armies  in  the  Maccabean  wars. 
The  two  places  are  mentioned  together,  Ezr.  2^'^-  Neh.  f"^  ii^\ 
—  And  the  rest  were  with  Jonathan  his  son  in  Geba  of  Benjamin'] 
the  confusion  of  Gibeah  and  Geba  is  so  obvious  in  this  chapter 
that  I  have  corrected  to  the  one  form  throughout.  Geba  was  the 
village  just  across  the  pass  from  Michmash,  and  the  two  together 
must  be  held  in  order  to  command  the  pass.  For  the  location  cf. 
Is.  10^  which,  however,  makes  evident  that  in  Isaiah's  time  Geba 
and  Gibeah  0/ Saui  were  two  different  places,  for  after  Michmash 
it  mentions  in  order  Geba,  Ramah,  and  Gibeah  of  Saul.  That 
Geba  is  intended  in  our  narrative  is  evident  from  its  mention  in 
the  immediate  sequel.  After  the  choice  of  his  soldiers,  Saul  dis- 
missed the  rest  of  the  people  to  their  homes.  —  3.  Jonathan  smote 
the  Resident  of  the  Philistines]  the  verb  seems  to  imply  that  it 
was  a  person,  not  a  trophy  or  pillar,  that  was  smitten.  The  rest 
of  the  verse  :  And  the  Philistines  heard;  and  Saul  blew  the 
trumpet  in  all  the  land,  saying r  Let  the  Hebrews  hear!]  puts  the 


*  I  should  state  that  I  have  differed  from  the  consensus  in  regard  to  the  extent 
jl'  the  insertion  which  ends  at  v.i*». 


92  I   SAMUEL 

name  Nebre^vs  in  Saul's  mouth,  which  cannot  be  correct.  The 
clause  atid  the  Philistines  heard  presents  a  further  difificulty  be- 
cause Saul's  blowing  of  the  trumpet  should  follow  immediately 
on  Jonathan's  deed.  For  the  last  two  words  of  the  verse  (© 
renders  the  slaves  have  revolted  in  which  the  verb  at  least  seems 
to  be  original.  But  in  this  form,  or  in  the  form  the  Hebrews  have 
revolted,  the  clause  must  represent  the  report  that  came  to  the 
Philistines.  We  are  tolerably  safe  in  restoring  therefore  :  and  the 
Philistines  heard  [the  report]  saying:  The  Hebrews  have  revolted'] 
the  intermediate  clause  will  then  be  suspicious,  as  a  probably  late 
insertion.  It  is  in  fact  superfluous,  and  the  original  narrative 
probably  described  a  prompt  movement  of  the  Philistines  upon 
Michmash,  making  Saul  retreat  to  Geba,  where  we  find  him  with 
six  hundred  men  in  v.^*'.  This  original  datum  has  been  expanded 
into  the  exaggerated  statement  of  v.^. 

1.  The  verse  as  given  in  IfJ  can  mean  only  one  thing:  Said  was  a  year  old 
when  he  began  to  reign  and  he  reigned  (wo  years  over  Israel'\  this  is  palpably 
absurd.  The  earliest  endeavour  to  give  the  words  a  sense  seems  to  be  re- 
corded in  K  :  Said  was  innocent  as  a  child  a  year  eld  when  he  began  to  reign. 
This  is  followed  by  Theod.,  and  the  earlier  Rabbinical  tradition,  including  the 
spurious  Jerome  in  the  Questiones.  Isaaki  thinks  it  possible  to  render  in  the 
first  year  of  Saul's  reign  .  .  .  he  chose.  RLbG.  supposes  that  a  year  had 
passed  since  his  first  anointing.  Tanchum  however  knows  of  interpreters 
bold  enough  to  assume  that  a  number  has  dropped  out  of  the  text.  This  has 
very  slight  Greek  authority  on  its  side,  as  two  MSS.  of  HP  read  Saul  loas 
thirty  years  old.  The  whole  verse  is  lacking  in  the  most  important  MSS.  of 
0  (•*■  is  defective  here)  and  is  therefore  suspicious.  The  suspicion  is  not 
relieved  by  noticing  that  the  sentence  is  cast  in  the  form  of  the  chronological 
data  found  in  later  parts  of  the  history.  It  seems  tolerably  evident  that  a 
scribe,  wishing  to  make  his  chronology  complete,  inserted  the  verse  without  the 
numbers,  hoping  to  be  able  to  supply  these  at  a  later  date,  which  however  he 
was  unable  to  do.  This  applies  both  to  the  years  of  Saul's  life  and  to  the  years 
of  his  reign,  for  D'jif  ^nci  cannot  be  correct,  and  not  improbably  viii'i  is  cor- 
rupt duplication  of  the  following  word  (We.).  Extended  discussion  of  the 
verse  in  the  older  expositors,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Schm.,  Pfeiffer  {Dubia  Vex- 
aia)  have  now  only  an  antiquarian  interest.  The  whole  verse  should  be 
stricken  out.  —  2.  0''p'?N]  should  be  followed  by  t:"N  as  indicated  by  (5S>.  On 
Michmash,  cf.  Baedeker,  Palestine"^,  p.  119,  Furrer  in  Schenkel's  Bibel  Lexi- 
kon,  IV.  p.  216.  Mount  Bethel  occurs  only  here  according  to  j[^.  On  the 
now  generally  accepted  identification  of  Bethel  with  Beittn  cf.  'floors.  Judges, 
p.  42.      The   importance    of  the  two    places   here   mentioned    is   noted   by 


XIII.  3  93 

GASmith,  Geog?  pp.  250,  290.  As  Jonathan  has  not  been  mentioned  before, 
the  addition  his  son  made  by  %  has  much  in  its  favour. —  prD'ji  .-i>jj3]  in  re- 
gard to  the  place  here  intended,  we  may  note  that  Jonathan's  deed  in  the  next 
verse  is  performed  at  Geba.  Moreover,  the  possession  of  Geba  is  important 
to  him  who  would  control  the  road  leading  up  from  the  Jordan  valley.  In 
v}'  Saul  and  Jonathan  are  occupying  Geba,  which  nevertheless  is  called 
Gibeah  of  Benjamin  in  14"'.  It  seems  evident  that  Geba  is  intended  through- 
out this  narrative.  In  the  time  of  Isaiah  however  as  already  noted,  Gibeah 
of  Saul  \i2&  distinguished  from  Geba. — r^.iN*?  ;;'in]  the  phrase  dates  back  to 
the  time  when  the  people  were  nomads  or  at  least  tent-dwelling  fellahin.  — 
3.  "|m]  the  verb  is  used  nearly  always  of  smiting  living  beings,  once  of  strik- 
ing the  rock,  Ex.  17^.  But  Jonathan  would  do  more  than  strike  a  pillar,  tro- 
phy, or  trmmphal  monument;  he  would  overthrow  it,  for  which  some  other 
verb  would  be  used;  Am.  9',  which  is  cited  as  an  example  of  this  verlD  used  for 
the  overthrow  of  columns,  is  obscure  and  probably  corrupt.  This  reasoning 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  3'SJ  is  an  officer  or  a  garrison. — 3V"i'.:'Vd  i>'n-'''i 
2^"(3>n  .  .  .]  is  one  of  the  cruces  criticoruni.  The  somewhat  violent  treat- 
ment advocated  above  proceeds  on  the  theory  that  for  the  words  an3;'n  lync"' : 
i]deTriKa<Tiu  oi  SovAoi  (S  we  should  restore  cn.3;n  y;ys  (Bu.).  If  so  the  words 
(with  or  without  "i::.s'"')  should  follow  immediately  on  D\'Tr^3  (Bu.).  But  in 
that  case  the  intermediate  clause  is  suspicious.  The  full  reason  for  its  omis- 
sion will  be  seen  only  after  considering  the  next  verse. 

4-15*.  That  this  paragraph  (at  least  the  main  part  of  it)  is 
from  a  different  source  is  universally  conceded.  It  is  characterized 
by  having  Gilgal  as  its  scene  instead  of  Geba.  But  Saul's  move- 
ment from  Geba  to  Gilgal  would  be,  from  the  military  point  of 
view,  an  insane  step.  The  highlands  were  Israel's  stronghold. 
To  recover  them  when  once  abandoned  would  be  practically  im- 
possible. In  v."^  we  find  Saul  and  Jonathan  still  in  Geba  with 
their  small  force.  The  journey  to  Gilgal  and  back  is  made  only 
to  accommodate  the  compiler.  The  change  of  scene  is  accom- 
panied by  a  remarkable  change  of  tone  in  the  narrative.  In  the 
opening  verses  Saul  and  Jonathan  act  as  real  rulers  of  the  people. 
In  the  following  chapter  they  continue  to  act  in  the  same  way, 
with  no  apparent  consciousness  that  their  kingdom  has  been 
rejected.  In  the  intervening  paragraph  Samuel  appears  as  the 
theocratic  authority,  and  Saul  is  rebuked  for  having  acted  inde- 
pendently. Even  when  he  has  waited  seven  days  in  accordance 
with  Samuel's  injunction,  and  when  the  cause  of  Israel  is  in  jeop- 
ardy because  of  the  delay,  he  is  chided  for  taking  a  single  step 
without  Samuel's  presence  and  consent. 


94 


1  SAMIEL 


The  paragraph  has  usually  been  supposed  a  duplicate  of  ch.  i  j 
and  dependent  upon  that.  It  seems  to  me  more  probable  that 
this  is  the  earlier  and  therefore  the  original,  the  first  reason  being 
that  it  is  more  closely  knit  with  the  older  narrative.  Besides  the 
phenomena  of  v.'"',  it  is  distinctly  prepared  for  in  lo".  Only  by 
supposing  this  to  be  the  earlier  narrative  can  we  account  for  Gilgal 
as  the  scene  of  15.  For  the  author  of  that  chapter  assuredly 
would  have  made  Samuel  depose  Saul  at  Mizpah,  the  sanctuary 
where  he  chose  him,  had  he  not  found  another  locality  specified 
by  history.  It  hardly  seems  likely,  moreover,  that  an  author  who 
knew  the  impressive  and  implacable  narrative  of  15  would  feel  any 
obligation  to  compose  the  one  before  us.  On  the  other  hand,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  narrative  of  w4iich  15  is  a  part  was  composed 
to  replace  this  one,  and  the  author  had  every  reason  to  duplicate 
this  section  as  he  duplicated  other  scenes  of  the  older  story.  It 
would  be  desirable  to  him  also  (as  he  is  much  more  distinctly  a 
preacher  than  the  earlier  author)  to  make  clear  the  reason  of  Saul's 
rejection,  which  is,  to  say  the  least,  only  obscurely  set  before  us 
in  the  present  narrative. 

If  it  be  taken  as  proved  that  we  have  here  a  separate  document, 
the  question  arises:  Exactly  where  does  it  begin?  Its  lower 
limit  is  evidently  ^'^''.  But  the  upper  limit  is  not  so  plain.  It  is 
generally  assumed  to  be  '*'  as  we  find  in  Budde's  text.  To  this 
there  seem  grave  objections.  In  the  first  place  the  gathering  of 
the  people  is  already  said  to  be  at  Gilgal  in  v.*.  This,  to  be  sure, 
may  be  corrected  to  Geba,  or  omitted.  But  Gilgal,  as  a  place  of 
mustering  the  whole  people,  seems  too  natural  so  to  be  set  aside. 
Again  w^e  have  the  enormous  numbers  of  the  Philistines  in  v.^, 
which  clearly  do  not  comport  with  the  main  narrative  —  in  which 
Saul  operates  with  only  six  hundred  men,  and  puts  the  enemy  to 
flight.  In  fact  the  author,  having  gathered  all  Israel,  is  obliged 
to  make  them  disperse  to  the  caves  and  dens  and  carry  with  them 
a  large  part  of  Saul's  standing  army.  That  this  could  be  sup- 
posed possible  before  a  single  skirmish  had  taken  place  does  not 
seem  credible  in  the  author  who  exalts  the  valour  of  Jonathan. 
To  this  we  may  add  that  the  Gilgal  of  v.''  is  confirmed  by  the 
opening  words  of  ''^  which  do  not  say  that  Saul  came  down  to 
Gilgal,  but  that  he  was  still  there.     For  these  reasons  I  suppose 


.Vttl.  4-6  95 

that  the  original  narrative  told  :  that  Jonathan  smote  the  resident 
of  the  Philistines  and  that  the  Philistines  heard  of  the  Hebrew 
revolt  (^)  ;  that  the  Philistines  came  up  in  force  (■^'')  ;  and  then 
that  Saul  mustered  the  force  at  his  command  and  found  it  to  be 
six  hundred  men  Q'^^) .  The  promptness  with  which  the  Philis- 
tines acted  was  such  that  there  was  no  time  to  call  out  the  militia. 

4-7.  The  situation  of  the  people. — Probably  the  clause  we 
Iiave  cast  out  of  v.^  may  be  prefixed  here  :  Saul  blew  the  trumpet 
in  all  the  land  (■*)  and  all  Israel  heard  saying:  Saul  has  smitten 
the  Resident  of  the  Philistines']  it  is  probably  not  hypercritical  to 
see  in  the  change  from  Jonathan  to  Saul  an  evidence  of  change 
of  author.  — And  also  Israel  has  made  itself  of  ill  odour  with  the 
Philistines]  cf.  Gen.  34^*'  Ex.  5^^  2  S.  lo*^  16-'.  That  Gilgal  is  the 
place  of  muster  to  this  author  has  already  been  noticed,  and  cor- 
rection or  excision  of  the  word  is  unnecessary.  —  5.  The  force  of 
the  Philistines  is  given  as  thirty  thousand  chariots  for  which  (©^  S 
have  three  thotisand.  This  is  favoured  by  Bochart  and  others, 
but  is  still  absurdly  large.  Egypt  only  mustered  six  hundred 
chariots,  Ex.  1^^,  and  other  notices  show  that  this  was  the  scale 
for  large  armies.  But  our  author  is  prodigal  of  numbers.  Syrian 
experience  later  showed  that  chariots  could  not  be  used  in  the 
hill  country  of  Palestine. — And  people]  that  is  foot  soldiers,  like 
the  sand  which  is  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  for  multitude]  cf.  Jd.  f^ 
2  S.  1 7".  The  Arab's  hyperbole  is  similar  :  '  like  the  sand  of  the 
desert.' —  They  came  up  and  camped  in  Michrnash,  east  of  Beth 
Aven]  Michmash  lies  about  southeast  from  Bethel,  which  by  a 
stretch  of  the  imagination  might  be  described  as  it  is  described  in 
the  text.  Beth  Aven  seems  to  be  a  scribe's  distortion  of  Bethel. 
In  any  case,  the  author  who  had  just  spoken  of  Michmash  and 
Bethel  together  (v.^)  would  hardly  have  felt  it  necessary  to  be  so 
explicit  here.  —  6.  And  the  men  of  Israel  saw  that  they  were  in 
a  strait  for  they  were  hard  pressed]  the  diffusiveness  shows  the 
writer's  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  unaccountable  dispersion 
of  the  people.  —  And  the  people  hid  themselves  in  caves  and  in 
holes  and  in  rocks  and  in  tombs  and  in  pits]  the  list  is  an  amplifi- 
cation of  what  we  find  in  14",  where  however  the  sarcastic  remark 
of  the  Philistines  does  not  imply  that  this  elaborate  statement  has 


()6  1  SAMri;i, 

preceded.  —  7.  And  much  people^  tlie  reading  is  conjectural  — 
crossed  the  Jordan  to  the  hind  of  Gad  and  Gilead~\  well-known 
districts  in  the  possession  of  Israel.  —  But  Saul  was  yet  in  Gilgal 
.  .  .]  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  cannot  now  be  restored  with  any 
certainty. 

4.  lynr]  is  lacking  in  S  which  joins  SNitt^'Sji  to  the  preceding  verse.  — 
u*N3)]  A)  ^iTt'  intense  proviU-aiion,  2  S.  lO®  16^^  — ipj-'i''^]  koX  aveBrja-au  (3^  is 
apparently  inner  Greek  corruption  of  aveySorjo-ac  which  is  found  in  several 
MSS.  (HP).  —  '^j'^.n]  supported  by  the  versions,  is  exscinded  by  Bu.,  changed 
into  nn>'3in  by  Co.  {ZKIV.  1885,  p.  123).  —  5.  Bochart's  reduction  of  the 
chariots  to  three  thousand,  in  which  he  includes  the  baggage  wagons  (^Iliero- 
zoicon,  Pars.  I.  Lib.  II.  Cap.  IX.),  though  only  a  halfway  measure,  is  adopted 
by  We.,  Dr.,  al.  —  ps  n^^]  (5  has  Beth  Horon,  S6  has  Bethel.  Nearly  all  the 
passages  in  which  the  name  occurs  have  a  suspicious  text.  Certainly  the 
author  who  just  wrote  ^.sTio  would  have  no  motive  to  use  a  different  form 
here;  iox  Beth  Aven  is  another  name  for  Bethel. — 6.  ini]  Bu.  corrects  to 
n.s- 1  on  the  ground  of  ©,  which,  however,  can  hardly  be  taken  so  literally  in  a 
case  like  this.  —  o;n  z'n  ^3]  omit  o>ti  with  We.,  al. ;  (5^  has  oil  onvais  avroi 
/xi]  npoffdyetu  aiirov.  It  is  possible  that  the  text  is  corrupt,  though  what 
Hebrew  original  is  implied  by  (@b  jg  hard  to  discover.  The  verb  it'jj  is  used 
of  an  overseer's  driving  his  slaves.  —  a^nin;]  ]  is  doubtless  a  corruption  of 
onn^i  as  first  suggested  by  Ew.  —  a^nnx]  the  word  is  used  (as  pointed  out  by 
Dr.)  in  the  inscriptions  of  Medain  Salih,  for  sepulchres  hewn  in  the  rock.  — 
7.  ^^2;  3'i3,'i]  Kal  oi  5io/3aicovres  Sie0r]irav  (§.  I  am  not  certain  that  the 
suggested  reading  >•  0''T3i?i  is  not  correct.  But  as  the  participle  in  such  cases 
usually  follows  the  verb,  I  have  followed  Bu.  in  adopting  Kl.'s  conjecture, 
na;  3-1  d;'i.  We.  proposed  .-^n^;":  nayi  which  was  syntactically  improved  by 
Dr.  into  nn3j,'D  n2"M.  The  final  clause  of  the  verse  cannot  be  correct.  Nor 
does  We.'s  emendation  of  v-ins  to  innso  on  the  basis  of  (5^-'  meet  the  diffi- 
culty. The  flight  of  the  people  has  already  been  described;  what  we  now 
want  to  know  is  who  remained.  Kl.  conjectures  innx  ^Tin  D>'n  which  is 
favoured  by  IL.  I  should  prefer  inns  •\-\^r\  nyn  but  do  not  feel  certain  that 
either  is  correct. 

8-15a.  Saul's  rejection.  —  He  waited  in  Gilgal  seven  days  for 
the  appointed  time  which  Samuel  had  set'\  the  reference  is  to  lo* 
where,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Samuel  directs  him  to  go  down 
to  Gilgal  and  wait  seven  days  for  his  coming.  When  Samuel  did 
not  appear  the  people  scattered  awav  from  him']  as  we  should 
expect,  especially  in  a  levy  of  undisciplined  troops  without  com- 
missary. —  9.  Saul  orders  the  offering  to  be  brought  and  himself 
offered  the  burnt  offering]  war  was  initiated  with  religious  cere- 


XIII.  7-15  97 

monies,  as  is  indicated  by  the  phrase  consecrate  war  Jer.  6*,  al.  — 
10.  As  Saul  finished  the  CQrQmony  Samuel  came  and  Saul  went 
out  to  greet  him']  with  the  customary  :  Blessed  be  thou  /  is  inti- 
mated by  the  word  used,  cf.  2  K.  4^.  — 11.  To  Samuel's  question  : 
IVhat  hast  thou  done  ?  he  replies  :  /  saw  that  the  people  were 
scattering  away  from  me,  and  thou  didst  not  come  at  the  appointed 
term  atid  the  Philistines  were  gathering  at  Michmash]  everything 
seemed  to  call  for  prompt  action ;  "  non  solum  se  excusat  sad 
omnes,  quotquot  potest,  accusat."  *  — 12.  And  I  said]  he  means 
he  said  to  himself :  Now  will  the  Philistines  come  down  to  me  to 
Gilgal  and  the  face  of  Yahweh  I  have  not  appeased]  by  a  gift,  Ps. 
45'^ ;  the  phrase  is  also  used  of  approaching  Yahweh  with  entreaty, 
Ex.  32'^  I  K.  13".  —  And  I  constrained  myself]  elsewhere  in  tlie 
sense  of  restraining  one's  emotions.  Gen.  43-^^  45^  Is.  42".  The 
intimation  is  that  he  would  have  waited  still  longer,  but  the  circum- 
stances forced  his  hand.  —  13.  The  reply  of  Samuel :  Thou  hast 
acted  foolishly .'  If  thou  hadst  kept  the  commandment  of  Yahweh 
thy  God  which  he  commanded  thee,  then  would,  Yahweh  have  estab- 
lished thy  kingdom  over  Israel  forever]  for  changes  in  the  pointing 
of  ifH  see  the  critical  note.  — 14.  But  no2v]  adversatively  as  in 
2^  cf.  24^^,  thy  kingdotn  shall  not  stand.  That  the  language  and 
behaviour  of  Samuel  are  less  stern  and  damnatory  here  than  in  1 5 
will  be  generally  conceded  ;  the  fact  makes  for  the  priority  of  this 
account.  —  Yahweh  has  sought  out  a  matt  according  to  his  heart] 
the  divine  purpose  is  already  a  fixed  fact.  —  And  Yahweh  has  set 
him  as  Leader  over  his  people]  still  the  consecutive  tense,  in  view 
of  the  divine  purpose.  —  \b^.  The  verse  as  it  stands  in  |^  tells  us 
of  Samuel's  going  up  to  Geba.  But  as  we  hear  nothing  more  of 
him  there,  this  is  evidently  a  mistake.  A  clause  has  fallen  out  by 
homeoteleuton  which  is  preserved  in  %  and  which  should  be 
restored  as  follows  :  Atid  Samuel  arose  and  went  up  from  Gilgal 
and  went  his  way,  and  the  rest  of  the  people  went  after  Saul  to 
meet  the  men  of  war  and  came  from  Gilgal  to  Geba  of  Benjamifi] 
the  eye  of  the  scribe  fell  upon  the  second  Gilgal  instead  of  the 
first. 

What  was  Saul's  sin  in  this  matter  is  nowhere  expressly  set  down, 

»  Mendoza,  cited  in  Poole's  Synopsis. 


98  I  SAMUEL 

and  it  is  difficult  to  discover  anything  in  the  text  at  which  Samuel 
could  justly  take  offence.     The  original  command  was  to  wait 
seven  days,  and  this  Saul  did.     In  the  circumstances  he  might 
well  plead  that  he  had  been  too  scrupulous.     It  would  not  be  im- 
pertinent to  ask  why  Samuel  had  waited  so  long  before  appearing. 
No  reason  is  given  for  his  delay,  and  in  the  mind  of  the  narrator 
there  seems  to  have  been  no  reason  except  that  Samuel  wished  to 
put  Saul  to  the  test.     It  cannot  be  said  that  Saul  usurped  priestly 
prerogatives  in  offering  with  his  own  hand.    The  narrator  would 
certainly  have  let  us  know  this  had  it  been  his  conception.     What- 
ever may  have  been  the  priestly  rights  at  this  time,  we  may  well 
suppose  that  the  author  thought  of  Saul  as  no  more  intruding 
upon  them  than  did  David  and  Solomon  when  they  sacrificed. 
The  language  of  Samuel's  rebuke  speaks  of  disobedience  to  a 
command  of  Yahweh,  which  however  can  only  be  the  command  of 
ID*  which  Saul  literally  obeyed.     The  only  conclusion  to  which  we 
can  come  is  that  the  author  glorifies  the  sovereign  will  of  Yahweh 
who  rejects  and  chooses  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure. 
Samuel  is  the  embodiment  of  this  sovereign  will.     The  straits  of 
the  commentators  are  evident.     Keil  interprets  Samuel's  language 
not  as  a  rejection  of  Saul,  but  as  an  announcement  of  the  brevity 
of  his  reign.     But  this  is  contrary  to  the  sense.     Ewald  says  : 
"  The  ruler  who  prematurely  and  out  of  mere  impatience  lays  his 
hand  on  that  from  which  he  should  have  refrained,  trifles  away  his 
real  power  and  his  best  success."  *    But  the  condemnation  of  Saul 
as  acting  '  prematurely  '  and  '  out  of  mere  impatience  '  is  not  war- 
ranted by  anything  in  the  text.     Clericus  also  is  obliged  to  read 
something  into   the  text :    "  Forte  citius   aequo   Sacra   facturus, 
contemptim  de  Samuele  aut  cogitavit  aut  etiam  loquutus  est." 
Thenius  also  frames  hypotheses  for  which  there  is  no  warrant  in 
the  narrative. 

8.  Snin]  is  intended  to  be  Piel,  a  not  uncommon  form,  Stade,  Gram. 
p.  278.  It  seems  unnecessary  to  change  to  "i-nn  Qre.  -t>na  is  an  appointed 
time  or  place,  cf.  nn  nyio'^  20^5.  —  ^nic^-  i^-n]  is  impossible;  we  must  either 
strike  out  nsfN  with  5  or  insert  a  word;  t:n  is  inserted  by  Th.,  We.,  Bu.  on 
the  ground  of  ©ST;  z,'V  is  preferred  by  Kl.,  Dr.,  and  might  easily  have  been 
lost  before  Vnidb'.     6  Hebr.  MSS.  insert  -i::n;   5  insert  ^v  (DeR.),  cf.  Ex.  9^. 


*  Ew.,  GF/8.  III.  p.  46,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  32. 


XIII.  15-17  99 

—  Vfi'i]  cf.  2  S.  2d^.  —  9.  nSym]  out  of  the  several  anitnals  that  were  offered, 
the  'ola  was  the  one  specially  set  apart  for  Yahweh.  — 10.  njm  .  .  .  m^Ds] 
marks  the  appearance  of  Samuel  just  as  the  burnt  offering  was  completed. — 

II.  'DJ  is  probably  to  be  taken  as  o  recitativum  (Dr.),  but  it  may  also  an- 
swer Samuel's  unspoken  question  as  to  why  Saul  had  acted  as  he  had.  —  sbj]  is 
probably  to  be  pointed  so  (Bu.),  cf.  v.^,  from  which  we  see  that  the  verb  is 

^10. 12.   ■>ni'?n  nS  r\yr\>  ijfji]  the  sentence  is  generally  used  of  conciliating 

God.  — 13.  kS]  is  the  pointing  of  the  received  text,  but  we  should  quite  cer- 
tainly read  n';',  that  is  ni*?,  proposed  by  Hitzig  (as  stated  by  We.  who,  how- 
ever, gives  no  reference,  apparently  depending  upon  Th.,  who  gives  Zeller, 
Theol.Jahrb.  1843,  II.  278  ff.).  The  particle  h  in  a  hypothesis  contrary  to 
reality,  is  followed  in  the  apodosis  by  nnj;  'o,  as  here,  in  Num.  22^9  i  S.  148° 
Job  62.  Dr.  inclines  to  retain  the  pointing  of  f&.,  cf.  also  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  131, 
R.  2.  —  nny]  has  lost  its  temporal  force  and  become  logical  (Dav.).  For:  the 
commandment  of  Yahweh  thy  God  which  he  commanded  thee,  we  find  in  (S  my 
commandment  which  Yahweh  commanded  thee.  — 14.  B'pa]  on  the  use  of  this 
tense,  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §§  13,  14,  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  41-  — 1'']  the  dative  of  advan- 
tage, Dav.,  Syntax,  §  loi,  R.  i  <5.  —  naVo]  the  only  exact  parallel  seems  to  be 
Jer.  32^  but  cf.  2  S.  721.  — T'JjS  ihism]  253"  2  S.  6^1,  the  verb  is  used  of  ap- 
pointing 'the  Judges  2  S.  7",  cf.  Num.  271^.  _  15.  The  plus  of  (5  is  already 
noted  by  Mendoza  (in  Poole's  Synopsis).  — '?i'^ir\-\i:,']  according  to  ®l  (from 
which  the  words  passed  into  the  current  recension  of  IL)  we  should  add: 
SjSj.t  p  insm  nnnScn  0;;  PNipS  Sinc  ■■inN  rhy  ajrn  -^pii  isiiS  ^S>1.  The  cor- 
rection is  adopted  by  all  recent  scholars  (except  Keil).  Probably  S>'ii  of  %  is 
not  original  (not  represented  in  @)  and  was  inserted  after  the  loss  of  this 
sentence.  In  addition  to  the  commentaries  on  this  passage,  the  reader  may  be 
referred  to  Graetz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.  p.  175,  and  Ew.,  GVI'^.  p.  45,  E.  Tr, 

III.  p.  32. 

15t>.  The  half  verse  tells  us  that  Saul  numbered  the  people  that 
were  with  him,  about  six  hundred  men.  As  we  find  the  same 
number  given  in  14^  it  is  possible  that  it  is  an  insertion  here. 
We  are  even  tempted  to  suppose  the  whole  sentence  an  effort  of 
the  redactor  to  fit  together  the  two  discordant  sections  of  his 
narrative. 

16-18.  The  Philistine  raid. —The  first  verse  describes  the 
condition  of  things  which  followed  Jonathan's  first  stroke.  The 
Philistines  were  in  virtual  possession  of  the  country.  The  Hebrews 
only  maintained  themselves  in  one  post :  Saul  and  Jonathan  his 
son,  and  the  people  that  were  with  them,  were  abiding  in  Geba  of 
Benjatnin']  the  addition  made  by  &  seems  uncalled  for.  — 17.  The 
Philistine  policy  is  to  reduce  the  people  to  submission  by  devas- 


lOO  I  SAMUEL 

tating  the  country  far  and  wide.  The  plunderers  were  in  three 
divisions  :  One  division  turned  to  the  Ophrah  road~\  apparently 
the  Ophrah  mentioned  among  the  towns  of  Benjamin,  Jos.  i8^. 
It  was  identified  by  Robinson  *  with  Taiyibeh,  five  miles  northeast 
of  Bethel.  The  location  would  suit  the  present  narrative.  The 
land  of  Shual  seems  to  be  nowhere  else  mentioned.  —  18.  The 
second  band  turned  west  from  Michmash  towards  Beth  Horon, 
a  well-known  town  west  of  Michmash.  As  the  PhiUstine  force 
came  from  the  west,  there  seems  no  reason  why  they  should  send 
foragers  out  in  that  direction.  But  perhaps  the  author  thinks  of 
them  as  having  come  up  by  a  more  northerly  road.  The  third 
band  went  eastward :  toivards  the  hill  which  overhangs  the  valley 
of  Zeboim'\  the  description  points  to  one  of  the  heights  which 
overlook  the  Ghor.  The  author  thinks  of  a  PhiUstine  force  settled 
at  Michmash  which  employed  itself  in  punishing  the  country,  not 
looking  for  serious  opposition.  The  valley  of  Zeboitn  is  of  course 
one  of  the  wadys  of  which  the  region  is  full.  A  place,  Zeboim  in 
Benjamin,  is  mentioned  after  the  exile,  Neh.  ii^.  Verse'*  is 
continued  directly  by  v.^ ;  what  is  between  is  a  later  insertion. 

16.  After  rs'ja,  ®s  adds  koI  eK\aiov,  which  is  adopted  by  Graetz  (^Gesck. 
I.  p.  175)  and  Kl.  But  it  is  hardly  likely  that  the  little  band  of  soldiers 
would  so  give  way  to  grief  before  they  had  tried  conclusions  with  the  enemy. 
— 17.  n^n-j'cn]  the  verb  is  used  of  laying  a  land  waste,  as  the  Bedawin  do  by 
pasturing  cattle  on  the  growing  crops,  Jd.  6*,  or,  more  seriously,  by  cutting 
down  the  fruit  trees,  a  custom  forbidden  in  Dt.  ao^^-  as  it  is  by  Arabic  common 
sense.  —  S'^'nt  n'r'^r]  accusative  of  condition.  Dr.,  AWes,  Dav.,  Syntax,  §  70, 
R.  I,  —  inn]  where  we  should  expect  insn.  A  similar  instance  is  found  in 
i^,  cf.  Konig,  Syntax,  §  334  J.  —  ^JO']  the  tense  shows  repeat&d  action.  The 
land  of  Shual  is  combined  by  Th.,  Erdm.,  with  the  land  of  Shaalim  9*.  Rob- 
inson's identification  of  Ophrah  is  accepted  by  GASmith,  Geog.  p.  291,  Note  1, 
but  rejected  by  Dillmann  {Num.  Lev.  Jos.  p.  551  f.)  on  the  ground  that  it  is  too 
far  north  for  a  Benjamite  town.  But  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  author  in  Jos. 
(P)  made  it  a  Benjamite  town  because  he  found  it  in  this  Benjamite  history; 
cf.  also  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  177.  — 18.  '^njn]  ra/Sse  (5  points  to  ny^jn,  and,  as  We. 
remarks,  it  is  only  a  hill  that  can  be  said  to  overhang  a  valley.  —  D'yaxn  'j] 
Hyena  Gorge  is  still  the  name  (  IVady  abu  Duba')  of  a  valley  north  of  IVady 
Kelt  according  to  Ges.,  IVB^'-.,  but  Buhl  {Geog.  p.  98)  makes  it  one  of  the  side 
valleys  of  the  latter,  or  even  the  Wady  Kelt  itself.  —  m3-\Dn]  is  omitted  by  & 
and  looks  like  an  explanatory  insertion. 

*  BR^.  I.  p.  447. 


XIII.    17-22  10 1 

19-22.  The  lack  of  arms  in  Israel.  —  The  paragraph  intends 
to  represent  Israel  as  having  been  disarmed  by  the  PhiUstines,  but 
its  wording  is  obscure  owing  to  corruption  of  the  text.  The 
disarmament  is  nowhere  indicated  in  the  rest  of  the  narrative, 
and  as  the  four  verses  can  be  cut  out  without  injuring  the  con- 
nexion, we  are  safe  in  assuming  that  they  are  an  interpolation. 
Schmid,  who  feels  the  inconsistency  of  this  with  the  rest  of 
the  narrative,  supposes  the  disarmament  confined  to  Gibeah  and 
its  vicinity. 

19.  There  was  no  smith  in  all  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  the  Phil- 
istines said :  Lest  the  Hebrews  make  sword  or  spear"]  the  motive 
is  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  actors,  as  in  Gen.  32^^  42*  2  S.  16' 
18^*.  —  20.  The  result  was  that  all  Israel  was  compelled  to  go  to 
the  land  of  the  Philistines  :  that  every  man  might  sharpen  his 
ploughshare  and  his  coulter  and  his  axe  and  his  pickaxe]  work 
necessary  to  the  peasant.  Most  recent  scholars  give  the  oxgoad 
as  the  fourth  instrument.  But  however  formidable  the  spike  in 
the  end  of  the  oriental  oxgoad  may  be,  it  can  scarcely  be  sup- 
posed that  it  must  be  taken  to  the  smith  to  be  sharpened.  The 
author  of  the  verse  meant  to  name  those  tools  which  need  to  be 
set  and  tempered  by  the  smith.  —  21.  The  verse  is  admitted  to 
be  hopelessly  corrupt  by  Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.  What  we  expect 
is  either  a  further  account  of  the  oppressive  regulations,  or  else 
a  consequence  such  as  is  drawn  in  v.^l  The  former  is  in  the 
mind  of  the  Greek  translators  when  they  say  (as  it  would  seem) 
that  the  price  of  the  smith's  work  on  each  tool  was  three  shekels. 
The  latter  is  the  conjecture  of  Jerome  who  speaks  of  the  bluntness 
which  affected  all  the  tools  of  the  farmer  on  account  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  getting  them  sharpened.  A  third  conjecture  is  found  in 
9r  and  has  passed  over  into  the  English  version  in  the  form  :  yet 
they  had  a  file  for  the  mattocks.  But  this  is  as  impossible  to  get 
out  of  the  text  as  either  of  the  others.  —  22.  The  results  of  the 
Philistine  policy :  So  it  came  to  pass  in  the  day  of  the  battle  of 
Michtnash,  that  none  of  the  people  with  Saul  and  Jonathan  had 
either  sword  or  spear  —  but  Saul  and  Jonathan  had  them]  the 
original  narrative  seems  to  know  nothing  of  this  when  it  gives  Saul 
a  standing  army  of  three  thousand  men. 


102  I  SAMUEL 

23.  The  verse  takes  up  the  account  of  the  PhiUstine  position. 
In  v.^"*^^  the  plunderers  are  described.  Here  we  are  told  that  the 
garrison,  or  the  permanent  guard  left  in  the  camp,  pushed  for- 
ward to  the  edge  of  the  pass  of  Michmash. 

19-22.  The  secondary  nature  of  the  paragraph  is  recognized  by  We.,  Comp. 
p.  248,  Bu.,  RS.  p.  205  (he  includes  v.^*),  Co.,  Einl^.  p.  97,  and  Ki.  in 
Kautzsch,  HSA  T.  —  19.  tfnn]  is  used  of  a  worker  in  wood,  stone,  or  metal ; 
TfKTicv  criSripov  (S  may  point  to  Sna  cnn  (cf.  Is.  44^'-),  or  it  may  be  simply  an 
attempt  to  render  the  word  as  the  context  requires. — ncNJ  is  changed  to  n::x 
by  the  Qre  unnecessarily. — 20.  o^na'Vfln]  the  conjecture  of  Dr.  Weir  (given 
by  Dr.)  that  we  should  read  a\-i:ySfl  ^x^^<  is  confirmed  by  @E.  —  Z'-J^b]  to  beat 
out,  as  the  blacksmith  does  in  reforging  worn  tools.  Of  the  four  implements 
here  mentioned,  the  first  and  third  seem  to  be  tolerably  certain,  though  tradi- 
tion, as  represented  by  the  versions,  is  not  uniform,  na-nnn  is  most  natu- 
rally iht  ploughshare,  though  @'^^  has  the  sickle,  with  which  S  agrees,  while 
2r  renders  oxgoad.  —  ihn]  should  be  pointed  \in  according  to  the  form  in 
Is.  2*  (Mic.  4^)  Joel  4^°.  Beyond  the  fact  that  it  is  a  tool  of  some  kind,  we 
cannot  go  with  certainty.  ®  gives  oKivos  simply;  Symmachus  translates 
ffKacpiof,  which  is  the  mattock  (Procop.  Gaz.  Com.  in  loco).  The  passages  in 
Isaiah  and  Joel  speak  of  beating  the  rx  into  a  sword,  or  vice  versa.  This 
would  fit  the  coulter,  a  knife  fastened  to  the  plough-beam  to  cut  the  sod  before 
the  ploughshare  turns  it.  But  we  do  not  know  whether  the  Hebrew  plough 
had  such  an  appendage.  %  rtnA^rs  ploughshare,  and  ^T  the  pin  of  the  yoke. — 
DT\p  is  quite  certainly  the  axe,  Jd.  9**.  The  fourth  tool  differs  (in  the  received 
text)  from  the  first  by  the  pointing  only.  This  identity  is  suspicious,  and  we 
probably  have  the  mistake  of  a  scribe  to  deal  with.  But  what  we  should 
restore  is  doubtful.  We.  and  others  propose  iJ3-\i,  influenced  by  the  occur- 
rence of  this  word  in  v.^i  and  the  rendering  dp4iravov  (3,  which  word  occurs 
also  in  v.^i  (3,  though  pm  is  nowhere  else  so  rendered.  But  in  the  confusion 
of  the  text  of  v.^i,  it  is  difficult  to  allow  much  weight  to  the  argument;  for 
until  we  know  what  that  verse  means,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  it  gives  the  same 
list  of  tools  with  this.  The  versions  give  the  further  choice  of  the  mattock 
(Sym.),  the  spade  S,  the  adze  %  rpioSovs  (Aq.),  sarculwn  IL,  and  the  axe 
(Ar.).  To  such  variety  it  may  be  impertinent  to  add  the  conjecture  of  Ew. 
{GVI^.  III.  p.  47,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  33),  who  reads  isnn,  though  his  translation, 
the  threshing  sledge,  vnW  hardly  do.  According  to  Hoffmann  {ZATW.  II. 
p.  66),  vnn  is  the  stonemason's  pick,  from  which  we  may  conjecture  that  the 
pickaxe  would  be  called  by  the  same  name.  This  is  an  indispensable  tool  to 
the  peasant  in  a  rocky  country  like  Palestine,  and  could  scarcely  be  kept  in 
shape  without  the  services  of  a  blacksmith.  I  have  therefore  ventured  to 
insert  it  in  my  translation  of  the  verse.  —  21.  The  difficulties  of  the  verse 
seem  to  be  insurmountable.  —  u^d  miXB,-i  nn^ni]  is  ungrammatical,  and  unintel- 
ligible even  if  we  try  to  correct  the  grammar.  —  jiB'Sp  rSrVi]  is  without  analogy 


XIII.  23-XIV.  I  103 

in  Biblical  Hebrew  (on  both  phrases,  cf.  T)x.,  Notes).  —  a^xnVi]   coordinated 
as  it  is  (or  seems  to  be)  with  names  of  tools,  makes  no  sense.     For  the  open- 
ing clause  we  find  koI  ?iv  6  rpuyriThs  eVoijitos  tov  Bepi^eiv  (3  —  fiOJ  TXpn  >n>i 
•\s;^'^,  which  is  not  very  remote  from  pj.     But  this  promising  beginning  is  left 
incomplete.     If  we  were  told  that  w/ien  the  harvest  was  ready  to  reap  the  Phil- 
istines came  up  and  plundered  it,  or  that  the  war  broke  out,  we  could  fit  the 
statement  into  this  context.     But  what  <5  actually  adds  is :  to.  5e  o-zce^Tj  i\v  rpels 
(tIkKoi  els  rhf  oSovra,  which  is  supposed  to  mean  that  the  tariff  fixed  for  the 
tools  was  three  shekels  apiece,  though  it  takes  violent  treatment  to  get  this 
meaning  from  the  words.     The  final  clause  in  (§  moreover,  which  affirms  that 
the  same  arrangement  held  for  the  axe  and  the  sickle,  is  superfluous.     Th., 
reading  s^an  Tii-D.-i,  translates  and.the  sharpening  of  the  edges  (for  the  plough- 
shares and  the  spades)  was  three  shekels  apiece.     But  the  meaning  proposed 
for  TSijn  and  for  a^sn  is  without  authority,  and  the  meaning  apiece  for  \t;S 
is  also  unparalleled.     Retusae  itaque  erant  acies  vomerum  %  is  an  attempt 
to  make  sense  out  of  the  text  of  |§,  but  is  contrary  to  grammar,  and  pro- 
vides no  suitable  preface  to  the  final  clause  us^ue  ad  stimulum  corrigendum. 
Another  attempt  is  made  by  2C,  which  apparently  supposes  m^xon  to  mean 
a  file,  for   it  translates:    ajtd  they  had  a  file  to  sharpen  the  dulness  of  the 
iron  tools.     &  also  has  the  file  (if,  indeed,  xpqt  Nroi;;'  be  the  file),  though 
it  understands  that  the  Hebrews  in  their  necessity  used  their  large  files  for 
ploughshares  (?)  and  for  other  tools.     This  is  more  fully  developed  by  An, 
which  says  in  so  many  words:  they  fashioned  the  broad  file  into  a  pruning- 
hook,  and  took  pegs  from  the  harrows  for  picks.    These  differences  of  interpre- 
tation show  the  impossibility  of  making  sense  of  the  text  as  it  stands,  or  even 
of  finding  a  plausible  emendation.     The  final  clause  p-nn  a^sn^i  seems  to 
connect  most  naturally  with  ro'?'?  of  the  preceding  verse.     But  the  sentence 
is  long  and  awkward  unless  we  assume  with  Toy  (in  Erdm.)  that  the  verse  is 
mainly  an  erroneous  duplication  of  the  preceding.     For  this  hypothesis  there 
is  some  colour  in  the  repetition  of  several  of  the  same  words.     But  when 
written  in  parallel  lines,  the  correspondence  is  not  very  striking.  —  pmn]  for 
the  pointing,  cf.  Stade,  Gram.  52  «. — 22.    n>ni]   should  probably  be  made 
•■nM.     After  nr:n'?a  (on  the  face  of  it  a  construct  form)  we  should  probably 
insert  li'M-:  with  (§  (Ew.).     Toy  proposes  to  read  ii'DDD  instead  of  nDn'?D:  in 
the  day  of  Michmash  would  naturally  mean  in  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Mich- 
mash.  —  23.  3i-::  means  in  14  the  soldiers  who  were  in  occupation  of  the  camp, 
in  distinction  from  those  who  went  out  on  the  various  expeditions.      Here 
however  it  may  mean  the  outpost  which  was  thrown  forward  to  protect  the 
main  camp  from  surprise.  —  "i3j.'o]  it  is  unnecessary  to  change  the  pointing  to 
-n-.":  with  Ewald.     What  is  meant  is  the  pass  from  the  highlands  to  the  Jordan 
valley,  which  ran  down  the  wady.     The  village  of  Michmash  lay  a  little  back 
from  the  ravine;  the  Philistine  outpost  was  stationed  on  its  very  edge. 

XIV.  1.   Jonathan  proposes  an  attack.  —  The  main  stream  of 
the  narrative  here  recurs,  and  tells  of  Jonathan's  proposal  to  his 


104  1  SAMUEL 

adjutant.  A  digression  is  made  to  describe  the  scene  more  exactly. 
— //  came  to  pass  on  that  day\  that  is,  the  particular  day  of  which 
we  are  to  speak,  as  in  i* — that  Jonathan  ben  Saul  said  to  his 
armour-bearer']  it  is  proper  that  Jonathan  should  be  given  his  full 
name  at  the  beginning  of  so  important  a  paragraph.  The  name 
does  not  imply  that  he  has  not  been  mentioned  before,  cf.  23"*. 
The  armour-bearer  was  the  man  chosen  by  a  leader  or  prominent 
officer  to  be  his  trusty  attendant,  aid,  adjutant,  armiger,  or  squire. 
Jonathan  proposes  a  surprise  of  the  enemy's  post,  but  does  not 
let  his  father  know,  doubtless  fearing  to  be  forbidden  the  fool- 
hardy attempt. —  2.  The  situation  is  described  :  first,  with  refer- 
ence to  Saul,  who  loas  sitting  in  the  uttermost  part  of  Geba]  so 
we  must  read,  to  be  consistent,  under  the  pojnegranate  tree  which 
is  in  the  threshing-floor]  for  the  reading,  see  the  critical  note. 
The  force  with  him  was  the  six  hundred  men  already  mentioned. 
—  3.  An  important  member  of  the  camp  is  the  priest  who  has 
charge  of  the  sacred  lot.  He  is  mentioned  here  in  order  to 
prepare  us  for  the  part  he  is  afterwards  to  take.  —  Ahijah  ben 
Ahitub,  brother  of  Ichabod]  the  mention  of  Ichabod  is  possibly 
the  work  of  the  redactor.  Ahimelech  ben  Ahitub,  mentioned  in 
the  later  history,  may  be  the  same  as  this  Ahijah,  the  names  being 
synonymous.  The  priest  is  described  as  bearing  the  ephod]  in 
the  correct  text  of  v.^^  we  learn  that  Saul  commanded  the  ephod 
to  be  brought,  cf.  also  23^  30'.  In  these  cases  the  ephod  can 
hardly  be  the  priest's  garment.  Beyond  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
instrument  of  the  oracle,  however,  we  know  nothing  about  it. 
The  description  of  things  in  Saul's  camp  closes  with  the  state- 
ment :  the  people  did  not  know  that  Jonathan  and  his  armour- 
hearer  had  gone]  they  were  therefore  surprised  when  the  commo- 
tion made  itself  visible  in  the  opposing  camp.  —  4.  The  locality 
of  the  exploit  is  described  to  us :  Between  the  ravines  by  which 
Jonathan  sought  to  cross]  that  is,  side  valleys  running  into  the 
main  wady.  As  we  can  readily  see,  these  would  leave  projecting 
points,  two  of  which  are  now  described  :  a  tooth  of  rock  on  one 
side  and  a  tooth  of  rock  on  the  other]  cf.  Job  39^*  and  the  well- 
known  Dent  du  Midi.  The  names  of  the  two  rocks  in  question 
were  Bozez  and  Seneh.  We  may  conjecture  that  Bozez,  the  shin- 
ing, was  the  one  facing  the  south,  Seneh,  the  thorny,  the  one  facing 


XIV.  1-5  105 

the  north.*  —  5.  The  description  is  completed  by  the  statement 
that  ofie  rock  was  on  the  north  in  front  of  Michmash,  the  other  on 
the  south  in  front  of  Gebd\  each  hill  is  defined  by  the  village 
nearest  to  it,  to  which  it  served  as  a  fortification.  Notice  that  f^ 
has  Geba  here. 

1.  arn  i,"i>i]  the  same  expression  iS  cf.  Ges.^s  §  I26j.  — v'73  Ntfj]  Abime- 
lech  had  such  an  attendant  and  so  apparently  had  Gideon,  Jd.  9^*  7^'^.— 
n2;D]  Num.  32^9  Jos.  22^  Jd.  7-^.  The  passages  show  that  the  word  means 
simply  beyond.  —  t^n]  cf.  Dr.  in  BDB.  sub  voce,  with  his  reference,  Wright, 
Comp.  Gram.  p.  1 17.  —  r\-;i'^n  ^spj]  as  Geba  is  the  town  overlooking  the  pass, 
it  must  be  meant  here.  For  r\-i^i  describing  a  position  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
town  cf.  <f^.  —  p::-\n]  evidently  a  well-known  tree,  ynic  is  meant  by  |^  as  a 
proper  name,  and  in  fact  there  is  a  Migron  not  far  away.  Is.  lo-^.  But  as  it 
lies  north  of  Michmash  it  will  not  answer  our  author's  purpose.  The  versions 
make  a  proper  name  of  the  word  here,  but  do  not  agree  in  the  form.  As  the 
location  is  already  given  with  some  exactness  a  proper  name  is  superfluous.  On 
this  account  We.  proposes  f;n  with  the  meaning  of  pj  a  tlveshing-floor.  A 
threshing-floor  is  usually  located  on  a  bare  open  hill  and  so  would  be  excellent 
for  Saul's  purpose  — to  prevent  surprise  and  keep  watch  of  the  enemy's  move- 
ments.—  3.  n\nN]  in  21^  22^  we  find  the  priest  at  Nob  called  I'^S'nx  and  he 
also  is  a  son  of  Ahitub.  It  is  not  unlikely  therefore  that  the  two  names 
designate  the  same  individual,  the  original  •i'?::<nx  having  been  changed  to 
avoid  the  suggestion  of  Molech.  The  identification  is  cited  by  Schm.  from 
Sanctius.  On  the  assumed  meaning  viy  brother  is  Yahweh,  or  brother  of 
Yahweh,  cf.  Jastrow,  JBL.  XIII.  p.  loi  ff.,  and  Barton,  ibid.  XV.  p.  168  ff. 
Keil  is  at  pains  to  calculate  the  age  of  Ahijah  to  show  that  he  could  have  had 
a  son  old  enough  to  accompany  David  after  Saul's  massacre  of  the  priests.  — 
Tn:"'N]  'ItoxaiS^'^  ®'^^-  —  onrD]  is  written  dhjd  i^  (by  the  occidentals  only). 
Nestle  {Am.  /our.  Sem.  Lang.  XIII.  p.  173)  follows  Lauth  in  supposing  the 
name  (borne  also  by  a  son  of  Aaron)  to  be  Egyptian  and  to  mean  negro.  — 
1I3N  «.:•:]  there  seems  to  be  no  clear  instance  where  srj  means  to  wear  an 
article  of  dress.  In  Ex.  2812-  29  however  it  describes  the  High  Priest  as  bear- 
ing (or  wearing)  the  names  on  the  breastplate.  The  use  of  n:'J  would  there- 
fore be  against  the  theory  that  the  ephod  was  an  article  of  clothing.  On  the 
other  hand,  Samuel  and  David  are  girded  with  an  ephod  (2^8  2  S.  6")  which 
would  indicate  that  it  could  be  worn.  See  Moore  on  Judges  175,  with  the 
extended  list  of  authorities  there  given.  — 4.  nnD;on]  on  the  daghesh  cf.  Stade, 
Gram.  §  317.  The  form  is  construct,  governing  the  clause  which  follows, 
Ges.2s  §  I30<r;  Dav.,  Syntax,  §25.  Si  however  connects  the  first  two  words 
of  the  verse  with  the  preceding :  the  people  did  not  know  that  Jonathan  had 
gone  to  the  pass.  —  laynn]  occurs  only  here  and  with  nra  seems  superfluous; 


*  So  GASmith,  Geog.  p.  250. 


I06  t  SAMUEL 

one  of  the  two  words  is  omitted  by  ®.  — vxnj  the  attractive  conjecture  of 
GASmith  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  goes  back  apparently  to  Gesenius, 
Thesaurus,  p.  229 :  appellativa  significatio  videtur  spUndens.  Later  lexicons 
take  no  notice  of  this.  The  form  in  @  is  BaCe'^  or  Bo^sj.  —  n:p]  is  thus 
pointed  by  Ginsburg;  the  editions  vary.  The  word  is  doubtless  the  same 
with  r\}p,  the  thorn,  as  for  example,  the  burning  bush  Ex.  3^,  of.  Dt.  2,^^. 
The  word  has  been  transferred  from  Arabic  to  English  in  the  name  of  the 
medicinal  senna  ;  (§  has  ^ewadp.  The  two  names  are  rendered  by  ST,  Slip- 
pery and  Inaccessible.  —  5.  It  is  a  question  whether  piss  gives  a  suitable 
sense.  Besides  this  passage  it  is  used  in  2^  only,  and  there  it  is  used  of  the 
pillars  which  support  the  earth.  But  it  will  hardly  do  to  say  of  a  hill  that  it  is 
a  column  on  the  north.  In  modern  Hebrew  pis  is  the  peak  or  summit  of  a 
hill  (Levy,  A^HIVB.).  But  what  is  required  here  is  a  word  like  11x3,  which 
however  seems  to  be  applied  specifically  to  cities  or  walls.  As  pixc  is  not 
represented  in  l&,  it  may  be  an  intruder  corrupted  from  the  paxn  which  fol- 
lows. Were  it  original  we  should  expect  it  to  be  repeated  in  the  second  half 
of  the  verse.  It  is  exscinded  by  Th.,  Dr.,  Bu.;  while  Kl.  goes  his  own  way  as 
usual.     With  '::  Sis  defining  a  location,  compare  Ex,  34^  Dt.  4«. 

6-12.  Jonathan  suggests  an  omen.  —  The  account  takes  up 
the  speech  of  Jonathan,  which  was  interrupted  by  the  digression 
concerning  the  scene  of  the  exploit.  He  first  proposes  to  go 
against  the  enemy,  and  receives  a  hearty  assurance  of  support 
from  his  squire.  He  then  reveals  his  plan,  which  is,  that  they 
show  themselves  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley.  They  would  then 
notice  the  words  used  by  the  Philistines,  and  take  from  them  a 
sign  to  indicate  whether  they  should  go  further  or  stand  still. 
The  older  commentators  are  confident  that  Jonathan,  in  propos- 
ing this  test  of  the  divine  will,  as  well  as  in  making  the  expedition, 
was  acting  under  divine  inspiration.  See  the  question  discussed 
at  length  by  Schmid. 

6.  Come,  let  us  go  over  to  the  garrison  of  these  uncircumcised'] 
the  Philistines  are  frequently  so  stigmatized,  Jd.  14'  15'*  i  S.  i8-*-^^ 
31*  2  S.  i^.  Jonathan's  hope  of  doing  something  is  a  hope  in 
God  :  Perchance  Yahiveh  will  act  for  us'\  there  seems  no  reason 
to  question  the  construction.  —  For  Yahweh  finds  no  hindrance  to 
his  saving  poiver  in  the  many  or  the  few']  that  is,  whether  many 
be  opposed,  or  few  be  on  his  side.  —  7.  By  emendation  we  get : 
Do  all  to  which  thy  heart  inclines :  behold,  I  am  with  thee;  as  thy 
heart  so  is  my  heart]  the  text  of  ^  is  awkward,  and  it  is  doubtful 


XIV.  6-12  I07 

whether  it  will  bear  the  meaning  given  it  in  EV. — -8-10.  Indica- 
tion of  the  divine  will  is  to  be  found  in  the  conduct  of  the  enemy  : 
See  we  will  cross  over  to  the  men,  and  show  ourselves  to  them]  by 
coming  into  the  open  at  the  bottom  of  the  ravine,  where  the 
PhiUstine  sentinels  would  see  them. — 9.  If  they  say  thus  to  us  : 
Stand  still  until  we  can  reach  you  !  then  we  will  stand  still  in  our 
place]  the  mind  of  the  enemy  to  attack  might  be  a  reason  for 
caution.  But  we  can  hardly  say  that  the  challenge  to  come  up 
was  a  sign  of  cowardice,  as  is  affirmed  by  Th. :  ironiam  ex  con- 
sternato  animo  profectam  esse  existimamus,  Schm.  — 10.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Philistines  should  invite  them  to  come  up, 
they  would  make  the  attempt :  for  in  that  case  God  will  have 
given  them  into  our  hand]  we  cannot  help  seeing  in  this  the  arbi- 
trary selection  of  an  omen.  The  nearest  parallel  is  the  sign  prayed 
for  by  Abraham's  servant,  whereby  he  might  know  the  predestined 
wife  of  Isaac,  Gen.  24".  — 11.  The  Philistines  discover  the  advent- 
urers, and  say  to  each  other  :  See  !  Hebrews  are  coming  out  of  the 
holes  where  they  hid  themselves  !]  the  expression  does  not  neces- 
sarily presuppose  the  account  in  13^  — 12.  The  Philistines  then 
cry  out  to  Jonathan  and  his  armour-bearer  :  Come  up  to  us  that 
we  may  tell  you  something  !  The  light  language  is  simply  a  chal- 
lenge, probably  a  banter.  It  is  not  necessary  to  inquire  what  the 
speakers  expected  to  tell  the  strangers.  The  words  used  do  not 
admit  of  being  understood  :  we  will  show  you  how  to  fight. 
Jonathan  accepts  the  omen,  and  calls  to  his  armour-bearer  to 
climb  up  after  him,  adding :  For  Yahweh  has  given  them  into  the 
hand  of  Israel]  the  victory  is,  in  the  divine  purpose,  already 
obtained. 

6-12.  In  this  paragraph,  except  ^^*',  we  find  the  name  of  the  hero  spelled 
jnjini  whereas  elsewhere  in  these  two  chapters  we  have  pjv.  The  fuller  form 
reappears  in  18-20  and  in  2  S.  The  change  of  form  just  here  may  be  explained 
by  supposing  this  paragraph  the  work  of  a  different  hand.  The  incident  is 
one  which  might  be  interpolated  by  a  pious  scribe  who  wished  to  magnify 
Jonathan's  faith  and  dependence  on  God.  But  it  is  skilfully  wrought  into  the 
narrative  and  cannot  well  be  spared.  For  a  discussion  of  the  names  which 
begin  with  ini  and  r  see  Bonk  in  ZATW.  XI.  pp.  125-156. 

6.  ni3pi]  ®  omits  the  1.  —  ■'Sin]  expresses  a  hope,  as  in  Cen.  32^21. — 
uV  nini  ncyi]  has  an  analogy  in  Jd.  2^;  the  object  nti';-?:  is  contained  in  the 
verb:  perchance  Yahweh  will  do  a  deed  for  us  (Schm.).     Some  have  ques- 


I08  I  SAMUEL 

tioned  whether  the  text  is  sound,  and  Kl.  proposef  to  emend  to  ij''  ]3>m\ 
But  this  seems  unnecessary.  —  -iix;c]  the  noun  occurs  nowhere  else,  but  the 
verb  is  not  infrequent  in  the  meaning  ^o  shut  up,  to  keep  back.  —  a;'C3  in  3-13] 
is  logically  connected  with  mivc.  —  7.  The  received  text  is  awkward,  and  it 
is  a  question  whether  it  can  be  translated.  n:;j  certainly  does  not  belong  in 
a  sentence  where  it  must  be  made  to  mean  go  on.  (g  seems  to  have  had 
another  text :  Troi'ei  irav  %  iav  t]  napSia  aov  eKKKlvri  would  represent  irN  '?3  nrj,' 
1'?  naj  133'',  and  this  preserves  the  natural  meaning  of  naj,  cf.  Jd.  9^  This 
text,  suggested  by  Ew.,  has  been  accepted  by  most  recent  scholars.  —  133'?:i] 
@  adds  KapUa  ^lof,  which  also  is  generally  accepted  since  Ew.  —  8.  0'"*3;"] 
the  participle  is  used  of  action  in  the  immediate  future  and  is  carried  on  by 
ir'rjji.  —  9.  For  ^•2-,  be  still,  cf.  Jer.  47^,  and,  of  the  sun's  standing  still,  Jos. 
ioi2f-.  For  ^y;'i-\  (§  has  a7ra77€iAa);Ufi/,  perhaps  reading  ijTjn.  —  u\-n-]  in 
our  tracks  is  a  colloquial  equivalent,  cf.  Ex.  i6''^'^  Jd.  72'.  — 10.  n-.s^]  +7rpe)j 
T\ti.a.s  @  with  which  S'  agrees.  But  no  great  stress  can  be  laid  upon  the 
evidence  for  so  easy  an  insertion.  —  U''^;']  i^phs  vfxas  is  the  rendering  of  (5, 
as  in  v.i-  where  J^  has  ir'^N,  which  should  probably  be  read  here.  —  ij"i"3]  a 
number  of  codd.  have  i:n''3,  but  cf.  Gen.  43^1  Dt.  32^".  —  nii]  the  1  is  lack- 
ing in  ®S1L  and  may  have  come  from  erroneous  duplication  of  the  preceding 
letter.  —  303;"]  in  the  mouth  of  the  Philistines  as  elsewhere;  here  without  the 
article :  some  Hebre7us,  not  the  Hebrews  as  in  ®.  According  to  We.,  Hitzig 
conjectured  c^i33;',  viice.  — 12.  n3xr"i]  is  doubtless  to  be  corrected  to  3i::n, 
the  form  elsewhere  used  in  this  narrative, 

13-16.  The  attack. — When  Jonathan  and  his  armour-bearer 
accept  the  challenge,  the  garrison  is  thrown  into  confusion,  and 
the  confusion  soon  becomes  a  panic.  — 13.  The  two  Hebrews 
climb  up  on  their  hands  and  on  their  feet.  We  must  suppose  that 
while  cHmbing  the  cliff  they  were  hidden  froin  the  view  of  the 
post  at  the  top ;  otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  surprise.  — 
And  they  turned  before  Jonathan  and  he  smote  them']  this  is  the 
reading  of  (§  and  on  the  whole  the  better,  though  the  case  is 
particularly  difficult  to  decide.  |^  reads  :  and  they  fell  before 
Jonathan.  In  any  case,  Jonathan  felled  them  to  the  ground,  and 
his  armour-bearer  kept  despatching  them  after  hint]  notice  the 
force  of  the  participle.  — 14.  The  first  slaughter]  distinguished 
from  the  general  carnage  which  came  with  the  panic.  The  latter 
part  of  the  verse  is  obscure.  What  we  expect  is  either  a  com- 
parison with  some  similar  event :  '  like  Gideon's  slaughter  of 
Midian '  for  example,  or  else  a  definite  location  of  the  deed  :  '  in 
the  field  which  lies  before  IMichmash,'  or  something  like  that. 
(§  finds  an  account  of  the  weapons  used;  <S  gives  a  comparison 


XIV.  i3-i6  109 

of  the  activity  of  the  heroes  with  that  of  the  day  labourer.  A 
satisfactory  text  does  not  seem  yet  to  have  been  constructed. — 
15.  The  terror  aroused  by  Jonathan's  onset  spread  to  the  whole 
force  of  the  Philistines  and  became  a  panic.  The  force  was 
divided  (as  noted  above)  into  the  garrison  and  the  raiders.  The 
account  seems  to  assume  that  these  latter  were  returning  to  the 
camp  when  they  met  the  flying  garrison ;  or  else  the  attack  was  in 
the  early  morning  when  the  raiders  had  not  yet  set  out.  —  So  there 
came  a  terror  in  the  camp  and  in  the  field  .  .  .  and  even  the 
plunderers  trembled'\  the  intervening  clause  is  difficult  to  place. 
—  And  the  earth  quaked'\  is  evidently  to  be  taken  literally ;  Yah- 
weh  intervened  directly  to  increase  the  fear,  which  thus  became 
a  divinely  sent  panic']  lit.,  a  terror  of  God.  — 16.  The  commotion 
was  so  great  that  Saul's  sentinels  in  Geba  saw  :  And  behold  a 
tunnilt  ivas  surgi?ig  hither  and  thither']  the  remarkable  thing  was  a 
mob  moving  purposelessly  to  and  fro  in  its  mad  impulse. 

13.  jrjv  ije*?  iSdm]  seems  a  little  too  abrupt.  We  expect  the  attack  or 
the  terror  to  be  asserted.  @  enables  us  to  restore  ddii  ]r^iv  ^ish  UflM.  Ew. 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  adopt  part  of  this,  though  he  makes  it  mean 
they  looked  him  in  the  face,  being  paralyzed  by  fear.  As  Jonathan  was  "  swifter 
than  an  eagle,"  there  seems  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  Philistines  started 
to  flee,  but  were  quickly  overtaken.  — 14.  The  verse  is  perfectly  plain  down 
to  tt'^N.  After  that  it  is  now  generally  considered  to  be  hopelessly  corrupt. 
Tradition  is  represented  by  in  media  parte  jugeri  quain  par  boiim  in  die  arare 
consuevit  IL,  and  this  has  passed  into  the  modern  versions.  But  the  objections 
to  it  are  of  the  most  serious  kind.  ^injD  has  a  combination  of  prepositions 
very  rare,  occurring  in  only  two  expressions,  both  defining  a  point  of  time 
(Dr.,  Notes) ;  njjs  in  the  n\ts.n\ng  furrow  occurs  in  one  late  passage,  Ps.  129^ 
Kt.,  where  the  text  is  not  above  suspicion.  It  is  difficult,  moreover,  to  see  how 
Jonathan  could  slay  twenty  men  in  half  a  furrow,  which  indeed  is  nonsense. 
If  it  said  as  in  a  furrow,  we  should  think  of  the  slain  as  lying  along  in  a  row. 
In  late  Hebrew  nj;3  is  said  to  mean  the  amount  of  ground  which  a  plough- 
man takes  in  hand  at  one  time,  Ges.,  HIVB^'.,  referring  to  Wetstein  in  Delitzsch, 
Psalmen^,  which  I  have  not  seen,  also  Levy,  NHWB.  The  Arabic  usage  is 
readily  traced;  ma'na  is  simply  the  intention,  zs.  is  nj^n  in  Hebrew,  and  so 
applied  to  the  task  which  a  man  sets  himself  or  intends  to  do.  But  to  suppose 
that  the  word  now  applied  by  the  fellahin  to  their  task  of  ploughing  had 
the  same  application  in  Biblical  Hebrew  is  too  violent.  Nor  are  the  diffi- 
culties yet  over,  "los  is  undoubtedly  a  yoke  of  oxen,  and  then  possibly  as 
much  land  as  a  yoke  of  oxen  can  plough  in  a  day  —  an  acre,  roughly  speak- 
ing.    Is.  5^",  which  is  usually  urged  for  this  meaning,  is  not  free  from  difficulty. 


no  I  SAMUEL 

But  assuming  it  provisionally,  we  cannot  yet  make  an  intelligible  sentence :  at 
in  half  a  furrow  (?)  an  acre  of  field  is  redundant  and  ungrammatical.  The 
versions  testify  to  the  corrupt'on,  hut  unfortunately  without  helping  to  correct 
it.  @^  has  iv  Bo\tffi  koI  fv  irtTpoff6\ois  Kal  «V  K6x>i-aii  tov  -irfSlov,  with  which 
I  agrees  ( Cod.  Goth.  Leg.') ;  (S^^  omits  from  this  koI  (v  TreTpo06\ots,  which 
Th.  (followed  by  We.)  had  already  conjectured  to  be  a  gloss.  The  reason- 
ing of  We.  is  plausible,  though  the  testimony  of  I  shows  that  the  insertion 
must  have  been  early.  ®  seems  to  have  had  at  least  men  .  .  .  B'asna, 
and  between  came  ^nixa  or  'J3N3;  it  should  be  noted  that  "\is  is  nowhere 
used  oi  stones  as  a  weapon,  but  it  is  more  likely  than  ;3n  to  be  the  original  of 
IDS.  If  we  restore  htj'h  i-\s3  we  should  translate  among  the  rocks  of  the  field, 
which  would  not  be  out  of  place.  On  the  basis  of  S  we  might  restore  D^xnj 
r\-WT\  iCi  ijnjji  like  hewers  of  stone,  or  like  drivers  of  oxen  in  the  field. 
The  repeated  blows  of  a  man  hewing  stone  would  not  be  an  inappropriate 
comparison,  and  possibly  the  Syrian  ploughmen  urge  on  their  oxen  w'th 
violent  blows;  but  the  language  seems  rather  obscure.  Ew.  tries  to  translate 
1^,  making  it  mean  that  the  slaughter  was  'like  a  yoke  (?)  of  land  being 
ploughed '  (  G  VP.  III.  p.  48,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  34).  But  the  figure  does  not  seem 
to  fit.  The  reader  who  is  interested  in  defending  tradition  may,  as  usual,  con- 
sult Keil.  — 15.  The  text  is  not  easy  to  interpret,  though  so  smooth  in  appear- 
ance :  There  came  a  terror  on  the  camp  in  the  field  and  upon  all  the  people'\ 
but  why  should  a  distinction  be  made  between  the  camp  in  the  field  and  all  the 
people  ?  The  people  here  meant  are  the  people  of  the  Philistine  camp,  and 
the  sentence  is  redundant.  Or  if  we  divide  so  as  to  read,  on  the  camp,  both  on 
the  field  and  on  all  the  people,  why  should  the  camp  be  summed  up  under  these 
two  heads?  @  seems  to  have  read  mir-ai  njn";3  both  in  the  camp  and  in  the 
field,  as  if  to  distinguish  between  the  fortified  (?)  camp  and  the  open  coun- 
try. So  much  is  adopted  by  Kl.,  Bu.,  and  may  pass  in  default  of  something 
better.  For  the  next  clause,  ®  connects  as  follows :  and  all  the  people,  both 
garrison  and  raiders  trembled,  and  this  again  may  pass ;  but  we  must  certainly 
strike  out  n?:n-Dj  which  now  becomes  intolerable.  ©^  reads  koX  avro)  ovk 
ijde\ov  iroiuv,  with  which  we  can  do  nothing;  and  I  suspect  the  verse  has 
been  freely  interpolated.  Perhaps  the  original  was  only  njnsa  m-»n  vim 
HDH-oj  mn  nina'sni  mtr'ai.  With  vinh  unni  compare  Am.  8*  Joel  2^";  the 
verb  is  used  of  the  mountains,  2  S.  22^  Is.  5^5.  Th.  and  Keil  try  to  under- 
stand the  words  here  of  the  commotion  produced  by  the  panic,  but  this  is 
rationalistic  weakening  of  the  author's  meaning.  —  bihSn  mnn'^]  cf.  the 
divinely  sent  fear,  o^n^x  nnn,  which  came  upon  the  Canaanites,  Gen.  35*.  — 
16.  O'ssn]  the  sentinels  regularly  stationed  on  the  walls  of  a  city,  2  S.  13^ 
l82*.  —  nyjj]  Geba  should  be  read,  as  heretofore.  —  pcnn]  (§  renders  njnsn. 
But  as  ]^::7^  is  the  less  common  word,  it  is  to  be  preferred;  and  it  seems  to 
give  an  excellent  sense  here,  cf.  Jd.  4"  and  v."  in  this  chapter.  The  first  n, 
however,  is  a  dupHcate,  and  we  should  read  ]^zr\  njm.  What  they  saw  was  a 
tumult  surging.  —  oSm  -jSn]  is  impossible,  and  to  be  corrected  according  to  ® 
oSni  oSn.     For  jidj  We.  suggests  the  meaning  surge,  commended  by  Dr. 


XIV.  17-20  III 

17-23.  The  discomfiture  of  the  Philistines.  —  On  discovering 
the  state  of  the  enemy's  camp,  Saul  inquires  who  is  missing  from 
his  own  force.  He  then  takes  the  first  steps  towards  ascertaining 
the  will  of  Yahweh.  But  before  the  reply  of  the  oracle  is  given, 
the  state  of  the  enemy  so  obviously  invites  attack,  that  the  king 
marches  forth  without  waiting  further.  At  the  scene  of  battle  he 
finds  the  Philistines  fighting  each  other.  The  Hebrew  slaves  from 
their  camp  join  with  him,  and  he  is  reenforced  by  the  Israelites 
who  have  been  in  hiding.     The  result  is  a  decided  victory. 

17.  Saul  says  to  the  soldiers :  Search']  the  verb  is  used  of 
inspecting  the  troops,  13^^  and  also  of  inquiring  for  one  absent, 
20* :  Afid  see  ivho  is  gone  from  tts]  the  result  is  to  show  the 
absence  of  Jonathan  and  his  attendant.  — 18.  The  text  of  (5, 
which  is  to  be  adopted  unconditionally,  reads  :  And  Saul  said  to 
Ahijah  :  Bring  hither  the  Ephod,  for  he  carried  the  Ephod  that 
day  before  Israel]  similar  language  is  used  in  other  cases  where 
the  Ephod  is  consulted,  23^  30^  We.  supposes  that  the  remark 
concerning  Ahijah  cannot  be  by  the  author  of  v.l  But  the  expla- 
nation of  the  general  situation  there  need  not  prevent  the  reminder 
here,  where  there  is  particular  occasion  for  it.  The  text  of  5^ 
inserts  the  Ark  of  God  here.  Historically  we  could  hardly  object 
that  the  presence  of  the  Ark  at  Kirjath  Jearim  would  decide  against 
this  text,  because  our  author  may  not  have  known  of  its  detention 
at  Kirjath  Jearim.  But  the  Epho<^  is  elsewhere  the  means  of  giv- 
ing the  oracle,  and  if  original  here  may  have  been  displaced  by  a 
scrupulous  scribe  who  was  aware  of  its  dangerous  resemblance  to 
an  image.  — 19.  The  answer  of  the  oracle  is  not  yet  given,  when 
Saul  sees  the  necessity  of  immediate  action.  The  state  of  the 
Philistine  camp  gives  plain  enough  indication  of  the  will  of  God : 
While  Saul  was  yet  speaking,  the  tutnult  kept  on  increasing]  on  the 
text  see  the  critical  note.  The  act  of  consulting  the  oracle  fell 
into  two  parts ;  the  king  (or  other  inquirer)  asked  a  question ;  the 
priest  gave  the  answer  of  Yahweh.  In  the  case  before  us  Saul 
interrupted  his  own  question,  saying  to  the  priest :  Draw  back  thy 
hand  f]  that  is,  the  hand  which  was  stretched  out  to  take  the  lot. 
The  verb  is  the  same  used  of  drawittg  up  the  feet  into  the  bed. 
Gen.  49''^.  —  20.    Saul  and  his  men  march   to  the  scene  :    Then 


112  I  SAMUEL 

Saul  and  all  the  people  rvith  him  raised  the  ivar  cry']  such  is  the 
natural  interpretation  of  the  words.  When  they  came  to  the  camp 
of  the  PhiHstines  :  the  s7vord  of  each  was  turned  upon  his  fellow, 
an  exceeding  great  co?ifusio7i\  as  in  the  camp  of  Midian  where  also 
friend  was  taken  for  foe,  Jd.  f^.  —  21.  The  appearance  of  Saul 
with  an  orderly  band  of  soldiers  gave  disaffected  allies  of  the 
Philistines  a  rallying  point :  The  Hebrews  who  were  on  the  side 
of  the  Philistines  heretofore,  who  had  come  with  them  into  the  camp, 
they  also  turned  to  be  with  Saul]  Schm.  compares  the  case  of 
David  who  followed  Achish  to  Gilboa.  —  22.  The  noise  and  the 
news  spread  rapidly,  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  who  were  in  hiding 
in  the  hill  country  of  Ephraim]  although  occupied  by  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin,  the  district  bore  the  name  of  Ephraim.  —  They  also 
purstied  them  in  the  battle]  joining  with  the  forces  of  Saul. — 
23.  The  author  sums  up  the  day's  work,  before  proceeding  to  a 
more  detailed  account  of  one  episode  :  So  Yahweh  delivered  Israel 
that  day  and  the  battle  went  beyond  Beth  Horon]  a  well-known 
town  on  the  western  edge  of  the  highlands.  The  name  is  cor- 
rected on  the  basis  of  (§^.  Beth  Aven,  the  reading  of  ^,  seems 
unsuitable. 

17.  ps]  denies  the  presence  of  the  subject,  Gen.  37*^  Ex.  2^^.  — 18.  ntt"jn 
D^nSxn  jiin]  the  difficulty  in  retaining  the  words  is  prutia  facie  a  historical 
one.  The  Ark  had  been  settled  at  Kirjath  Jearim,  and  if  brought  to  Saul  we 
should  have  been  told  of  the  transfer.  Graetz  speaks  of  a  tradition  to  the 
effect  that  there  were  two  arks  {Gescf>,  d.  Juden,  I.  p.  160)  and  supposes  that 
one  was  made  to  supply  the  loss  of  the  other.  But  the  tradition  probably  arose 
from  a  desire  to  save  the  historicity  of  this  passage.  Even  if  we  suppose  this 
author  not  to  know  of  the  detention  of  the  Ark  at  Kirjath  Jearim,  it  remains 
true  that  we  nowhere  else. hear  of  it  in  connexion  with  Saul,  and  the  presump- 
tion is  therefore  against  it  here.  The  second  difficulty  is  that,  so  far  as  we 
know,  the  Ark  was  not  used  in  consulting  the  oracle.  All  the  indications, 
therefore,  point  to  the  correctness  of  @  wpoadyayt  rh  (<pov5.  The  Rabbinical 
commentators  are  aware  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  are  intended  (Isaaki 
and  Kimchi  in  ioc).  For  the  rest  of  the  verse  we  must  also  adopt  the  reading 
of  (5,  because  ||J  is  evidently  the  worse  and  at  its  close  unintelligible.  Nin  >3 
SxTri  •'io'?  Ninn  0V3  niasn  xcj  is  an  exact  translation  of  @  and  gives  a  perfectly 
good  sense.  It  is  adopted  in  substance  by  all  recent  expositors.  Dr.,  fol- 
lowed by  Bu.,  prefers  n'^i  r\>n  instead  of  the  simple  n'^i  and  ■'ja  ijfl'?  for  ^'0^. 
His  reason  in  the  latter  case  is  that  Vnt.:"  ijbS  is  bald  and  against  the  usage  of 
Hebrew  prose.  On  this  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  Ssnri  ""ja  ijd'?  is  found 
in  the  books  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Samuel  four  times,  and  that  all  four  (Jos.  4^* 


XIV.    20-23  113 

S''-  ioi2  Jil.  8-^)  cDiiie  from  a  redactional  hand;  whereas  Sxia"'  •'joS  occurs  in 
six  places  besides  this  (Jos.  lo^'^  ii^  20^*  i  S.  y'^'^  2  S.  lo^''-  ^^)  representing  three 
different  documents.  This  verse  is  one  of  those  in  which  Keil  concedes  the 
superiority  of  (5. — 19.  i3t  ^>?]  the  verb  should  be  pointed  as  an  infinitive,  cf. 
Jd.  3-^  Ex.  ;i^^'^;  the  more  usual  construction  is  mn  v  inM.  For  the  tense  in 
1'''%  cf.  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  127  a;   but  the  emendation  to  iSn  (Kl.)  is  attractive. 

—  311 11*^^]  "  double  absolute  object,  the  second  being  an  adjective  "  (Moore, 
on  Jd.  42*),  cf.  2  S.  51'J  i825,  Dav.,  Syniax,  §  86,  R.  4.— 20.  p>-pi]  here 
pointed  as  a  Niphal;  but  this  is  used  of  the  people  who  are  summoned  to  war, 
not  of  the  leader  who  summons  them.  For  the  latter  we  find  the  Hiphil, 
Jd.  4^"-  ^^  2  S.  20^-^.  If  we  point  pvpj  however,  we  must  change  'rsi  to  S^'pn. 
But  the  people  had  already  been  mustered,  in  order  to  discover  who  was  miss- 
ing, and  it  was  not  necessary  to  call  them  together.  With  all  due  reserve, 
therefore,  I  have  pointed  p:!v\  and  suppose  the  shout  of  those  who  go  into 
battle  to  be  intended  —  though  the  verb  is  nowhere  else  used  in  that  sense. 
<3-^  has  aviBorjffe  for  which  Bi>  have  avf^t],  —  ncinc]  is  used  of  the  panic  pro- 
duced in  the  Philistine  cities  by  the  plague,  5^.  —  21.  The  verse  division  is 
disregarded  by  S  which  makes  the  tumult  to  be  Hebreivs  against  Philistines. 

—  D'-iayni]  Ka\  nl  SovKoi  @.  The  latter  is  plausible,  for  the  slaves  of  the 
Philistines  might  well  take  advantage  of  such  an  opportunit}.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  pretty  certain  that  the  camp  would  contain  a  large  number  of 
Hebrews  impressed  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  away  the  booty,  or  who  were 
seeking  to  ingratiate  themselves  with  the  enemy.  Such  Hebrews  might  well 
be  contrasted,  as  here,  with  the  Israel  with  Saul.  For  vr\  it  is  almost  neces- 
sary to  read  vn  -ci'N  with  Ew.,  cf.  Dr.,  Notes.  —  ony]  is  not  represented  in  (S. 

—  211  d^3D]  should  be  emended  to  aj  nao  (Th.)  with  (SS".  —  22.  tfiN]  is  not 
represented  in  (5,  and  the  sense  is  good  without  it.  —  ipn-i^i]  is  abnormally 
pointed,  cf.  Stade,  Gram.  §  529  «,  Ges."^  §  53  n.;  the  same  form  is  found  in 
3i"'^  (i  Chr.  10-).  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  a  Hiphil  is  intended, 
Jd.  18--  20*5  2  S.  I**  (lacking  1  as  here).  —  23.  iiN-n''2]  was  corrected  by  Th. 
to  Jin  no,  and  the  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  (S'^l. 

24-35.  Saul's  taboo  and  Jonathan's  violation  of  it.  —  Saul 
lays  a  curse  upon  the  eating  of  food  before  sundown.  The  people 
are  mindful  of  the  execration  and  go  fasting,  though  thereby  they 
grow  faint.  The  only  exception  is  Jonathan  who,  because  of  his 
absence  from  the  main  body  of  troops,  is  not  informed  of  the 
adjuration,  and  eats  of  some  honey  which  he  finds.  On  being 
informed,  he  condemns  his  father's  act  as  having  weakened  the 
people.  At  sunset  the  famished  people  rush  upon  the  spoil  and 
eat  without  due  care  to  separate  the  blood  from  the  flesh.  Saul, 
informed  of  this,  orders  a  great  stone  to  be  taken  for  an  altar  and 
at  this  the  animals  are  slain. 


t  14  t  SAMUEL 

The  paragraph  is  obscure  in  places  owing  to  the  state  of  the  text 
—  possibly  because  later  editors  could  not  reconcile  themselves 
to  the  religious  views  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  narrative.  It 
seems  plain  that  Saul's  purpose  was  to  impose  what  is  known  in 
other  religions  as  a  taboo.  As  the  confusion  of  the  enemy  showed, 
Yahweh  was  already  working.  Saul  desired  a  continuance  of  his 
favour.  The  extraordinary  privation  laid  upon  tlie  people  was  to 
secure  this.  Fasting  is  in  itself  one  means  of  placating  the  divinity. 
And  Yahweh  as  the  God  of  Battles  had  a  special  claim  upon  the 
booty.  It  was  in  fact  sacred,  and  it  would  be  unsafe  for  individual 
Israelites  to  appropriate  it  until  the  first  fruits  had  been  set  apart 
for  Yahweh.  If  the  people  had  set  out  (as  is  likely)  without  sup- 
plying themselves  with  provisions  from  their  own  stores,  there 
would  be  all  the  more  need  of  special  precautions. 

So  far  from  Saul's  vow  being  rash,  ill-advised,  or  arbitrary, 
therefore,  we  see  that  it  was  the  logical  expression  of  his  careful- 
ness for  divine  things.  From  the  practical  point  of  view,  Jonathan 
was  no  doubt  right.  The  success  of  the  day  would  have  been 
greater  without  this  extraordinary  precaution.  But  this  was  a 
mere  worldly  consideration  —  Saul  was  moved  by  care  for  religion 
which  would  not  take  account  of  lower  advantages  or  arguments. 
That  he  was  entirely  justified  by  the  light  of  the  times  is  probable  ; 
for  the  author  has  no  hesitation  in  narrating  Yahweh's  confirma- 
tion of  the  curse  by  his  offended  silence  after  its  violation.  The 
supposition  that  Saul  was  moved  by  fear  lest  the  troops  should  be 
detained  by  the  booty  is  inadequate  to  account  for  the  form  of 
the  objurgation.  It  is  not  taking  booty  that  is  the  object  of  the 
curse,  but  eating  food  of  any  kind. 

24.  The  introductory  clause  must  be  taken  from  (^,  which 
describes  the  situation  as  it  was  during  the  day,  and  therefore 
before  the  conclusion  just  reached.  —  So  Israel  was  with  Saul 
about  ten  thousand  men  and  the  fighting  was  scattered  over  all  the 
hill  country  of  Ephraini]  on  the  reading,  see  the  critical  note. — 
And  Saul  vowed  a  vow  in  that  day,  and  Saul  laid  an  oath  on  the 
people']  the  restoration  is  partly  conjectural.  If  it  be  correct,  the 
author  does  not  condemn  Saul ;  he  only  gives  the  facts  as  else- 
where.    Other  cases  of  the  vow,  Jd.  ii'*''  Gen.  28^^^     A  vow 


XIV.  24-29  115 

of  abstinence  is  attributed  to  David,  Ps.  132^*^^.  Saul's  vow  is 
imposed  upon  the  people  in  the  form  of  a  curse,  saying:  Cursed 
is  the  man  who  shall  eat  food  until  evening  and  \until'\  I  avenge 
myself  on  my  enemies']  the  older  commentators  (followed  by  Keil) 
saw  in  the  form  of  the  oath  —  tny  enemies  —  an  overweening  desire 
for  personal  revenge ;  but  this  is  foreign  to  the  author's  idea. 
The  Philistines  were  Saul's  enemies  because  they  were  enemies 
of  Israel.  Another  example  of  a  curse  assumed  by  the  people  as 
a  whole  is  found  in  Jd.  21^^  The  result  of  this  one  was  that  none 
of  the  people  tasted  food,  though  they  were  tempted.  — 25,  26.  The 
text  has  suffered  and  cannot  be  certainly  restored.  Recent  authori- 
ties agree  in  making  it  mean  :  And  there  was  honey  \or  honeycomb] 
on  the  face  of  the  ground,  and  the  people  came  to  the  honeycomb 
whence  the  bees  had  gone,  but  no  one  put  his  hand  to  his  mouth, 
for  the  people  feared  the  oath  of  Yahweh]  the  sense  is  obviously 
that  the  people  were  steadfast  in  the  midst  of  special  temptation. 
But  the  sentence  is  awkwardly  constructed,  and  we  may  well 
doubt  whether  the  ingenuity  of  the  critics  has  yet  recovered  the 
original  text.  Why  the  bees  should  have  deserted  the  comb,  we 
are  left  to  conjecture.  That  the  Philistines  had  made  spoil  of 
honey  and  had  thrown  it  away  is  possible,  but  the  author  would 
have  told  us  if  he  had  known  this  to  be  the  fact.  —  27.  Jonathan, 
having  been  absent  from  the  army,  had  not  heard  when  his  father 
adjured  the  people]  he  therefore  ate  of  the  honey,  dipping  the  end 
of  his  club  in  it.  The  refreshment  experienced  is  described  in 
the  words,  and  his  eyes  were  lightened]  the  eyes  of  the  weary  man 
do  not  see  clearly  —  the  world  grows  dark  before  him.  — 28.  One 
of  the  people  answered]  that  is,  spoke  as  the  occasion  suggested, 
telling  Jonathan  of  the  oath.  The  last  two  words  in  the  verse 
as  they  stand  in  |^  —  and  the  people  were  weary — disturb  the 
sense,  whether  they  be  attributed  to  the  author  of  the  narrative 
or  to  Jonathan.  We  should  emend  so  as  to  read  :  and  the  people 
testified,  that  is,  accepted  the  oath  ;  or  alse  in  another  way,  joining 
to  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  making  it  read  :  So  he  left  off, 
and  said.  A  third  possibility  is  to  strike  the  words  out  as  a  gloss. 
—  29.  Jonathan  gives  his  opinion  of  his  father's  action  and  its 
effects  on  the  people  :  My  father  has  brought  disaster  on  the  land] 
relatively,  he  means.     For  the  verb  used  here  cf.  Moore,  Judges, 


Il6  I  SAMUEL 

p.  301.  Jonathan's  opinion  is  based  on  his  own  experience  :  See 
how  I  am  refreshed,  Just  because  I  tasted  a  bit  of  honey  /  The 
refreshment  is  again  presented  as  a  clearing  of  the  eyes  from  their 
dulness.  —  30,  31.  The  two  verses  belong  together  and  their 
sense  is  :  If  only  the  people  had  eaten  today  of  the  spoil  of  their 
enemies  the  slaughter  of  the  Philistines  would  have  been  great  atid 
the  people  would  have  smitten  the  Philistines  frotn  Michmash  to 
AiJalon'\  this  cannot,  to  be  sure,  be  got  out  of  the  present  text. 
An  alternative  would  be  to  make  Jonathan's  speech  end  (though 
abruptly)  with  v.^°,  and  to  throw  out  the  greater  part  of  v.^*.  That 
the  pursuit  actually  extended  to  Aijalon,  as  apparently  asserted  in 
1^,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe,  for  such  a  success  would  have 
been  all  that  the  most  sanguine  could  expect.  Aijalon  (the 
modern  Yalo^  lay  below  Beth  Horon  well  down  towards  the 
Phihstine  plain.  The  last  three  words  of  the  verse  are  plain 
enough  of  themselves,  but  not  easy  to  fit  in  the  present  context. 
—  32.  The  famished  people  rushed  upon  the  boo ty"]  as  a  bird  of 
prey  rushes  upon  the  quarry.  The  booty  in  such  raids  consists 
largely  of  cattle,  and  these  the  people  slew  to  the  earth  wherever 
they  happened  to  find  them.  The  consequence  was  that  they  ate 
with  the  blood '\  the  blood  was  the  part  of  Yahweh,  and  for  man  to 
eat  it  was  sacrilegious.  This  idea  runs  through  the  history  of  Israel 
and  is  embodied  in  the  various  prohibitions  of  the  Law,  Dt.  12^® 
Lev.  19^.  —  33.  Word  is  brought  to  Saul  that  the  people  are  sin- 
ning against  Yahweh  in  eating  with  the  blood'\  the  definition  of 
the  sin  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired,  and  Saul  at  once  takes  active 
measures  against  the  sacrilege  :  Roll  hither  a  great  stone']  the  only 
way  in  which  this  would  correct  the  evil  would  be  by  making  the 
stone  an  altar  on  which  the  blood  could  be  poured.  As  we  know 
from  Arabic  heathenism,  the  original  Semitic  sacrifice  was  the 
application  of  the  blood  (without  fire)  to  the  altar  or  sacred 
stone.*  —  34.  Those  present  are  ordered  to  disperse  among  the 
people  and  command  them  :  Let  each  man  bring  to  Yahweh  his 
ox  or  his  sheep  and  slay  it  here]  on  the  original  reading,  see 
below.  The  method  was  successful :  All  the  people  brought  each 
what  he  had  in  his  hand,  to  Yahweh  and  slew  it  there]  another 

•  Cf.  WRSmith,  Kinship,  pp.  223,  311. 


XIV.  29-35  1 1 7 

slight  change  in  the  reading  is  adopted  here.  We  also  may  speak 
of  having  an  animal  or  a  herd  in  hand.  —  35.  So  Saul  built  an 
altar  to  Yahweh']  cf.  7'".  The  only  reason  for  the  statement  in 
this  connexion  is  that  the  altar  was  the  stone  just  mentioned. 
With  it  he  made  a  beginning  of  his  altar- building  to  Yahweh,  cf. 
Gen.  10*.  The  author  has  it  in  mind  to  tell  of  other  altars  built 
by  Saul,  but  his  narrative  is  now  lost. 

24.  Ninn  ova  trjj  SMniri"t;'''Xi]  is  an  unexpected  opening  to  the  new  para- 
graph. t:'Jj,  13'',  is  used  to  describe  the  straits  in  which  the  people  found 
themselves  under  the  Philistine  invasion.  But  we  are  here  in  the  midst  of 
the  deliverance,  and  although  the  deliverance  was  less  complete  than  it  might 
have  been,  the  people  could  hardly  now  be  described  as  oppressed  by  a  task- 
master,  or  driven  away,  or  crowding  each  other,  which  are  the  only  meanings 
to  be  got  out  of  the  verb.  Saul's  vow,  though  it  increased  the  weariness, 
could  hardly  be  said  to  oppress  the  people,  and  if  the  author  had  meant  to 
connect  this  assertion  with  the  vow  he  would  have  constructed  his  sentence 
differently.  (§  has  an  entirely  different  reading:  Ka.\'lapaT]\  ^v  ^JLtra.'2,aov\, 
ixrti  BtKa  x'^'^'tiSey  dvSpwu,  Kal  riv  6  TrSAffxos  Sieinro/JyueVos  fis  6\r]v  ttjv  ir6\iv  iv 
T(f  6pfi  'Eippdifi  <S^  with  which  ^B  agree  nearly.  This  gives  an  admirable 
opening  for  the  new  paragraph,  and  one  that  would  not  readily  occur  to  re- 
dactor or  scribe.  It  had  probably  become  illegible  in  the  archetype  of  J^  and 
a  scribe  substituted  a  phrase  suggested  by  13*',  returning  to  the  oppression  of 
the  people  as  the  new  point  of  departure.  With  We.,  it  is  proper  to  suppose 
that  every  city  has  come  in  by  duplication  —  n^  Sd2  from  nn  ^33.  The  scat- 
tered fighting  would  be  in  the  open  country  rather  than  in  the  towns.  The 
impossibility  of  J§  was  discovered  by  Ew.  (from  Th.?)  who  besides  adopting 
(5  emends  |^  by  conjecture.  The  reading  of  @  is  also  adopted  by  Th.  with 
the  silent  correction  of  nv  to  i;;\  The  retranslation  of  (S*^  by  We.  is  adopted 
by  Dr.,  Bu.,  al.  I  have  chosen  t/ie  Israel  with  Satil  (3^  rather  than  a/l  the 
people  with  SauKS'^^,  because  it  probably  refers  to  the  Israel  with  Saul  of  v.22. 
Et  erant  cum  Saul  quasi  decern  millia  virorum,  found  in  the  authorized  edition 
of  IL,  is  no  part  of  Jerome's  translation  but  has  crept  in  from  I.  The  narra- 
tive is  continued  in  ©  by :  Ka\  '2,aov\  rtyviriatv  dyvoiav  fxfya.\i\v  tV  Tp  v/jifpa. 
fKeivTi  confirmed  by  I.  Since  We.  this  has  been  supposed  to  represent  "^iNtn 
Ninn  ora  njj-i*  nry.  But  it  is  not  certain  that  the  author  could  so  have  ex- 
pressed himself.  As  confessed  by  We.,  njjc'  occurs  only  in  the  Hexateuch 
and  Eccles.  It  is  besides  a  technical  term  conveying  a  distinction  not  empha- 
sized before  the  Priestcode;  nor  is  it  certain  that  njjc  is  the  original  of  the 
Greek  word  found  here  which  represents  in  various  passages  six  different 
Hebrew  words.  In  this  uncertainty  the  conjecture  of  Kl.  adopted  by  Bu. 
becomes  attractive,  to  wit :  that  the  original  Greek  phrase  was :  Kal  Sooi/A 
vyviffev  ayveiav.  Bu.  restores  in  his  text  ntj  inn  Sinb'i,  citing  Num.  6^^-.  But, 
as  he  himself  says,  usage  would  favour  "nj  iij  SiNt'i  (or  better  nj  Sins-  iim) 


Il8  -  I  SAMUEL 

cf.  2  S.  15^  Is.  19^1.  —  Sn>i]  is  pointed  as  if  from  Sn>,  he  behaved  foolishly.  But 
this  does  not  agree  with  the  context,  so  that  we  should  read  Snm  from  nSw : 

he  caused  the  people  to  swear,  like  •;^yyr\  below.  —  B'^nh  inN]  Dt.  27^^  Jer.  ii*. 

—  v-icpji]  generally  with  3,  as  in  iS'^  Jd.  15'';  with  jc  Is.  i^*.  In  the  latter 
case  the  vengeance  is  a  satisfaction  taken _/><»;«  the  enemy.  On  the  tense  cf. 
Dr.,  Tenses^, -p.  134.  —  25.  The  text  is  corrupt,  probably  beyond  restoration. 

—  -i>"3  1N3  yiNn"':'3i]  is  impossible,  whether  we  understand  "»>■"'  of  Si  forest  or 
of  a  honeycomb,  for  the  simple  reason  that  yixn  is  never  used  for  the  people 
of  the  land;*  —  fiNn-Soi]  may  be  a  corruption  of  o;?n-SDi  though  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  a  scribe  could  make  this  mistake  here.  If  so,  the  words  will  be  a 
duplicate  of  the  D>n-S3  in  the  preceding  verse;  ®  koI  vaaa.  t\  yn  ^piVra  seems 
to  duplicate  the  whole  preceding  clause  except  the  negative,  and  this  is  repre- 
sented in  I.  The  only  thing  which  is  in  place  is  a  statement  that  all  the  land 
produced  honey  or  that  all  the  land  flowed  with  honey.  But  none  of  the 
efforts  to  put  this  into  the  text  are  satisfactory.  We.,  Bu.,  Dr.,  Ki.  leave  out 
the  whole  clause,  making  the  verse  consist  only  of  mtt'D  ijo-Vj?  n>n  -i>">i,  and 
there  was  hotieycomb  on  the  face  of  the  field.  This  is  perhaps  the  best  that  can 
be  done.  —  26.  t:'3T  "^jy  njni]  must  be  intended  to  mean  and  there  was  a  flow 
of  honey  ;  but  I'^n  in  the  only  other  passage  in  which  it  occurs  means  a  way- 
farer, 2  S.  12*.  The  change  of  pointing  to  -^j^  (Th.)  is  now  generally 
adopted,  and  as  its  consequence  the  further  emendation  of  can  to  n3i,  its 
bees,  evidently  the  original  of  \a\wv  0.  That  the  honey  was  deserted  of  its 
bees  made  it  especially  tempting  to  the  hungry  people.  It  is  not  yet  ex- 
plained, to  be  sure,  why  the  bees  should  have  deserted  their  post.  J'ltt'O  is  to 
be  read  a^CD  with  (@S,  cf.  v.^'  (Kl.).  —  np3cn]  perhaps  to  be  corrected  to 
nin>  n>'3'>r  with  (§.  — 27.  mj:i]  the  nomen  unitatis  of  "*;•>  is  mj,'\  njxim  Kt.  : 
njiNPi  Qre  ;  the  latter  is  evidently  to  be  preferred,  cf.  nN  v.^^. — 28.  a;'n  r|;''i] 
can  mean  only :  the  people  were  exhausted,  a  statement  that  interrupts  the 
sense,  whether  supposed  to  be  spoken  to  Jonathan,  or  an  explanation  by  the 
author.  If  anything  is  in  place  here  it  is  something  completing  the  informa- 
tion given,  like  ayn  -t>'M,  the  people  testified  io  the  oath  when  Saul  laid  it  upon 
them,  perhaps  by  saying  amen.  Or  we  might  read  Qy2  nj?'i,  and  he  called  the 
people  to  witness,  that  is,  Saul  did  (cf.  i  K.  2*2),  when  he  laid  the  objurgation 
upon  them.  Something  like  this  seems  to  have  been  the  idea  of  Josephus 
{Ant.  VI.  VI.  3),  when  he  says  that  Jonathan  did  not  hear  the  curse  nor  the 
approbation  the  multitude  gave  it.  (3  reads  >nM,  an  easy  corruption  of  nj;^. 
The  two  words  are  thrown  out,  as  a  marginal  gloss  which  has  crept  into  the 
text,  by  We.,  al.  Another  reading  suggested  by  Josephus  is  0^  I'^'S  ^^^  ^^ft 
off  eating,  which  would  be  entirely  in  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  sen- 
tence. (5  also  connects  its  /coi  i-fvui  ['Iaij'a0ov]  with  the  following.  —  29.  13>] 
Gen.  3435  Jos.  6I8  725  Jd.  ii^^.  — ini]  read  nxi  with  ©  (We.).  — 30.  >;  I**] 
emphatic  introduction  to  what  follows,  making  a  climax :   '  I  have  been  re- 


*  Dr.  points  to  one  instance,  2  S.  15'^ :  all  the  land  was  weeping  aloud.    But 
there  also  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  text  is  sound. 


XIV.  24-34  "9 

freshed  by  eating  a  little  honey;  how  much  more  if  the  people  had  eaten 
would  they  have  been  refreshed.'  He  changes  the  construction,  however,  and 
instead  of  saying  '  they  would  have  been  refreshed '  states  the  consequence  of 
the  refreshment  '  there  would  have  been  great  slaughter.'  —  nnj?  •'3]  intro- 
duces the  apodosis  after  Ni*^.  But  in  this  case  we  must  omit  the  n'?  which 
follows,  and  in  this  we  have  the  authority  of  (5.  The  change  to  n*?:!  makes  an 
awkward  sentence.  Or  possibly  n'?  represents  the  affirmative  particle  of  which 
we  have  traces  elsewhere.  —  hdd]  read  ronn  (g,  notice  the  n  which  precedes. 

31.   The  first  half  of  the  verse  is  difficult  as  it  stands,  because  it  seems  to 

speak  of  a  success  such  as  even  Jonathan  would  approve.  But  the  narrator 
would  hardly  contradict  himself  so  directly.  The  only  way  of  fitting  the  words 
into  the  context  is  to  throw  out  Ninn  ara  (or  correct  it  to  avn)  and  make  the 
sentence  a  part  of  Jonathan's  speech:  and  they  would  have  smitten  the  Philis- 
tines [to-day]  from  Michmash  to  Aijalon.  The  only  alternative  seems  to  be 
to  throw  out  the  whole  clause  (We.,  Camp.  p.  248).  (S  relieves  us  of  the  diffi- 
culty so  far  as  to  omit  Aijalon  and  to  read  ra^sa  for  tt-ajcc.  But  the  narrator 
hardly  supposes  the  whole  day's  fighting  to  be  confined  to  Michmash.  Bu. 
adopts  this,  and  also  adopts  from  Kl.  n'?^"'n  v  for  njSnv.  But  in  this  case  it 
would  be  better  to  take  over  the  whole  of  Kl.'s  conjecture  rh-hr\  -\-^  rcsi'n  anc. 
The  insecurity  of  our  footing  must  be  obvious.  On  the  site  of  Aijalon,  Robin- 
son, i5A'2,  III.  p.  145,  GASmith,  Geog.  pp.  210,  250  f.,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  198  who 
refers  to  Guerin,  Judee,  I.  290.  Cf.  also  Moore,  Judges,  p.  53  f.  —  a;n  r^y^] 
pointed  as  if  from  11;',  cf.  Jd.  4-^,  the  more  usual  form  is  ^-p,  and  we  should 
probably  point  ipi.  The  clause  resumes  the  narrative.  —  32.  rj!>i  Kt. :  oyi 
Qre  is  doubtless  to  be  preferred,  cf.  151^.  Kl.  defends  the  Kt.  deriving  it  from 
ri?  a  rare  verb  of  uncertain  meaning;  koX  eKXidri  (S^  points  to  011  which  favours 
the  Qre,  which  is  also  directly  rendered  by  @k  The  verb  is  perhaps  denomina- 
tive from  13'-;  a  bird  of  prey.  SSi;'  Kt. :  SSrn  Qre,  again  to  be  preferred.  —  "iBnirn 
nx-\N]  cf.  ns-\N  n^oN  2  S.  2^2.  —  ain-Sy]  is  probably  the  original  phrase,  Lev. 
1926  Ex.  12^,  and  oin-Ss  v.^*  is  to  be  corrected  accordingly.  a-in-pN  proposed 
by  Th.  is  not  superior  though  we  can  hardly  call  it  un-Hebraic,  cf.  Lev.  17I0. 
—  33.  n^JM]  the  undefined  subject  is  on^JDn.  —  d^not]  on  the  pointing  Ges.26 
§  74  i.  B^m  is  given  by  Ginsburg  as  the  Qre.  —  Sdn':']  for  this  gerundial  con- 
struction cf.  V>zs.,  Syntax,  §93,  other  examples  are  I2"-19  19^  2020,  — amj3]^0M 
deal  treacherously  does  not  seem  to  be  the  verb  called  for.  ®  finds  the  name  of 
a  place  Gittaim,  of  which  we  have  no  other  trace  in  this  region.  Perhaps  aniJoV 
would  be  in  place.  Kl.'s  reconstruction  is  too  ingenious.  —  arn]  must  be  cor- 
rected to  aVn  with  (g  (Th.).  —  34.  This  command  is  evidently  directed  to  those 
immediately  about  the  king  and  strengthens  the  case  for  ditijoS  in  the  preced- 
ing verse.  For  ^'?n  :  4vravda(&;  Kl.  conjectures  nini  Sn  for  which  much  may  be 
said  and  I  have  adopted  it.  —  ni3]  can  hardly  be  upon  this  stone ;  more  proba- 
bly in  this  place. —  anSsNi]  seems  wanting  in  (g  and  is  in  fact  superfluous. — 
no  nw  tyiN]  we  should  expect  the  sheep  to  be  added  as  above;  read  nt^K  vm 
no  with  @  (Th.,  al.).  —  nS'Sn]  lacking  in  6^,  inserted  by  (g^  at  the  end  of 
the  verse.     Kl.  followed  by  Bu.  corrects  to  nin^S,  which  is,  in  fact,  what  we 


I20  I  SAMUEL 

need.  Some  reader  zealous  for  the  Law  changed  it  as  in  J§,  while  another 
left  it  out  as  in  (5.  — 36.  The  appropriateness  of  this  addition  to  the  narrative 
is  apparent  only  if  we  identify  the  altar  here  spoken  of  with  the  great  stone 
already  mentioned.  Had  the  author  meant  to  make  it  something  additional 
he  would  have  said  Saul  built  there  an  altar  (as  is  actually  rendered  by  S). 
The  building  of  altars  is  a  mark  of  piety  in  the  patriarchs,  Gen.  8^°  \V  13^* 
zd^^  (all  J)  and  35''  (E).  We  have  no  reason  to  interpret  otherwise  in  the 
case  of  Saul.  The  supposition  that  the  altar  was  built  as  a  monument  —  non 
cultus  causa,  honoris  ergo  —  is  excusable  in  Schm.,  but  hardly  so  in  Keil, — 
mw]  must  be  circumstantial :  with  it  he  began  the  building  of  altars.  —  nijaS 
natn]  the  plural  of  the  noun  is  not  required,  cf.  Gen.  10^ :  he  -ivas  the  first 
to  become  a  tyrant,  and  probably  Gen.  <j^^ :  Noah  zvas  the  first  husbandman. 

36-46.  The  penalty  of  the  broken  tahoo.  —  Saul  proposes  to 
renew  the  attack  on  the  Philistines,  but  at  the  priest's  suggestion 
first  seeks  counsel  of  Yahweh.  The  oracle  is  silent ;  whereupon 
Saul  concludes  that  the  vow  laid  upon  the  people  has  been  broken, 
and  he  takes  measures  to  discover  the  guilty  party.  The  sacred 
lot  is  cast  first  between  Saul  with  his  house  on  one  side,  and  the 
people  on  the  other ;  then  between  Saul  and  his  son.  Jonathan 
is  discovered  to  be  the  guilty  person,  and  is  condemned  to  death 
by  Saul.  But  the  people,  recognizing  that  the  victory  of  the  day 
is  owing  to  Jonathan,  revolt  against  the  decision  and  ransom  him. 
This  closes  the  incident. 

The  section  is  the  necessary  conclusion  of  what  precedes. 
There  the  vow  has  been  registered  and  its  violation  recorded. 
Jonathan  confesses  his  guilt  in  the  terms  already  used  in  describ- 
ing his  unwitting  trespass.  In  fact,  the  culmination  of  the  story 
is  found  in  Saul's  Brutus-like  sentence  of  his  own  son,  and  in 
Jonathan's  noble  wiUingness  to  die.  The  older  commentators  were 
much  exercised  by  the  question  whether  Jonathan  was  really  bound 
by  an  adjuration  of  which  he  was  ignorant.  In  the  sense  of  the 
Biblical  writer,  he  was  so  bound.  Nor  can  we  seriously  question 
that,  to  the  Biblical  writer,  the  reason  for  Yahweh's  refusal  to 
answer  Saul  was  his  anger  at  Jonathan's  transgression  —  though 
the  commentators  have  ingeniously  avoided  this  conclusion,  and 
have  tried  to  shift  the  guilt  from  Jonathan  to  Saul. 

36-46.  Doul)ts  have  been  expressed  as  to  the  section  being  a  part  of  the 
original  narrative,  and  it  is  true  that  v.^"  reads  like  the  conclusion  of  a  chapter 
in  the  history.     But  the  account  of  the  vow  of  Saul  and  of  Jonathan's  trans- 


XIV.  36-41  121 

gression  is  not  complete  without  the  present  sequel.  If  necessary  to  choose, 
it  would  be  better  to  strike  out  v.^^  than  to  dispense  with  36-t6_  We.,  who 
holds  this  to  be  foreign  to  the  genuine  context  {Comp.  p.  248),  is  well  answered 
by  Bu.  {RS.  p.  206). 

36.  Saul  makes  a  proposition :  Let  us  go  down  after  the  Philis- 
tines by  night  and  smite  them'\  reading  with  Bu. ;  the  received  text, 
let  us  plunder  among  them,  is  weak.  The  people  agree,  but  the 
priest  advises  consultation  of  the  oracle  :  let  us  draw  near  hither 
to  God'\  Ex.  16^  Zeph.  3^  The  initiative  of  the  priest  may  be 
accounted  for  by  his  knowledge  of  the  transgression.  The  emen- 
dation of  the  text  to  make  Saul  the  subject  is  arbitrary,  though 
Josephus  gives  the  initiative  to  the  king.  —  37.  Saul  asks  of  God 
in  the  customary  form  —  here  a  double  question,  but  one  that 
admits  only  the  answer  yes  or  no,  cf.  30^.  From  the  form  of  the 
question  it  is  probable  that  the  oracle  answered  by  the  sacred  lot. 

—  But  he  did  not  answer  him  that  day']  how  the  priest  discovered 
Yahweh's  refusal  to  answer,  we  are  not  told.  —  38.  Saul,  with  his 
usual  promptness,  takes  immediate  steps  to  discover  the  occasion 
of  the  divine  wrath.  He  issues  the  order  :  Come  hither,  all  the 
cornerstones  of  the  people!]  the  chief  men  are  called  by  this  name 
Jd.  20^  Is.  19^^.  —  And  know  and  see  wherein  is  this  sin  to-day]  or 
more  probably  in  whom  is  this  sin.  Abstractly  considered,  the 
fault  might  be  in  a  thing  as  well  as  in  a  person,  but  as  Saul's 
measures  look  towards  the  discovery  of  a  person,  it  is  natural  that 
he  should  express  himself  accordingly.  —  39.  Saul  solemnly  pro- 
tests that  the  offender  shall  not  be  spared  :  By  the  life  of  Yahweh 
who  delivers  Israel]  that  is,  who  is  habitually  Israel's  deliverer; 
though  it  be  I  or  Jonathan  my  son,  he  shall  be  put  to  death]  the 
conjectural  reading  represented  here  will  be  defended  in  the  criti- 
cal note.  The  silence  of  the  people  shows  that  they  appreciate 
the  gravity  of  the  situation. — 40.  Arrangements  are  made  for 
casting  the  lot  by  the  division  of  all  present  into  two  parties.  On 
one  side  are  the  people  at  large,  on  the  other  Saul  and  Jonathan, 
they  being  the  only  members  of  the  royal  family  who  are  present. 
The  arrangement,  proposed  by  Saul,  is  consented  to  by  the  people. 

—  41.  The  sacred  lot  is  cast  in  accordance  with  Saul's  prayer  pre- 
served for  us  in  (!9  :  And  Saul  said:  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel,  why 
hast  thou  not  answered  thy  servant  this  day  ?    If  the  guilt  be  in 


122  I  SAMUEL 

me  or  in  Jonathan  my  son,  Yahiveh,  God  of  Israel,  give  Uritn  ;  but 
if  thus  thou  say:  It  is  in  my  people  Israel;  give  Thummim.  The 
arguments  for  adopting  this  text  are  :  (i)  the  improbabihty  of  its 
being  invented  by  a  late  author;  (2)  the  difificulty  of  making 
sense  of  the  received  text ;  (3)  the  loss  by  homeoteleuton  is  very 
probable  ;  (4)  the  word  d'ttn  alone  would  not  suggest  the  inser- 
tion ;  (5)  only  by  supposing  something  of  this  kind  to  have  been 
originally  in  the  text,  can  we  account  for  the  statement  that  Saul 
and  Jonathan  were  taken.  If,  as  these  considerations  make  ex- 
tremely probable,  this  is  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  Samuel,  it 
is  one  of  the  most  important  contributions  of  *3  to  the  restoration 
of  that  text,  and  to  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew  antiquity.  The 
Urim  and  Thummim  were  known  by  name  to  the  post-exilic 
writers,  but  the  method  of  their  use  had  been  forgotten.  The 
only  early  references  are  i  S.  28*  where  Urim  is  mentioned  as  one 
method  of  revelation,  and  Dt.  33^  where  Urim  and  Thummim  are 
attributed  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  present  text  describes  them 
more  exactly  than  any  of  these.  Urim  and  Thummim  were  two 
objects  used  in  the  lot  —  perhaps  stones  of  different  colours  —  one 
of  which  gave  the  affirmative,  the  other  gave  the  negative  answer 
to  a  question  put  in  the  form  already  indicated.  In  this  case  : 
Saul  and  JoTiathan  were  taken  and  the  people  escaped.  —  42.  The 
text  seems  to  have  suffered  here  also  :  And  Saul  said :  Cast 
between  me  and  Jonathan  my  son;  and  Jojiathan  was  taketi]  the 
abruptness  of  the  statement  is  contrary  to  analogy.  (!l  again  comes 
to  our  help  and  may  plead  the  presumption  that  the  same  cause 
which  mutilated  the  preceding  verse  affected  this  also.  It  reads  : 
And  Saul  said :  Cast  between  me  and  Jonathan  !  Whom  Yahweh 
shall  take  shall  die.  And  the  people  said  to  Saul:  It  shall  not  be 
so  !  But  Saul  prevailed  over  the  people,  and  they  cast  the  lot 
between  him  and  Jonathan  his  son,  and  Jonathan  was  taken']  the 
added  feature  of  the  protest  of  the  people  is  too  original  to  be  a 
Greek  expansion  of  the  text.  — 43.  Jonathan  confesses  in  response 
to  his  father's  question  :  /  did  indeed  taste  a  bit  of  honey  with  the 
end  of  the  staff  which  I  carried.  Here  I  am  !  I  am  ready  to  die] 
the  last  words  are  not  a  complaint  at  his  fate,  but  express  a  heroic 
wilhngness  to  meet  it.  So  Josephus  correctly  understands  it : 
"  Jonathan  was  not  dismayed  at  this  threat  of  death,  but  submit- 


XIV.  41-46  123 

ting  nobly  and  magnanimously,  he  said  :  I  do  not  ask  you  to  spare 
me,  Father ;  death  is  all  the  sweeter  to  me,  coming  in  connexion 
with  your  piety  and  after  a  brilliant  victory,"  *  Jonathan's  spirit 
is  comparable  to  that  displayed  by  Jephthah's  daughter,  Jd.  ii^. — 
44.  Saul  pronounces  the  sentence,  confirming  it  by  an  oath  :  So  do 
God  to  me  and  so  again  —  thou  shalt  die,  Jonathan  !'\  the  impreca- 
tion as  in  3^\  —  45.  The  people  interfere  and  deliver  Jonathan: 
Shall  Jonathan  die  who  has  wrought  this  great  deliverance  for 
Israel?  Jonathan's  bold  attack  upon  the  enemy  was  the  beginning 
of  the  victory,  and  without  it  the  victory  would  not  have  been  ob- 
tained. By  the  life  of  Yahweh,  there  shall  not  fall  a  hair  of  his 
head'\  i  K.  i^^  cf.  2  S.  14^'. — For  he  has  wrought  with  God'\  the 
sense  is,  apparently,  that  if  God  was  so  well  pleased  with  Jonathan 
as  to  give  him  the  victory,  he  cannot  now  require  his  death.  As  this 
is  a  non  sequitur,  possibly  the  text  has  been  obscured.  —  The  people 
ransomed  Jonathan']  by  substituting  one  of  themselves  —  so  Ew. 
and  We.  suppose.  Driver  points  out  that  ransom  by  an  animal 
substitute  was  allowed  by  comparatively  early  laws,  Ex.  i^^-^^  3420, 
so  that  we  cannot  be  absolutely  certain.  —  46.  Of  further  pursuit 
there  could  be  no  thought.  Hence  Saul  went  up  from  pursuing 
the  Philistines,  and  the  Philistines  went  to  their  own  country']  the 
narrative  reaches  a  pause  with  this  verse,  but  the  same  document 
is  continued  in  v.'l 

36.  ntaj]  on  the  form,  Ges.^s  §  67  dd;  Stade,  Gram.  §  137  a,  584  <r.  This 
verb,  however,  is  not  the  one  v^e.  expect  here,  as  Saul  evidently  means  more 
than  plundering,  for  he  does  not  want  to  leave  one  remaining.  As  ®  renders 
the  same  word  we  are  thrown  upon  conjecture;  and  of  the  various  conjectures 
the  simplest  is  noji  (Bu.),  cf.  ii"  Jos.  iii*.  — nsu-j]  pointed  as  a  jussive  (a 
rare  instance),  Dr.,  Tensed,  §  50,  Obs.;  Ges.26  §  48^,  note  2,  109  a';  cf. 
2  S.  17I2.  The  space  after  ntyy,  remarked  in  the  Massoretic  note,  is  probably 
a  trace  of  a  different  verse  division.  — 'ui  jnon  idnii]  Bu.  proposes  to  restore 
-\iDNn  PN  a':'n  nanpn  jnoS  idnm  (making  Saul  the  subject),  constructed  after 
the  analogy  of  the  restored  v.i*.  But  @  agrees  with  |§,  and  the  sense  is  good. 
If  any  change  is  needed,  the  clause  might  be  stricken  out,  with  S.  Against 
its  originality  may  be  urged  2ip  (instead  of  B'JJ,  used  elsewhere  in  this  narra- 
tive).—  37.  injy]  (g'- adds  Kvpio^.  —  38.  WJ]  the  form  occurs  three  times; 
recession  of  the  accent  on  account  of  the  following  monosyllable  (?  cf.  Ges.2« 
66  <•).    (5  seems  to  have  read  iu>^jn.  —  nijo]  <^v\6.s  @^.  —  noa]  probably  to  be 


*  Joseph.,  Antiq.  VI,  VI.  5. 


124  '  SAMUEL 

emended  to  'D^  with  <S,  Th.,  We.,  Bu.,  Kl.,  Dr.,  Ki.  —  39.  nin^-in]  the  dis- 
tinction made  by  the  punctuators  between  '•n  and  'n  in  such  expressions  is  arti- 
ficial, and  intended  to  disguise  the  fact  that  men  swore  by  the  life  of  Yahweh, 
cf.  20^,  2  S.  1 5-1,  where  the  two  forms  are  found  side  by  side.  —  ''O'J"]  is  con- 
fessedly a  difficult  form.  It  occurs  Dt.  29^*,  where  the  analogy  of  uj^n  in  the 
second  half  of  the  verse  suggests  that  we  should  point  i:z'\  also  i  S.  23-8 
Est.  3^  In  the  present  passage  Th.  proposes  to  read  nyy\  on  the  ground 
that  the  antecedent  is  nn\sn,  and  this  seems  confirmed  by  awoKptdr)  (S,  which 
would  represent  njj;\  But  the  analogy  of  the  following  verses  suggests  that  the 
original  was  in  13  ti",  a  combination  that  might  give  rise  to  J^  if  one  or  two 
letters  became  illegible.  This  is  the  conjecture  of  Kl.,  and  a  is  quite  in  place 
as  the  6e^A  essentiae.  —  40.  i^j?*?]  th  SovKtiav  (3  is  an  obvious  error,  but  shows 
a  Hebrew  original. — 41.  Sn]  is  an  erroneous  insertion,  nvTi  being  part  of  the 
vocative. — D'cn  nan]  all  attempts  to  make  sense  of  the  words  as  they  stand 
are  vain:  Give  a  perfect  {lot)  would  be  impertinent;  shoiv  the  right  does  vio- 
lence to  the  words.  The  text  of  (5,  apparently  best  preserved  by  ^,  retrans- 
lated into  Hebrew  gives:  in  ^3  dn  DPn  -[-laynN  nij;;  n*?  nnS  '^vrcv^  ^n-x  nin' 
D''Dn  nan  jijjn  oya  ncNn  no  dni  oms  nan  S}<na'>  ^nSx  nin^  pjjn  'ja  |njva.  The 
only  difficulty  with  this  is,  that  the  eye  of  a  scribe  would  not  be  so  likely  to 
mistake  the  second  nan  for  the  first,  as  if  the  same  word  preceded  both.  The 
reading  of  ^  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse  is  confused,  but  it  supplies  Sniii'i 
before  the  second  nan,  so  that  the  probable  reading  was  ^^-w^  ''Ci'3,  instead  of 
the  simple  a;"a  given  above.  After  Ewald,  who  directs  in  general  to  '  complete 
the  text  from  the  LXX'  {GVI?  III.  p.  51,  E.Tr.  III.  p.  36),  this  reading  is 
accepted  by  Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.  We.  conjectures  SNisy^  ncya  1:1^''  DNi  as  the 
opening  of  the  second  half  of  the  sentence,  and  is  followed  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki. 
Absolute  conformity  of  the  two  parts  of  the  prayer  is,  however,  not  necessary, 
and  ncNn  na  on  seems  more  vivid,  and  therefore  more  likely  to  be  original. 
Keil,  followed  by  Erdm.,  argues  against  the  whole  insertion,  and  so  does  Kl.  — 
42.  The  plus  of  (§  in  this  verse  is  contained,  with  slight  variations,  in  -^^L, 
and  is  testified  by  the  asterisk  of  Origen.  one  of  the  few  cases  in  which  the 
Hexaplar  signs  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  Books  of  Samuel.  The  retro- 
version of  Bu.  needs  no  correction  unless  (with  ^  and  Hex.)  we  read  n?n  nana 
instead  of  nm  nann.  (For  k.  KaTaKpaTT^at  2.  rov  Aaov  either  D;;nD  .  .  .  prn^i, 
cf.  17*°,  or  aya  pjnM,  Dt.  222*.)  Insert  therefore  after  ■'ja  the  words  nB'N  ns 
pai  ira  iS^isn  Dya  hws^  p?nM  nrn  nana  ryrii  nS  ^^^^"Sn  ayn  noN^i  nin>  nin>  naS' 
ua  ]njv.  The  resemblance  between  >ja  ]njv  and  ua  injp  accounts  for  the 
omission.  The  emendation,  made  by  Th.,  is  rejected  by  We.,  on  the  ground 
that  to  interrupt  the  decision  of  Yahweh  is  irreligious  and  the  uncertainty 
intolerable.  But  the  people  may  well  have  seen  that  the  result  could  be  only 
the  loss  either  of  Jonathan  or  of  Saul,  and  have  been  willing  rather  to  bear 
the  wrath  of  Yahweh  than  to  face  this  certain  loss.  The  emendation  is  ac- 
cepted by  Kl.,  Bu. ;  not  noticed  by  Dr.  and  Ki. — 43.  \ic>'t3  dvb]  the  adver- 
bial infinitive  throws  emphasis  upon  the  root  idea  of  the  verb  '  I  tasted  a  little 
honey.'     As  it  is  here  a  confession  of  transgrebsion,  in  which  there  was  no 


XTV.  ^7-51  125 

question  of  less  or  more,  we  should  probably  understand  it  to  be  an  out-and- 
out  affirmation,  and  not  intended  to  contrast  tasting  with  eating,  as  though  in 
mitigation.  —  ^jjn]  (§•■  and  %  read  ijjni. — 44.  rivy^  nj]  must  have  after  it  >'?, 
as  indicated  by  <^']L&.  The  omission  was  probably  made  from  superstitious 
dread  on  the  part  of  the  scribe  who  would  not  write  an  imprecation  upon 
himself  (We.,  who  cites  25-2,  where  an  imprecation  upon  David  has  been 
obscured  for  the  same  reason).  So  the  Arab  writer  changes  a  denunciation 
of  the  person  present  (m  his  narrative)  to  a  denunciation  of  '  the  remote.' 
The  formula  is  found  in  3I''.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  \r^:v  |^ :  (r-fifxepov  l3^^; 
a-fiixfpov  luivaQav  (g^.  The  unusual  place  of  the  vocative  is  an  argument 
against  |^,  and  it  might  also  be  pleaded  that  the  determination  of  Saul  to 
placate  the  deity  at  once  is  something  that  should  be  brought  out.  But  the 
pathos  of  the  sentence  is  greater  as  read  in  |^,  and  the  change  to  ovn  more 
likely  than  the  reverse.  The  case  is  a  difficult  one  to  decide,  but  on  the  whole 
5^  has  the  advantage  (so  We.,  Bu.,  Kl.). — 45.  n;'ia'i.-i]  would  be  sufficient 
without  qualification,  as  is  felt  by  Sb,  which  reads  simply :  ivho  hath  wrought 
deliverance  for  Israel.  —  n'^^'^n]  is  lacking  in  @^.  The  insertion  is  easily 
accounted  for  by  the  context  (Kl.,  Bu.),  and  superfluous.  —  dn]  is  used  in 
oaths  with  the  negative  sense.  —  m;'!:'c]  the  use  of  p  is  explained  by  Dr., 
Notes,  p.  91.  It  would  not  be  extravagant  hyperbole  (to  the  Oriental  mind) 
to  take  it  as  partitive :  '  There  shall  not  fall  [even  a  fraction]  of  a  hair.'  — 
n::7  aTi'^x  dj;  ^2]  should  mean  in  this  context :  for  on  the  side  of  God  he  wrought. 
The  construction  is,  however,  awkward,  and  (5  had  a  different  text :  Sn  eAeoi/ 
6(ov  iitoij)aev  (S^ :  oti  6  \ahs  tov  deov  inoirja-ei'  (3^^.  One  of  these  is  prob- 
ably corrupted  from  the  other,  and  possibly  both  go  back  to  the  pronunciation 
ay  for  dv.  For  God  will  he  gracious  this  day  is  nearly  what  we  require :  •'d 
orn  D^n^N  onj\  Kl.  proposes  c^n'^x  cn'j  •'D — for  the  mercy  of  God  hath  made 
this  day.  But  it  is  difficult  to  justify  this  by  the  facts,  for  this  day  is  not  the 
day  of  the  battle  but  the  day  following.  —  iidm]  means  they  ransomed:  koX 
irpocrr]v^aro  @  would  point  to  S'?flii.  There  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  that  Jf?  is 
original. 

47-51.  Summary  of  Saul's  activity.  —  The  paragraph  is  a 
summary  such  as  we  find  in  2  S.  20^^"^^.  The  latter  paragraph 
seems  to  have  been  originally  the  conclusion  of  one  history  of 
David.  It  should  be  noted  that  our  section  does  not  make  any 
chronological  attempt,  such  as  we  find  in  the  framework  of  the 
Books  of  Kings  For  this  reason  we  should  probably  date  it  early, 
as  compared  with  other  redactional  insertions.  The  author's  idea 
of  Saul's  conquests  also  points  to  a  time  before  the  figure  of  David 
had  received  the  prominence  which  it  has  in  the  greater  part  of 
the  historical  books.  Not  improbably  this  section  was  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  life  of  Saul,  from  which  came  chapters  9.  10.  11.  13.  14 


126  I  SAMUEL 

in  their  original  form.  In  this  case  it  may  have  stood  after  i6^, 
from  which  place  it  was  removed  by  the  editor  who  wished  to 
conclude  the  account  of  Saul's  successes  before  going  on  to  relate 
his  rejection. 

47-51.  As  to  the  character  of  the  section,  the  critics  are  agreed;  as  to  its 
age  there  is  some  difference  of  opinion.  The  similar  closing  formula  for  the 
life  of  Samuel  (yis-is)  reminds  us  of  those  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  In 
regard  to  David  we  have  like  data  given  2  S,  3^^  and  5^^^^  both  which  give 
the  names  of  David's  family,  as  well  as  2  S.  zd^-^  which  originally  closed  an 
account  of  David's  life.  For  Solomon  also  we  can  point  out  a  much  more 
extended  panegyric,  but  one  which  is  in  substance  equivalent  to  our  section, 
in  I  K.  4^-5^*.  There  seems  to  be  no  inherent  improbability  in  the  supposition 
that  such  a  panegyric  was  composed  by  the  author  who  has  just  given  the 
account  of  Saul's  piety  (cf.  Kuenen,  HCO'-.  p.  381).  The  theory  of  We. 
{^Comp.  247)  is  that  the  panegyric  marks  (in  the  mind  of  the  editor)  the  close 
of  Saul's  rightful  reign,  and  this  is  adopted  by  Co.,  Einl'^.  p.  100.  This  is 
probably  the  reason  for  the  insertion  of  the  section  in  his  place.  But  we  can 
hardly  suppose  that  an  editor  who  knew  no  more  of  Saul's  successes  than  is 
contained  in  what  has  preceded,  and  who  moreover  regarded  him  as  rejected 
of  Yahweh,  could  write  such  a  panegyric.  The  resemblance  to  the  '  prag- 
matic '  sections  of  the  Book  of  Judges  affirmed  by  Bu.  (^RS.  p.  206  f.)  seems 
less  marked  than  he  would  make  it.  Bonk  (^De  Davide,  p.  53,  and  ZATW. 
XI.  p.  143)  finds  here  a  fragment  from  a  source  which  has  not  appeared  up  to 
this  point  —  a  history  of  the  family  of  Saul.  Ki.  (^GH.  II.  p.  29)  declares  for 
an  independent  but  late  source,  cf.  also  Dr.,  LOT^.  p.  173. 

Properly  there  are  two  paragraphs,  —  one  giving  a  summary  of 
Saul's  wars,  the  other  containing  the  names  of  his  family.  —  47.  So 
Saul  took  the  kwgdom  over  Israel  aiid  fought  on  all  sides  against 
all  his  enemies']  the  enemies  0/  Israel  seem  to  be  in  the  author's 
mind.  The  enumeration  of  them  gives  the  same  names  which  we 
find  in  the  account  of  David's  wars,  2  S.  8  and  elsewhere :  Moab 
and  the  Bne  Amfnon,  and  Edom  and  Beth  Rehob]  as  (^  author- 
izes us  to  read. —  The  king  of  Soba]  seems  also  natural,  as  in  #, 
rather  than  the  kings  of  Soba  5^.  Beth  Rehob  and  Soba  were 
both  Aramaean  states  in  the  Lebanon  region.  Rather  curiously 
the  Philistines  come  last  in  the  list.  —  And  wherever  he  turned 
he  was  victorious]  on  the  emendation,  see  the  critical  note. — 
48.  Especial  mention  of  the  expedition  against  Amalek :  And  he 
gathered  an  army  and  smote  Amalek]  the  translation  rather  forces 
the  text.     In  case  it  is  not  accepted,  we  must  join  the  opening 


XIV.  47-5^  127 

clause  with  the  preceding,  making  it  read  :  And  wherever  he  turned 
he  was  victorious  and  did  valiantly.  The  next  sentence  will  then 
be  :  And  he  smote  Amalek  and  delivered  Israel  from  the  hand  of 
his  plunderer'^  it  is  evident  that  the  author  has  present  stress 
rather  than  a  historic  occasion  in  mind  as  furnishing  a  motive  for 
Saul.  This  shows  the  difference  between  his  point  of  view  and 
that  of  chapter  15.  —  49.  The  family  of  Saul  is  brought  before 
us  :  first,  his  sons  :  Jonathan  and  Ishbaal'\  so  we  are  authorized 
to  correct,  the  name  in  "^  having  been  mutilated  for  religious 
reasons.  The  first  name  means  Yahzveh  gave ;  the  second,  J/a« 
of  the  Lord,  Baal  having  been  used  quite  innocently  for  Yahweh 
in  this  period.  The  third  also  contains  a  name  of  Yahweh 
{Afelek),  though  the  second  element  is  obscure.  All  three  testify 
to  the  piety  of  Saul.  Of  the  daughters'  names  Merab  is  obscure, 
Michal  possibly  the  same  which  appears  elsewhere  as  Michael.  — 
50.  His  wife  was  Ahinoam  daughter  of  Ahimaaz]  the  names  occur 
elsewhere.  The  general  of  the  army  was  Abner,  who  plays  a  more 
prominent  part  after  the  death  of  Saul  than  before.  He  was  so7i 
of  Ner,  uncle  of  Saul.  As  the  word  translated  uncle  is  of  some- 
what wide  meaning,  the  author  proceeds  to  define  more  exactly. 
—  51.  Kish  the  father  of  Saul  and  Ner  the  father  of  Abner  were 
sons  of  Abiel'\  so  we  read  on  conjecture. 

52.  The  verse  joins  closely  to  v.^*^,  and  prepares  the  way  for 
1 6",  where  David  is  received  into  Saul's  staff.  —  The  war  was 
severe  against  the  Philis titles  all  the  days  of  Saul'\  the  author 
guards  against  the  impression  that  the  late  indecisive  campaign 
was  the  only  one.  —  And  whenever  Saul  saw  any  powerful  man 
or  any  vigorous  man,  he  would  attach  him  to  himself^  as  in  the 
case  of  David  which  follows. 

47.  i^V  '7iNi'i]  the  order  of  the  words  indicates  the  opening  of  a  new  sec- 
tion. After  Edom  ^^  adds :  koX  eis  rhv  $aiepou>0i,  evidently  intending  the 
Bet/t  Kehob  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Sobah,  2  S.  10^.  The  name  has 
been  corrupted  in  ©^  to  ffaidewp.  The  text  is  emended  to  conform  to  <3^^  by 
Kl.,  and  the  emendation  is  adopted  by  Bu.  —  ''oSdj]  the  singular  number  was 
found  by  (5  and  is  doubtless  original.  —  y^n^]  seems  to  give  no  proper  sense 
in  this  connexion,  though  We.  compares  Syr.  3''n.  Hebrew  usage  allows 
only  the  meanine;s  (0  convict  of  guilt,  or  io  act  wickedly,  (S  iffdi^erw  pomts  to 
ptS'v  which  was  nrst  suggested  Uy  Cappellus  {Critica  Sacra,  p.  261),  and  is 


128  I  SAMUEL 

now  generally  adopted,— 48.  ^:^'n  z-;>y}  and  he  wrought  mighty  decas  as  in 
Num.  24I8  Dt.  818.  Both  S>  and  ®  understand  the  expression  to  mean  he 
gathered  an  army  and  this  is  a  more  appropriate  introduction  to  the  mention 
of  Amalek.     '?\n  I'ap  occurs  i  K.  20I,  and  it  is  possible  that  -n  z'p^  may  be 

interpreted  in  this  sense,  cf.  Ezek.  28*,  thou  didst  acquire  might. i,-id:']  cf. 

23I  Jd.  2"  with  Moore's  note.  —  49.  ••\i'^~\  occurs  also  Gen.  46I"  and  is  evi- 
dently a  corruption  of  vz'-^  (rr.s)  =  nin>  u-^n.  This  is  the  equivalent  of  Ish- 
baal  which  has  been  altered  in  the  other  direction  into  hhbosheth.  The  actual 
name  was  Ish  baal  —  the  man  of  the  Lord.  The  identity  of  the  name  in  the 
text  with  Ishbosheth  was  affirmed  by  Ewald  (G  F/K  III.  p.  14S,  E.  Tr.  III. 
p.  108),  who  also  reconstructed  vy^  from  (&.  The  exact  state  of  the  case  was 
demonstrated  by  We.,  who  is  followed  by  Dr.  (with  some  reserve),  Bu.,  Ki. 
(S^  adds  Kal  'Eta-Bda\  at  the  end  of  the  list. — >'v.r>3'^c]  Mf\xia-e5Si  (3^.  In- 
stead of  three  sons,  four  are  ascribed  to  Saul  in  312  (where  three  are  slain) 
and  I  Chr.  S^^  Q^*.  — Sj^c]  MfAx^K  <&  and  b^^'-D  ^  would  point  to  Sno'^c,  cf. 
G.  46!^^.  —  50.  The  first  two  names  are  compounded  with  hn  (brother)  like  so 
many  which  have  come  down  to  us.  —  -ij>jn]  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  shorter 
form  -\j3x.  —  51.  '^N^^x-p]  should  obviously  be  read  'i^vsox-^ja  as  is  indicated 
by  Josephus,  and  pointed  out  by  Th.  (followed  by  KL,  Dr.,  Ki.,  Bu.).  Only 
thus  do  we  get  what  belongs  here,  for  that  Kish  was  the  father  of  Saul  is 
already  known  to  us,  and  that  Ner  was  a  son  of  Abiel  throws  no  light  on  the 
situation  unless  we  know  who  Abiel  is. 

52.  nsni]  the  tense  indicates  what  was  repeatedly  or  habitually  done.  Dr., 
Tenses%  §§  120,  148,  I.  With  ihcdn^i  the  author  falls  back  into  the  narrative 
tense,  having  the  particular  instance  in  mind  rather  than  the  frequent  repeti- 
tion. 

XV.  The  rejection  of  Saul.— The  word  of  Yahweh  is  brought 
by  Samuel  to  Saul,  commanding  the  extermination  of  Amalek  on 
the  ground  of  what  that  people  did  to  Israel  in  the  Desert.  Saul 
therefore  gathers  an  army,  and  makes  the  campaign.  But  he 
succumbs  to  the  temptation  of  the  booty,  and  himself  spares  the 
king  of  Amalek,  besides  conniving  at  the  people's  taking  the  best 
of  the  spoil  for  themselves.  Samuel  is  divinely  informed  of  the 
disobedience,  goes  to  meet  Saul,  and  rebukes  him.  Giving  no 
weight  to  the  king's  excuses,  he  formally  announces  that  Yahweh 
has  rejected  him.  Saul  confesses  his  sin,  but  Samuel  persists  in 
his  sentence ;  and  when  his  garment  rends  in  the  grasp  of  Saul, 
he  interprets  the  event  as  a  sign  of  the  divine  decision  to  take 
away  the  kingdom.  Nevertheless  he  consents  to  pay  outward 
respect  to  the  king,  bowing  with  him  in  worship.  Samuel  then 
calls  for  Agag,  whom  he  puts  to  death  before  Yahweh, 


XV.  1 29 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  in  reading  this  account  is,  that  it 
makes  no  mention  of  an  earlier  rejection  of  Saul.  The  author 
does  not  intimate  that  this  is  a  second  test.  There  is  no  hint  that 
he  supposes  Saul  to  have  repented  of  his  former  sin  —  a  repent- 
ance such  as  the  earUer  commentators  postulated,  in  order  to 
harmonize  the  two  accounts.  This  chapter,  like  i3'*'^%  reads  as  if 
it  were  the  only  account  of  Saul's  rejection.  But  the  common 
features  are  striking.  Gilgal  is  the  scene  of  both.  In  each,  Saul 
receives  a  command  from  Samuel.  In  each  he  disobeys  (though 
the  exact  manner  of  the  disobedience  in  i^*''^^  is  obscure)  ;  in 
each  he  is  informed  that  his  kingdom  is  taken  from  him  ;  in  each 
the  kingdom  is  said  to  have  been  given  to  another.  The  conclu- 
sion is  obvious :  though  the  two  accounts  are  taken  from  two  sep- 
arate documents,  and  though  each  formed,  in  the  history  of  which 
it  was  a  part,  the  sole  account  of  the  rejection  of  Saul,  yet  they 
are  derived  from  a  common  tradition,  or  one  is  dependent  on  the 
other. 

Of  the  affiliations  of  the  present  section  we  can  have  no  doubt. 
It  belongs  with  chapters  1-3.  7.  8.  lo'''-^^  12.  The  position  of 
Samuel  is  the  same  as  in  those  sections.  Although  retired,  he  is 
still  the  organ  of  the  theocratic  administration.  Saul  is  still  under 
obHgation  to  obey  his  commands.  Disobedience  to  Samuel  is 
disobedience  to  God,  and  is  punished  by  deposition.  This  iden- 
tity of  view  is  accompanied  by  resemblance  of  language.  God  is 
Yahweh  Sabaoth  (15^,  cf.  i''^).  There  is  distinct  reference  to 
the  people's  coming  up  out  of  Egypt  (15"^  8*  10'^)  ;  Samuel  cries 
to  Yahweh  (15'^  7^  12^)  ;  Saul,  like  the  people,  is  reproached  with 
having  rejected  the  word  of  Yahweh  (15^  ^')-  Other  similarities 
will  show  themselves  in  the  detailed  examination  of  the  passage. 
We  must  suppose  the  story  to  belong  with  the  chapters  already 
named.  Taking  them  as  forming  a  single  history,  we  see  that  this 
is  really  the  climax.  The  document  gives  a  life  of  Samuel,  in 
which  Saul  has  a  prominent  part  to  be  sure,  but  a  part  which 
serves  to  set  off  the  glory  of  Samuel.  The  author  reckons  Samuel 
as  one  of  the  divinely  appointed  judges.  Saul's  election  was  a 
mistake  from  the  beginning.  The  real  succession  passed  to  David. 
The  rebellious  demand  for  a  king  was  acceded  to  only  under  a 
protest  on  the  part   of  Yahweh  and  his  prophet.     An  unhappy 

K 


130  1  SAMUEL 

issue  was  looked  for  from  the  start.     Nor  was  it  long  delayed. 
The  very  first  time  that  Saul  was  put  to  the  test  he  failed. 

We  might,  indeed,  suppose  that  the  author  originally  gave  more 
of  Saul's  exploits  than  have  been  preserved  to  us.  But,  as  he  has 
already  ascribed  the  Philistine  victory  to  Samuel,  he  probably  had 
little  else  to  give.  In  fact,  his  interest  in  Saul  was  not  such  as  to 
make  him  give  more.  As  we  have  already  seen,  he  was  probably 
dependent  on  the  other  (and  earlier)  document.  His  account  of 
Saul's  rejection  is  a  free  reconstruction  and  expansion  of  13^^^ 
designed  to  take  the  place  of  that  narrative,  and  to  make  it  teach 
a  theocratic  lesson. 

XV.  The  critical  questions  are  treated  in  the  works  already  frequently 
cited.  I  confess  my  inability  to  see  why  this  chapter  should  be  made  '  inter- 
mediate between  the  two  streams  of  narrative  already  considered '  (We., 
Comp.  p.  248,  Dr.,  LOT^.  p.  178,  Ki.,  GH.  II.  p.  25).  The  character  and 
position  of  Samuel  as  here  portrayed  agree  closely  with  his  picture  as  drawn 
in  the  life  of  Samuel,  chapters  7.  8.  12,  unless  it  is  easier  to  unmake  a  king 
than  to  make  him,  which  will  hardly  be  asserted.  So  far  from  "  occupying  a 
position  midway  between  prophets  like  Elijah  or  Elisha  and  those  like  Amos 
or  Hosea"  (Ki.),  Samuel  as  here  represented  is  more  autocratic  than  any  of 
these.  No  one  of  them,  even  in  the  stories  which  are  told  of  them,  ever  stood 
out  so  distinctly  and  frankly  the  superior  of  a  king  of  Israel,  as  is  the  case 
with  Samuel  in  the  section  before  us.  The  section  agrees  fully  in  this  respect 
with  7.  8.  and  12. 

The  majority  of  critics  draw  a  sharp  line  between  this  and  the  foUowmg 
chapter  (16^-^3),  fhe  reason  is  not  apparent.  On  the  contrary,  the  logical 
sequence  of  this  chapter  is  found  in  that  paragraph.  Saul  is  rejected  in  order 
that  David  may  be  anointed.  It  may  be  said  that  Samuel's  fear  of  Saul  in  the 
second  section  is  inconsistent  with  the  autocratic  position  which  he  here  occu- 
pies. But  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  motive  of  the  author  in  making 
Samuel  dissimulate  is  to  account  for  the  secresy  of  the  transaction.  He  knew 
that  no  hint  of  an  anointing  of  David  appears  in  any  other  document.  To 
account  for  this  fact,  he  must  make  Samuel  keep  his  errand  secret.  The 
obvious  device  was  to  make  his  concealment  motived  by  fear  of  Saul. 

1-3.  The  command  and  its  motive.  —  Samuel  comes  to  Saul 
with  the  Word  of  Yahweh.  The  hostiUty  of  Amalek  shown  in  the 
Wilderness  is  yet  unpunished.  Saul  is  therefore  to  devote  them 
to  utter  destruction.  The  historicity  of  the  incident  is  open  to 
grave  doubts.  Saul's  kingdom  was  over  Benjamin,  and  there  he 
had  all  he  could  do  to  keep  back  the  Philistine  attack.     Judah 


XV.  t-3  131 

was  separated  from  him  by  the  Jebusite  fortress,  and  its  loyalty 
could  never  have  been  very  warm.  The  claim  on  Amalek  was 
outlawed  by  some  centuries.  So  far  from  this  people  being  exter- 
minated by  Saul,  they  were  engaged  in  active  feud  with  David 
very  soon  after  the  supposed  attack  by  Saul.  Finally,  no  trace 
of  this  attack  has  survived  in  any  passage  of  the  Old  Testament 
except  the  one  before  us.  —  1.  The  command  seems  to  follow 
immediately  on  the  farewell  address  of  Samuel  in  1 2.  It  begins 
with  the  statement :  Me  did  Yahweh  send  to  anoint  thee"]  the  pro- 
noun is  put  first  for  emphasis.  The  statement  is  made  in  order 
to  call  attention  to  Samuel's  right  to  command.  —  Now  hear  the 
sound  of  the  words  of  Yahweh"]  the  circumlocution  is  chosen  to 
avoid  anthropomorphism,  and  shows  a  comparatively  late  date.  — 
2.  Thus  saith  Yahweh  Sebaoth]  a  standing  formula  with  the 
prophets.  This  divine  name  has  already  been  met  in  the  account 
of  Samuel's  life,  i^- "  4'*,  cf.  also  1 7^^. — I  have  resolved  to  punish]  this 
seems  to  be  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  understand  the  words ; 
the  translation  /  remember  seems  not  justified  by  usage.  Amalek 
was  a  clan  of  Bedawin  inhabiting  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wander- 
ing. They  inhabited  also  the  Negeb,  Nu.  13^^ —  What  Amalek 
did  to  Israel,  in  that  he  opposed  him  in  the  way  when  he  came 
up  out  of  Egypt]  the  construction  is  difficult,  but  the  historical 
reference  is  evident.  In  Ex.  i)^-^*^  we  find  that  Amalek  made 
war  with  Israel  in  Rephidim.  Again,  they  opposed  Israel's  en- 
trance to  Canaan  from  the  south,  Num.  14*'.  In  Deuteronomy 
also  (25'"^)  we  find  Amalek  stigmatized  as  having  met  Israel  in 
the  way  and  having  cut  off  their  weary  and  faint  stragglers.  The 
phrase  in  the  way  would  indicate  that  the  present  account  depends 
upon  Deuteronomy.  Further  instances  of  hostility  between  Ama- 
lek and  Israel  are  found  in  Jd.  f'  and  in  David's  life,  i  S.  30. 
The  comparatively  late  text  2  S.  8'-  speaks  of  their  spoil  having 
been  consecrated  by  David,  so  that  the  present  account  can  hardly 
have  been  known  to  the  author  of  that  verse.  Had  the  vow 
recorded  in  Ex.  17"  been  in  this  writer's  mind  he  would  have 
made  some  reference  to  it.  —  3.  Go  and  smite  Amalek  and  devote 
him  afid  all  which  belongs  to  him]  such  solemn  devotion  to 
Yahweh  (and  therefore  to  destruction)  is  well  known  from  Dt.  f 
20",  where  it  is  commanded  as  the  duty  of  Israel  in  dealing  with 


132  I  SAMUEL 

the  Canaanites,  and  from  Jos.  6-',  where  it  is  described  as  actually 
carried  out.  By  this  act  of  consecration,  a  city  or  nation  with  all 
its  property  became  Yahweh's.  Indestructible  objects  of  value 
(gold  and  silver)  came  into  the  treasury  of  the  sanctuary,  Jos.  6'^ 
Everything  else  must  be  destroyed,  including  the  human  beings, 
as  is  made  clear  by  this  verse  :  And  do  not  spare  him,  hut  slay 
man  and  woma?i,  child  and  babe,  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass'\  so 
at  Jericho  the  ban  covered  man  and  woman,  youth  and  aged,  ox 
and  ass,  Jos.  6^^ ;  cf.  Dt.  20^^,  where  Israel  is  forbidden  to  leave 
alive  anything  that  breathes.  That  Mesha  devoted  the  Israelites 
to  Chemosh  in  the  same  way  is  expressly  said  by  himself  {Inscrip- 
tion, 1.  17). 

1.  The  verse  fits  well  on  to  the  end  of  ch.  12,  and  Bu.'s  supposition  that  it 
has  been  expanded  is  unnecessary.  The  solemn  reminder  would  be  especially 
appropriate  if  the  commission  were  the  first  with  which  the  new  made  king 
was  charged.  —  v^n]  is  emphatic  by  position.  —  n'^;;*]  is  inexact,  for  in  none 
of  the  documents  was  Samuel  sent  to  anoint  Saul.  But  we  can  probably  not 
insist  on  verbal  accuracy  in  our  author.  —  l'^"'^]  Jd.  g^^  2  S.  2*.  —  i3>"~'?y]  is 
lacking  in  (5^,  whereas  '?Nn;;""'^;"  is  not  represented  in  (S^.  —  nan  SipV]  Dt. 
^12  ^25_  —  2.  \-n,i3]  this  tense  is  quite  justified  in  the  meaning  I  have  deter- 
minedlo  do  thus,  Dr.,  Notes,  referring  to  Jd.  15*^,  and  Tenses^,  §  13.  The  attempt 
to  make  the  verb  here  mean  /  remember  AV.  or  I  have  [mentally]  marked  RV. 
Erdm.,  Keil,  is  based  (as  alleged)  upon  Ex.  3'^  Jer.  23-  Ps.  8^.  But  examina- 
tion shows  that  none  of  the  passages  sustain  the  assumed  meaning.  The 
oldest  tradition  for  this  passage  is  voiced  in  the  rendering  vvv  eudiKriarw,  or 
vvv  4kSikw  (3  and  is  undoubtedly  correct.  With  sound  feeling  Schm.  ren- 
ders :  visitare  constitui.  —  p'^'Cj.']  is  connected  with  Edom  in  the  genealog}'. 
Gen.  3612-^^.  Balaam  predicted  their  destruction,  Num.  24-*.  — 1*7  Dtt'~">"'f<]  is 
supposed  to  mean  how  he  laid  wait  for  him  AV.,  or  ho-v  he  set  himself  against 
him  RV.  But  the  supposed  parallels  i  K.  20I-  Ezek.  23-*  both  have  '•'•;  and 
both  have  an  object  supplied  by  (S.  2  K.  lo^*  seems  similar  to  our  text,  but 
there  iS  is  dative  of  advantage  and  the  verb  has  an  object  expressed;  t^t, 
which  is  urged  as  an  analogon,  also  requires  ^",  Ps.  3^.  It  is  probable  that 
a.rr-r]VTt]aev  ®  points  to  a  different  reading,  though  what  it  is,  is  difficult  to 
make  out.  Dt.  25I*  has  Tna  Tip  nrs,  but  this  is  not  sufficiently  explicit  for 
our  passage.  For  the  verb  here  Kl.  suggests  jar.  If  conjectures  be  in  order, 
I  would  change  to  i*^  "ix  n.'s,  the  crime  being  aggravated  (as  Dt.  more  ex- 
plicitly states)  by  the  fact  that  it  was  committed  when  he  (Israel)  7t<as  in 
trouble.  But  I  have  not  ventured  to  introduce  this  into  my  translation,  as  the 
reasons  for  choosing  it  are  not  decisive. — D^^i■c^  in'^^'a]  Gen.  13I  (J)  Ex. 
175  (E)  Num.  21^  (J)  32^1  (P).  The  imperative  "iS  is  followed  by  the  per- 
fect consecutive  as  is  customary.  —  Bn?3"inni]  the  plural  is  unexpected  and  we 


XV.  4-8  133 

should  probably  restore  insinni  as  read  by  <S,  making  the  next  word  pni  in- 
stead of  nx  (We.).  The  verb  seems  to  occur  nowhere  in  Samuel  except  in 
this  chapter.  It  is  used  by  all  the  Pentateuchal  sources.  —  '^cnn]  Dt.  13^ 
Ex.  28.  —  na'X  ^y  cinc]  cf.  22^^  Jos.  6'^i.  For  v  (Ginsb.)  many  editions 
have  n;'i. 

4-9.  Saul's  disobedience. — This  consists  in  making  important 
exceptions  to  the  completeness  of  the  destruction.  —  He  first 
called  out  the  people  and  mustered  them  in  Telam'\  a  town  in  the 
south  of  Judah,  Jos.  \^-^.  The  number  given,  two  hundred  thou- 
sand footmen,  is  to  be  judged  hke  similar  data  elsewhere.  The 
ten  thousatid,  the  men  of  Judah,  seem  to  be  an  afterthought. — 
5.  And  he  came  to  the  city  of  Amalek~\  the  absence  of  a  name  for 
the  city  shows  the  author's  vagueness  of  geographical  knowledge. 
Cities  there  can  hardly  have  been  in  that  desert  region,  though  a 
fortified  village  might  by  courtesy  be  so  denominated.  The  read- 
ing cities  (§  is  plainly  incorrect.  Only  one  engagement  is  thought 
of.  —  And  lay  iti  wait  in  the  wadi'\  a  favourite  move  in  Hebrew 
strategy,  Jos.  8^  Jd.  20-^.  —  6.  The  Kenites  whom  Saul  warned  were 
old  alUes  of  Israel,  represented  in  one  document  as  the  tribe  of 
Moses'  father  in  law,  Jd.  4".  After  sharing  the  desert  wanderings 
of  Israel  and  entering  Palestine,  they  preferred  the  nomad  life  in 
the  Negeb,  where  they  dwelt  with  Amalek  according  to  the  origi- 
nal text  of  Jd.  i^^  The  author  does  not  seem  to  have  questioned 
whether  the  warning  to  the  Kenites  would  not  frustrate  the  pur- 
pose of  Saul  in  regard  to  Amalek.  The  reason  of  Saul's  consider- 
ate treatment  of  the  Kenite  is  given  in  his  message  to  them  in  the 
circumstantial  clause  :  cutn  tu  tameti  misericordiam  feceris  cu?n 
omnibus  fiUis  Israelis  (Schm.).  The  Kenites  withdrew  as  warned. 
- — 7.  And  Saul  s7note  Amalek  fron — ]  the  name  of  the  place  is 
now  lost ;  Havilah,  which  is  given  by  our  documents,  is  impossi- 
ble. —  As  far  as  Shur  which  is  before  ■Egypt']  "  Shur  is  originally 
the  wall  which  ran  from  Pelusium  through  Migdol  to  Hero" 
(We.).*  —  8.  Attd  he  took  Agag  the  king  of  Amalek  alive]  cf.  Jos. 
8^.  —  But  all  the  people  he  slew  with  the  sword]  lit.  consecrated 
according  to   the   mouth  of  the  sword,  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.   i^. — 

*  The  description  of  this  wall,  or  line  of  fortifications,  is  given  by  Wiedemann, 
Herodot's  Zweifes  Duch  (Leipzig,  1890),  p.  88,  with  references  to  Diodorus  Siculus 
and  the  Egyptian  sources. 


134  ^  SAMUEL 

9.  Saul  and  the  people  spared  Agag  and  the  best  of  the  small  and 
large  cattle,  the  fallings  and  the  lambs'^  a  slight  emendation  of  the 
received  text  is  necessary.  The  wealth  of  Amalek  must  have  been 
mainly  in  cattle.  The  motive  of  Saul  in  sparing  Agag  (pride,  hope 
of  ransom,  an  ill-timed  emotion  of  pity,  respect  of  persons)  was 
much  discussed  by  the  older  commentators  (cf.  Schm.,  Quaestio 
VI.  ad  Cap.  XV.).  An  Agag  is  mentioned  Num.  24^,  where  he  is 
made  the  symbol  of  great  exaltation,  but  it  is  not  yet  clearly  made 
out  whether  there  is  a  reference  to  this  passage.  On  the  vile 
and  refuse  which  were  destroyed,  see  the  critical  note. 

4.  jjoc^i]  the  Piel  is  used  only  here  and  23*,  where  also  Saul  calls  out  the 
people  to  war.  In  both  places  it  is  possible  that  we  should  point  a  Hiphil, 
I  K.  1522  Jer.  50-^  51^^-  —  a^NSaa]  the  name  of  a  place  is  no  doubt  intended 
—  quasi  agnos  IL  is,  of  course,  impossible.  But  iu  VaXyaXois  (3  is  not  appro- 
priate. Most  recent  critics  find  in  the  text  only  an  orthographic  variation 
of  D^O  a  town  mentioned  Jos.  15^*.  For  iwo  hundred  thousand  we  find  four 
hundred  thousand  ©.  The  ten  thousand  of  Judah  are  omitted  by  ^^,  but 
increased  to  thirty  thousand  by  (5^.  —  5.  ii-j]  T:i\iu>v  @. — 2-|ii]  is  intended 
for  a-\NM  (ivriSpevcrev  (3)  as  is  seen  by  Kimchi  and  Schm.  Kautzsch  (Ges.'-^^ 
§  68/)  takes  it  to  be  Hiphil,  but  21N  occurs  nowhere  else  in  this  stem. — 
6.  m  no  13S]  (5  omits  n^,  perhaps  correctly.  On  the  daghesh  in  n^  cf. 
Ges.26  20^.  —  ''pVcj?]  as  we  expect  the  author  to  be  consistent,  it  seems  best 
to  restore  pSnj;  here,  the  form  which  we  find  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  —  ^cdn] 
should  probably  be  pointed  (Lag.,  FroJ>h.  Chald.  p.  li),  cf.  Gen.  i823-2<  i'  S. 
12^^.  This  is  much  more  forcible  than  the  received  pointing.  —  S3]  is  super- 
fluous and  therefore  suspicious  —  lacking  in  (5^^.  — ij^p]  should  certainly  be 
j>p  or  ^y\>T\,  probably  the  latter,  because  that  form  is  elsewhere  used  in  this 
passage;  We.,  Bu.,  Ki.,  choose  pp-  —  7-  ?iSiin]  elsewhere  the  name  of  some 
point  or  district  in  Arabia.  It  occurs  once  in  a  phrase  similar  to  the  one  in 
the  text — from  Havilah  to  Shur,  Gen.  25^*.  It  there  bounds  the  territory 
of  the  Ishmaelites,  of  which  Havilah  should  be  the  eastern  boundary.  It 
would  consequently  be  far  from  the  scene  of  Saul's  exploit.  Still  there  is  a 
possibility  that  our  author,  whose  geography  is  not  very  distinct,  borrowed  the 
whole  phrase  from  Genesis.  We.  conjectures  Telam  to  be  the  original  read- 
ing. But  this  does  not  commend  itself,  because  Saul  had  advanced  beyond 
Telam  when  the  attack  was  made.  Glaser  (as  cited  by  BDB.  sub  voce)  pro- 
poses to  read  nSi^n  which  is  mentioned  i  S.  23^^  26^-  ^.  But  this  hill  in  the 
Desert  of  Judah  was  hardly  a  part  of  the  Amalekite  territory.  Non  liquet. 
— 112'  isn]  cf.  27*  (where  dSbd  seems  to  have  stood  in  connexion  with  it). — 
'JB'Sy]  in  front  of  is  frequently  used  of  the  east  side,  and  would  be  appropri- 
ately so  understood  here.  —  8.  a>'n]  may  mean  the  soldiery  (Ki.),  but  as  there 
is  no  record  of  any  human  being  being  spared  except  Agag,  it  is  better  to 


XV.  9-12  135 

make  it  general.  —  ain-iDS  onnn]  Jos.  6^1  cf.  Dt.  13I6. —  9.  atain]  only  in 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  22*,  and  P,  Gen.  476- 11,  —  D"'ja'cni]  is  supposed 
to  be  the  lambs  of  the  second  birth.  The  word  is,  however,  a  mistake  for 
a^jDiyn  (Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.),  and  the  adoption  of  this  carries  with  it  the 
erasure  of  Vj?  which  follows,  onom  wiv^r\  defines  the  desi  of  the  cattle.  Kl. 
proposes  women  and  children  for  which  there  is  no  support.  Dn^,  as  delica- 
cies, Dt.  32^*.  D'Dio  (S  is  adopted  by  Ew.  jjx  here  and  jjn  in  Nu.  24'^  are 
the  same  name.  From  the  reference  in  Numbers  we  conclude  that  an  Agag 
had  been  an  object  of  terror  or  of  admiration  to  the  Israelites  —  it  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  gABL  has  Gog  there.  —  las]  Ex.  lo^^  (E),  Dt.  2^  iqI" 
I  S.  31*.  —  DSJ1  nr2Dj]  is  impossible.  The  first  word  is  a  monstrum  (Dr.) 
caused  by  the  stupidity  of  a  scribe.  The  second  is  apparently  for  hdndj,  for 
we  require  a  feminine  form.  Part  of  this  original  was  wrongly  spaced  and 
formed  part  of  the  word  which  1^  now  reads  as  nPN,  the  n  being  duplication 
from  the  following  word.  The  true  text  is  therefore  ddndji  ht^j  njxSn  S31 
with  omission  of  nnN.  The  word  njxSa  is  used  for  property  in  general,  Ex. 
22^- 1''  (E),  and  for  cattle  Gen.  33^*.  We  may  compare  nS>'fl  used  for  flocks 
Is.  40^''.  Trumbull  came  to  the  conclusion  (independently  of  We.)  that  Shur 
is  the  frontier  fortification  of  Egypt,  and  the  same  is  the  view  of  Brugsch, 
as  cited  by  Buhl  and  Socin  (Ges.  WB^"^.  sub  voce^. 

10-23.  The  prophet's  rebuke.  —  Samuel,  divinely  informed  of 
Saul's  transgression,  goes  to  seek  him,  and  meets  him  at  Gilgal. 
Saul  at  first  declares  that  he  has  carried  out  the  commandment  of 
Yahweh.  When  convicted  by  circumstantial  evidence,  he  throws 
the  blame  on  the  people.  The  prophet  cuts  his  protestations 
short,  and  when  Saul  attempts  further  argument,  pronounces  the 
final  word  of  rejection.  — 10.  The  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  Samuel~\ 
the  context  impHes  that  it  was  in  a  vision  of  the  night.  — 11.  / 
repejit  that  f  made  Saul  king]  Gen,  6^'^  (J).  The  dogmatic 
attempt  to  explain  the  anthropomorphism  may  be  read  in  Schm., 
Quaestio  VII.  Yahweh  does  not  explain  the  nature  of  his  emo- 
tion, but  goes  on  to  give  its  occasion :  For  he  has  turned  from 
following  me  and  has  not  carried  out  my  command'\  lit.  my  word ; 
the  Hebrew  has  my  words,  but  the  reference  is  to  one  particular 
revelation.  —  And  Samuel  was  angry'\  there  seems  to  be  no 
reason  for  changing  the  text.  The  violent  emotion  of  the  Ori- 
ental at  the  frustration  of  his  hopes  must  not  be  judged  by  our 
standard  of  propriety.  —  And  cried  to  Yahweh  all  tiight'\  in  pro- 
test and  expostulation,  Schm.  compares  Moses'  grief  for  Israel. 
— 12.   The  entreaty  fails  to  change  the  purpose  of  Yahweh,  and 


T36  I  SAMUEL 

Samuel  starts  in  the  early  morning  to  deliver  his  message.     He  is 
told  :  Saul  came  to   Carmel']  the  Carmel  in  Judah,  well  known 
from  the  history  of  David.     It  lay  nearly  south  of  Hebron,  and 
would  be  in  Saul's  path,  —  And  behold  he  has  set  up  a  trophy']  the 
noun  means  a  monument  in  2  S.  i8^^    The  words  and  turned  and 
passed  by  are  difficult  to  understand  in  this  connexion.     Probably 
there  is  some  confusion  in  the  text.  — And  went  down  to  Gilgal'] 
must   conclude   the   information   concerning   Saul's   movements. 
The  object  of  going  to  Gilgal  was  evidently  to  offer  thank  offer- 
ings, as  indeed  (§  asserts.  — 13.   Blessed  be  thou  of  Yahweh']  the 
form  of  the  salutation  shows  that  it  was  originally  a  prayer.    Saul's 
sweeping  claim — I  have  fulfilled  the  word  of  Yahweh  —  is  in  flat 
contradiction  to  Yahweh's  revelation  to  Samuel,  v.".    The  author's 
purpose  is  to  paint  Saul  as  one  hopelessly  hardened  in  sin.     The 
older  commentators  note  his  hypocrisy,  turn  in  excusando,  turn 
in  confitendo  et  poenitendo  (Schm.).  — 14,   Samuel  at  once  con- 
victs him  by  present  phenomena :   Then  what  is  this  bleating  of 
sheep  in  my  ears,  and  this  lowing  of  cattle  which  I  hear  ?     The 
inconsistency  was  palpable.  — 15.   Saul's  confession  of  the  fact  is 
so  frank  as  to  be  impudent,  and  equally  offensive  is  his  intimation 
that  the  religious   purpose   in  view  was   sufficient  justification : 
Froin  Amalek  I  brought  them  :  for  the  people  spared  the  best  of  the 
sheep  and  the  oxen  to  sacrifice  to  Yahweh  thy  God]   the  designa- 
tion may  possibly  intimate  that  Samuel  was  to  profit  by  the  sacri- 
fice.    Still,  as  he  does  not  appear  to  be  a  priest,  much  emphasis 
can  hardly  be  laid  upon  this ;  and  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  the  author  betrays  here  his  theory  that  Yahweh  was  the  God 
of  Samuel,  but  hardly  the  God  of  Saul. —16.    Samuel  cuts  the 
speech  short :  Stop  !  and  let  me  tell  thee  what  Yahweh  said  to  me 
this  night]    in  our  mode  of  speaking  it  would  be  last  night  — ■ 
17,  18.    Receiving  permission  to  proceed,  Samuel  begins  his  re- 
buke :  Art  thou  not,  though  little  in  thine  own  eyes,  chief  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel?     The  question  seems  to  be  a  rebuke  of  Saul's 
self-confessed  subservience  to  the  people.     The  next  clause  be- 
longs with  v.^*,  which  should  read  :    Atid  Yahweh  anointed  thee 
king  over  Israel  and  sent  thee  a  journey.     The  close  collocation 
favours  the  view  already  advanced  that  in  this  document  the  com- 
mand was  given   immediately  after  the   coronation.  —  Go   and 


XV.  12-23  137 

exterminate  the  sinners,  Amalek,  and  fight  against  them  until  they 
are  completely  destroyed^  2  S.  22^**  i  K.  22^^  Amalek  is  called 
sinners  because  of  the  ancestral  offence  against  Israel.  — 19.  The 
situation  has  thus  been  described  :  the  rebuke  follows  in  the  form 
of  a  question  :  And  why  didst  thou  not  obey  the  voice  of  Yahiveh, 
and  didst  swoop  upon  the  booty,  and  didst  that  which  is  evil  in  the 
eyes  of  Yahweh  .?]  Jd.  2"  3".  21.  Saul's  further  protest  only  con- 
victs himself.  He  now  calls  what  was  spared  the  firstfruits  of 
that  which  was  devoted,  which  is  of  course  an  absurdity. — 
22,  23.    The  reply  of  Samuel  is  rhythmical  in  form  : 

Does  Yahweh  delight  in  offerings  and  sacrifices 

As  in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  Yahweh  ? 
Behold,  obedience  is  better  than  sacrifice, 

And  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams. 
For  rebellion  is  the  sin  of  soothsaying. 

Obstinacy  is  the  iniquity  of  Teraphim. 
Because  thou  hast  rejected  the  zuord  of  Yahweh, 

He  has  rejected  thee  from  ruling  over  Israel. 

The  passage  is  a  summary  of  later  Jewish  theology,  cf.  Ps.  50'  51^^ 
The  author's  remoteness  from  the  times  of  Saul  is  evident  from 
the  horror  with  which  he  views  the  Teraphim.  His  verse  seems 
to  have  been  trimeter  in  construction,  though  transmission  has 
obscured  the  original  reading  in  some  cases. 

11.  ■'Po'jDn]  8^2  12I.  — nn«D  y^']  Num.  14^  3215  (p)  jog,  2216- is  (P)._- 
a\i.n  n'^  i-13-i]  Dt.  272s  Jer.  34I8.  —  ^^1l]  is  emended  to  li'ii  by  Bu.,  Ki.,  fol- 
lowing a  suggestion  of  Dr.;  ©  has  icai  Tjdv/xricre  which  Dr.  supposes  to  point 
to  no^i.  But  it  should  be  noted  that  in  two  other  passages,  2  S.  6*  and  its 
parallel*  i  Chr.  it}^,  "inM  is  rendered  in  the  same  way.  In  these  passages 
David  is  said  to  have  been  angry  at  Yahweh's  breaking  out  upon  Uzzah,  in 
which  we  find  a  close  analogy  to  the  present  experience  of  Samuel.  —  P>"pi]  of 
crying  to  God  in  distress,  Ex.  2^3  (?)  Jd.  f  6^  (D)  i  S.  f  la^.  — 12.  nSmon] 
2^2.5.7.40^  mentioned  as  one  of  the  cities  of  Judah,  Jos.  15^5  jjjg  place  would 
lie  near  Saul's  road  from  the  Negeb  to  Gilgal.  The  ruins  still  bear  the  name 
Kurmul  (GASmith,  Hist.  Geog.  p.  306  note).  —  ^''i'o  njni]  is  wrong,  because 
it  implies  that  Saul  is  still  engaged  at  the  work.  Read  3''sn  njni  with  ® 
(which  had  even  JXm),  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.  —  ii]  of  the  pillar  of  Absalom  2  S.  i8'^ 
and  of  a  memorial  of  some  kind  Ex.  17I6  (if  the  text  is  sound),  cf.  Is.  56^. — 
3Dii]  is  in  place  only  if,  with  <&,  we  make  Samuel  the  subject  —  then  he  turned 

*  The  parallel  passage  weighs  as  much  for  the  usage  of  ©  as  if  it  were  inde- 
pendent of  the  other. 


138  I  SAMUEL 

about—  for  Saul  certainly  did  not  need  to  turn.  But  what  the  context  requires 
is  a  continuation  of  the  information  about  Saul,  for  Samuel  wants  to  know 
where  he  now  is.  3DM  has  come  in  by  mistake  and  should  be  omitted.  The 
text  of  ©  has  suffered  here  from  the  confusion  of  the  names  Saul  and  Samuel, 
as  is  evident  from  (§«  which  reads :  and  it  was  told  Saul  that  Samuel  came  to 
Carmel  (corrected  in  ^).  For  -i3;m  3Dn:  koX  aTreVrpet/ze  rh  Sip/^a  [auToC]  ®. 
At  the  end  of  the  verse  (5  reads :  and  he  came  doivn  to  Gilgal  to  Saul,  and 
behold  he  offered  a  burnt  offering  to  the  Lord,  the  firstfruits  of  the  spoil  which 
he  brought  from  Amalek.  But,  as  remarked  by  We.,  this  can  hardly  be  origi- 
nal, as  Samuel  would  take  some  notice  of  the  sacrifice.  — 13.  -iS  r^r^it.  -rna] 
23--21  2  S.  25  Ruth  220. —  14.  nrn]  defines  the  Sip  of  course.  — 15.  ON^an] 
i\vi'YKa  @  is  more  forcible  and  I  have  adopted  it.  —  hb'n]  is  impossible  to 
reproduce  except  by  a  causal  particle,  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  p,  198.  Of  the 
examples  cited  there,  only  Gen.  30I8  i  K.  3I9  2  K.  17*  seem  to  hold,  and  it 
should  be  remembered  that  even  in  such  cases  nirx  does  not  define  the  cause 

as  o  would.  —  ua-inn]    should  be  corrected  to  Timnn  according  to  @. 

16.  fiin]  desine  garrire  multttm,  Schm.  In  Dt.  9"  it  expresses  God's  desire 
not  to  hear  entreaty  or  intercession  from  Moses.  —  y^r.v.'^^  Kt.l  is  doubtless  to 
be  corrected  to  idnm  with  the  Qre.  — 17.  The  translation  of  the  text  as  it 
stands  is  attempted  above.  As  the  sentence  is  somewhat  involved  (for 
Hebrew)  there  is  room  for  suspicion  as  to  the  correctness  of  transmission. 
^^  seems  to  have  expanded,  influenced  by  Saul's  own  confession  of  his 
humble  station  in  921,  reading :  Art  thou  not  [too]  small  in  thine  own  eyes  to 
be  ruler,  coming  froin  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  the  least  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  ? 
Yet  Yahweh  anointed  thee  king  over  all  Israel ;  where  the  contrast  is  between 
Saul's  own  tribe  and  all  Israel.  This,  however,  is  artificial  and  far-fetched  for 
an  occasion  like  this.  (gB  seems  to  find  a  sarcastic  question  in  the  words  ; 
Art  thou  not  small  in  his  eyes,  0  Ruler  of  the  tribes  of  Israel?  Yet  Yahweh 
anointed  thee,  etc.  In  the  uncertainty,  and  as  |§  might  have  given  rise  to  the 
other  readings,  it  seems  safest  to  adhere  to  the  received  text.  — 18.  7\y7\-''\  is 
superfluous  if  the  sentence  really  begins  with  •\n'ffti-<\  —  nnDinm]  confirms  the 
text  adopted  in  v.^.  — o^Nunn]  ©  adds  els  i/xl  —  DPH  DniSj-i)?]  can  hardly  be 
correct.     @  seems  to  have  had  n.ix  iniSa  -\]}  which  would  do.     But  it  seems 

simpler  to  omit  the  last  word  as  an  erroneous  repetition  (We.,  Dr.,  al.). 

19.  D>Tn]  see  on  1482.— -ui  jjin  ri'ni]  a  standing  Deuteronomistic  phrase, 
—  20.  nrx]  as  equivalent  to  •'3  recitativum,  cf.  Dr.,  Notes,  and  Ges.26  157  r; 
but  pN  is  conjectured  by  Bu.  — 21.  nvj-Ni]  elsewhere  of  the  firstfruits  of 
vegetable  products,  Ex.  23I9  3426  Num.  1520  Dt,  i8^  — 22.  fonn]  i  S,  i825; 
the  word  is  found  in  late  writers. — ;'n;:>3]  where  the  comparison  would  be 
fully  expressed  by  jj-ra?.  Such  an  ellipsis  needs  no  justification.  aTpnSi 
=  @.  The  1  is  lacking  in  J^.  Grammatically  speaking  there  is  an  ellipsis  of 
ai3  in  the  last  clause.  — nni  "^ipa]  S:  and  (5^  render  iSipa,  not  being  con- 
strained by  the  metre.  —  23.  The  verse  is  obscure,  and  the  versions  do  not 
give  much  help.  The  writer  intends  to  say,  evidently,  that  Saul's  sin  is  as  bad 
as  the  soothsaying  and  idolatry  for  which  the  heathen  are  condemned.     His 


XV.  24  139 

sin  is  nc  —  rebellion  against  the  command  of  God,  for  which  Ezekiel  rebukes 
Israel,  cf.  Num.  if^  Dt.  31^''.  This  sin  is  compared  with  the  soothsaying 
from  which  (ideally)  Israel  is  free  Num.  232^,  but  which  was  rife  in  the  time 
of  Jeremiah  (14^*),  Ezek.  2i26,  cf.  Dt.  iS^o.  The  second  member  of  the  verse 
must  be  parallel  with  this.  —  a'D-ini  jini]  cannot  therefore  be  right.  T/ie  guilt 
of  idolatry  is  what  we  require,  and  this  would  be  a^oinn  iij?  for  which  we  may 
claim  Symmachus  ^  di/o^ui'o  Tic  dl<iiKu3v.  —  ison]  pausal  form  of  a  Iliphil, 
which,  however,  occurs  nowhere  else.  The  Qal  means  to  urge  one  with  per- 
sistent entreaty,  Gen.  ig^-^  33"  Jd.  \^ .  It  is  difficult  to  get  from  this  any 
meaning  that  will  fit  our  passage.  A  too  insistent  entreaty  of  God  was  not 
Saul's  fault.  <5  seems  to  have  read  ix^on.  The  natural  parallel  to  i->D  would 
be  a  derivative  of  -no  if  we  may  judge  by  Dt.  21I8  Jer.  ^.  Perhaps  we  might 
assume  m-\D,  cf.  niD  Dt.  13''.  Or,  on  the  ground  of  Jos.  22^2,  tid  would  be  in 
place.  In  fact  several  words  suggest  themselves,  but  none  that  would  easily 
be  corrupted  to  isdh,  Sym.  rb  a-KuQilv,  cf.  Field.  Kl.  suggests  yn  yon;  but 
this  destroys  the  rhythm.  —  I'^cc]  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  abrupt,  and  as  (@ 
adds  €7rl  'lapa-^K,  we  should  probably  restore  VN-ir^  *?;'.  Ew.  suggests  lS,  which 
would  agree  better  with  the  metre  {G FI^.  III.  p.  55,  E.Tr.  III.  p.  39). 

24-31.  Saul  confesses  his  sin,  and  asks  forgiveness.  In  his 
earnestness  he  lays  hold  of  the  prophet's  tunic,  which  rends,  so 
that  Samuel  uses  the  incident  to  point  his  sentence  of  rejection. 
Nevertheless,  at  Saul's  further  entreaty,  he  consents  to  join  out- 
wardly in  worship. 

There  is  some  doubt  whether  the  paragraph  is  by  the  author  of 
the  foregoing.  It  expressly  contradicts  the  assertion  of  Yahweh's 
repentance,  compare  v.^  and  v.".  Its  representation  of  Samuel's 
outward  loyalty  to  Saul,  even  after  his  rejection,  seems  inconsistent 
with  the  picture  drawn  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  chapter.  By  its 
omission  we  miss  nothing  of  importance  from  the  narrative,  and 
the  dramatic  effect  is  heightened  because  the  slaying  of  Agag 
follows  directly  on  Samuel's  oracle. 

24-31.  That  the  paragraph  is  an  interpolation  seems  first  to  have  been 
suggested  by  Stade  (GF/^.  I.  p.  221).  The  suggestion  is  adopted  by  Bu.  both 
in  /?S.  and  in  his  edition  of  the  text.  The  arguments  are  that  the  section  is 
wholly  superfluous  and  can  be  left  out  without  disturbing  the  consistency  of 
the  narrative,  and  that  it  contradicts  the  assertion  of  v.ii  that  Yahweh  repented 
of  having  made  Saul  king  —  contrast  the  categorical  statement  that  he  is  not  a 
man  that  he  should  repent  (v.^*). 

24.  Saul's  confession  :  /  have  sinned,  for  I  have  transgressed 
the  command  of  Yahweh  and  thy  word']  is  not  to  be  taken  as 


I40  I  SAMUEL 

hypocritical.  The  author  means  to  teach  that  the  most  sincere 
repentance  is  of  no  avail  when  God  has  made  his  final  decision. 
Christian  commentators  (Schm.,  for  example),  with  New  Testa- 
ment ideas  of  confession  and  forgiveness,  are  obliged  to  suppose 
that  the  repentance  here  was  feigned  or  insincere.  Saul's  excuse 
that  \vt.  feared  the  people  is  the  same  already  intimated,  though  it 
has  not  been  explicitly  stated.  —  25.  Now  forgive  my  sin'\  of. 
Gen.  50^',  where  Joseph's  brothers  ask  his  forgiveness  for  the 
injury  done  to  him,  and  Ex.  10'",  where  Moses  is  asked  by 
Pharaoh  to  forgive  his  sin  against  Yahweh.  The  latter  is  evidently 
the  model  for  the  present  writer.  Samuel  stands  quite  on  the  level 
of  Moses.  It  is,  perhaps,  because  the  text  seems  to  favour  the 
Roman  Catholic  practice  of  confession  that  Schmidt  paraphrases  : 
aufer,  7iempe  apud  Deiim  deprecatido.     In  Saul's  further  petition 

—  and  turn  with  ;;/<?  that  I  may  worship  Yahweh  —  it  is  imphed 
that  Samuel's  presence  is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  service. 

—  26,  27.  The  request  is  refused,  and  the  sentence  of  rejection 
repeated.  As  Samuel  turns  to  go  away,  Saul  seizes  the  skirt  of 
his  robe  to  detain  him,  but  it  rends.  The  meil  was  the  outer 
of  the  two  garments  ordinarily  worn  by  the  well-to-do.  —  28.  The 
apparent  accident  is  made  the  occasion  of  a  renewed  sentence : 
Yahweh  has  rent  thy  kingdom  from  thee  and  given  it  to  thy  neigh- 
bour who  is  better  than  thoii]  cf.  28^'.  The  scene  reminds  us  of 
Ahijah  and  Jeroboam,  i  K.  ii^^"^\ — 29.  Moreover  the  Victor  of 
Israel  will  not  lie  nor  repent,  for  he  is  not  7nan  that  he  should 
repent'\  cf.  Num.  23^^  The  contradiction  to  v."  is  doubtless  re- 
moved by  the  remark  of  Clericus  that  in  one  case  the  language  is 
anthropopathic,  in  the  other  '  theoprepic'  But  the  Hebrew  author 
was  hardly  so  theologically  schooled  ;  and  it  remains  improbable 
that  the  same  writer  should  express  himself  anthropopathically  in 
v.",  and  find  it  necessary  to  correct  the  anthropopathism  a  few 
verses  later.  —  30,31.  Saul  entreats  for  consideration  before  the 
elders  of  the  people  and  before  Israel^  and  the  request  is  granted. 
The  author  is  willing  to  leave  him  the  semblance  of  the  kingly 
office  for  the  time  being. 

24.  nini'iij]  for  the  command  of  Yahweh  Num.  3I*',  al.  The  full  expres- 
sion nin'  iD"nN  lay  Num.  14^1,  22'*  (E).  —  T'lai]  the  singular,  which  is  repre- 
senteri  in  (5,  is  more  appropriate.     Tt  wns  a  single  message  which  Saul  had 


XV.  24-35  HI 

disobeyed.  On  -13-1  for  a  command  of  God  cf.  BDB.  s.v.  II.  2.-25.  mnna-Ni] 
should  probably  be  pointed  with  the  cohortative  ending.  —  26.  1*^0  nvnc] 
would  perhaps  favour  the  pointing  "i'^c-:  in  v.-^.  —  27.  ^VC^Jd]  24*  ■'^. — 
y\pM]  Kol  SUpp-n^ff  a\)r6  (S.  But  the  scene  is  more  impressive  if  human 
agency  is  kept  in  the  background.  —  28.  '?^<^r^  D'o'^cd]  for  which  ■r))v 
0a(Ti\(iav  aov  airb  lerpar]\  (3.  The  last  two  words  are  later  addition  to  the 
text  of  @  (We.),  which  therefore  had  ^pd'^ss  in  their  text,  and  this  is  so  much 
more  forcible,  and  at  the  same  time  so  much  more  likely  to  be  expanded  into 
|§,  that  we  must  think  it  to  be  original;  cf.  also  i  K.  1 1  ".—29.  SNitr>  mj  DJi] 
was  read  by  (&  and  Israel  shall  be  rent  in  ttvo,  apparently  —  Vxitt'^  nsn^  DJi, 
and  this  is  accepted  by  Graetz  {Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.  p.  187).  But  a  prophecy 
of  the  division  of  the  kingdom  is  wholly  out  of  place  here.  We  are  obliged 
therefore  to  retain  the  text  of  |^.  nsj  in  one  passage  apparently  means  victory 
(SS.  referring  to  i  Chr.  29"),  and  in  this  place  Jerome  gives  triumphator. 
This  tradition  is  the  best  within  our  reach.  We.  decides  for  the  Faithful  One  ; 
Dr.  for  the  Glory  ;  Ki.  leaves  a  blank  in  his  translation;  Kl.  emends  freely  and 
gets :    though  we  two  were  to  protest  to  him,  yet  God  is  upright. 

32-34.  The  fate  of  Agag.  —  The  original  continuation  of  the 
narrative,  after  the  prophetic  oracle  v.^'',  is  found  here,  if  what  has 
been  advanced  concerning  vv.-*"^^  is  correct.  —  32.  Samuel  orders 
Agag  to  be  brought.  —  A)it:f  Agag  came  to  him  tremblmg,  and 
Agag  said:  Surely  death  is  bitter]  the  rendering  is  only  provi- 
sional, as  the  meaning  of  one  important  word  is  uncertain,  and  the 
text  has  apparently  suffered,  —  33.  The  justice  of  Agag's  fate  is 
asserted  by  Samuel :  As  thy  sword  has  bereaved  women,  so  shall 
thy  mother  be  bereaved  above  women]  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
explain  the  hyperbole  by  saying  (as  some  have  done)  that  Agag's 
mother  was  bereaved  of  her  son  and  her  monarch  at  one  stroke. 
The  most  bereaved  of  women  may  be  applied  to  any  one  sorely 
bereaved.  And  Samuel  hewed  Agag  in  pieces  before  Yahweh  in 
Gilgal]  in  fulfilment  of  the  ban.  The  act  is  strictly  in  line  with 
the  law.  Lev.  27^*^-.  It  is  the  evident  view  of  the  author  that  Yah- 
weh was  pleased  with  the  completion  of  the  herein  at  his  sanctuary. 
It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  nothing  further  is  said  of  the  fat- 
lings  and  lambs  which  the  people  had  brought.  —  34,  35.  Samuel 
goes  to  his  home  in  Ramah,  and  Saul  to  his  in  Gibeah.  —  And 
Samuel  saw  Saul  no  more  until  the  day  of  his  death]  the  contra- 
diction to  19^  is  obvious  and  shows  the  difference  of  the  sources. 
—  For  Samuel  grieved  over  Saul]  the  reason  for  not  seeing  him 
is  that  the  grief  would  be  thereby  stirred  afresh.     The  last  clause 


142  I  SAMUEL 

of  the  verse,  if  it  belongs  here,  must  mean  :  though  Yahweh 
repented]  and  conveys  a  slight  censure  of  Samuel.  Probably, 
however,  it  is  a  late  insertion  intended  to  round  out  this  story. 

32.  mj?c]  must  be  an  accusative  expressing  the  manner  in  which  Agag 
came.  This  might  be  confident  or  defiant  or  cringing  or  cowardly.  It  is  im- 
possible to  determine  which  is  intended  by  the  Hebrew  word.  The  root 
occurs  in  one  passage  (Neh.  9-")  as  Hithpael,  meaning  they  lived  luxuriously. 
So  we  might  suppose  here  that  Agag  came  daintily,  as  one  who  had  fared 
delicately;  a.&p6s  (Syva.),  pittguissimtis  it,  and  atrh  Tpvcptplas  (Aq.)  point  to  this 
meaning,  the  latter  indicating  njiyn;  so  NpjDD  ST.  Aside  from  the  intrinsic 
improbability  of  a  Bedawy  chief  being  a  luxurious  liver,  we  must  object  to  this 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  minor  importance.  As  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  shows, 
the  mental  state  of  the  captive  is  the  important  matter.  (3  therefore  has  a 
claim  on  our  attention  when  it  gives  rpeVou'  which  might  come  from  |^  by  a 
change  of  pointing,  first  suggested  by  Lagarde  {^Proph.  Chald.  p.  li)  n^jlpn, 
from  1;'^,  to  totter ;  he  came  totter iiigly  would  convey  the  idea  of  great  fear, 
and,  as  I  am  inclined  to  think,  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  this 
writer,  to  whom  Samuel  was  the  imposing  and  even  terrible  embodiment  of 
the  divine  will.  Others  by  metathesis  make  the  word  equivalent  to  mj;7D, 
in  fetters  (late  Hebrew)  — so  Kimchi,  followed  by  Gratz  (^Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I. 
p.  187).  This  is  favoured  by  the  curious  i\'Kvo.Qd>Q  ©^,  which  might  well 
represent  nnjjTD.  If  this  meaning  be  adopted,  it  will  be  better  to  suppose  the 
original  rijyi.  The  meaning  cheerfully  (Ew.)  can  scarcely  be  got  from  the 
word,  nor  can  the  reason  he  gives  —  "the  ancients  held  it  to  be  a  bad  omen 
when  the  sacrificial  victim  held  back  from  the  altar  "  —  be  verified  in  Hebrew 
antiquity.  The  whole  clause  is  lacking  in  S.  Schm.  combines  two  of  the 
meanings  already  considered :  virum  delicatum  et,  quod  concurrere  solei,  titni- 
dum  mortis.  Kl.  substitutes  nnx  for  jjn  and  makes  the  clause  mean  held 
in  chains.  —  men— id  id  p«]  the  versions,  except  IL,  seem  to  have  omitted 
ID,  whose  resemblance  to  no  is  such  that  duplication  is  easy.  For  pN  ® 
seems  to  have  had  pn.  For  the  rest  of  the  clause  irtKphs  6  ddvaToi  (S  and 
similarly  S  and  ST.  We.  objects  that  this  makes  of  that  which  is  peculiar  in 
the  narrative  something  quite  trivial.  But  if  it  was  the  author's  design  to 
impress  the  lesson  of  the  herein  and  its  awful  character,  he  would  quite  as 
appropriately  make  Agag  lament  his  fate,  as  to  make  him  self-confident  or 
defiant.  The  savage  courage  of  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  in  meeting  death,  and 
the  arrogant  temper  of  Adonibezek  (Jd.  S^^  i")  would  not  adorn  the  tale, 
where  such  a  lesson  is  to  be  drawn. —  33.  icx]  (g'^  adds  v'lov  'Aarip,  which  is 
confirmed  by  \  filius  doloris  (Cod.  Leg.).  As  an  -\sn  is  found  in  the  time  of 
Esau  (Gen.  36-'-  30),  and  as  Amalek  is  brought  into  the  same  genealogy  (Gen. 
•j6i2.  16^^  it  (Joes  not  seem  impossible  for  Agag  to  be  addressed  as  '  Son  of 
Aser,'  and  the  reading  may  be  original.  —  iD-i'M]  occurs  in  this  place  only. 
The  meaning  is  agreed  upon  by  the  versions  and  the  commentaries.  Possibly 
we  should  read  pDi'M,  cf  Jd.  14^,  which,  however,  signifies  to  tear  in  pieces  with 


XV.  35-XVI.  143 

the  hands.  The  change  is  advocated  hy  Graetz  {Gesc/i.  d.  Juden,  i,  188), 
and  suggested,  with  a  query,  by  Dr.  —  34.  That  Samuel's  home  is  at  Ramah 
is  in  accord  with  l^.  —  35.  That  Samuel  mourned  for  Saul  is  taken  up  in  the 
next  chapter,  and  the  statement  here  prepares  the  way  for  that.  But  the  final 
clause  'U1  onj  nin^i  does  not  fit  well  in  this  connexion.  It  is  evidently  a 
circumstantial  clause,  and  in  16I  is  entirely  in  place.  Here  it  must  mean 
though  Yahweh  had  rejected  him,  which  may  be  justified  by  analogy,  but  would 
imply  blame  of  Samuel.  The  connexion  is  better  if  it  be  stricken  out.  Budde 
begins  the  next  section  with  it,  but  this  does  not  seem  natural. 

I  SAMUEL  XVL-2  SAMUEL  L     SAUL  AND   DAVID. 

In  the  present  arrangement  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  this  is  the 
second  great  division  of  the  history.  The  introduction  of  David 
marks  an  epoch.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  however,  that  the 
same  sources  continue,  for  the  death  of  Saul  must  have  been  re- 
lated by  both  the  authors  who  have  given  so  much  attention  to 
his  Hfe.  That  various  documents  are  combined  in  the  history  as 
it  stands  must  be  evident  from  the  numerous  discrepancies  and 
duplicate  accounts.  Not  improbably  more  than  the  two  which 
have  furnished  the  preceding  history  may  be  discovered  here. 

XVI.  1-13.  The  anointings  of  David.  —  Samuel  is  sent  to 
Bethlehem,  where,  among  the  sons  of  Jesse,  he  is  divinely  directed 
to  the  choice  of  the  right  one,  and  anoints  him  as  king.  The  ten- 
dency of  the  critics  has  been  to  make  the  section  a  late  insertion. 
But  several  things  indicate  that  it  is  the  direct  continuation  of  the 
preceding  narrative.  There  seems  to  be  nothing  in  the  style  or 
language  which  requires  us  to  separate  them.  The  rejection  of 
Saul  should  logically  be  followed  by  the  designation  of  his  suc- 
cessor. In  this  author's  view,  the  people  should  have  a  theocratic 
ruler.  Saul  was  no  longer  such ;  Samuel  had  retired.  It  seems 
impossible  that  the  people  should  be  left  shepherdless.  To  this 
must  be  added  the  prominence  which  David  had  (in  the  later 
view)  as  a  ruler  especially  chosen  of  Yahweh.  It  can  hardly  be 
supposed  that  this  choice  would  not  be  made  known  in  his  youth. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  chapter  15,  there  is  everything  to  make 
this  section  the  natural  continuation  of  that.  Nor  can  I  see  that 
the  position  of  Samuel  is  any  different.  His  fear  is  introduced 
only  to  account  for  the  secrecy  of  his  movements. 


144  '   SAMUEL 

1.  The  word  of  Yahweh  comes  to  Samuel :  How  long  aost  thou 
grieve  over  Saul,  when  I  have  rejected  him  from  ruling  over  Israel? 
The  circumstantial  clause  is  quite  in  place  here.  —  Fill  thy  horn 
with  oil'\  as  though  the  particular  horn  used  in  anointing  Saul 
were  to  be  used  again.  Possibly  the  author  is  influenced  by  the 
later  conception  of  an  anointing  horn  as  part  of  the  sacred  fur- 
niture, as  Solomon  is  anointed  with  the  horn  of  oil  taken  from 
Yahweh's  tent,  i  K.  i*^  —  And  come,  I  will  send  thee  to  Jesse  the 
Bethlehemite']  the  r\2imt  Jesse  (Yishshai)  belongs  to  this  man  alone 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Its  etymology  is  obscure.  Bethlehem,  a 
well-known  Judahite  town  five  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  still  flour- 
ishes under  its  old  name.  —  /  have  looked  me  out  a  kifig'\  Gen.  22* 
41*^  2  K.  10^.  —  2.  Samuel's  objection  is  put  in  the  form  of  a 
question  :  How  shall  I  go,  since  Saul  will  hear  of  it  and  kill  nie  ? 
The  older  commentators  are  somewhat  exercised  by  Samuel's 
timidity  in  the  face  of  a  direct  divine  command,  and  extenuate  it 
on  the  ground  of  natural  human  infirmity  (Schm.).  The  narrator 
was  more  concerned  to  account  for  the  privacy  of  the  transaction. 
Hence  the  subterfuge  :  Take  in  thy  hand  a  calf  and  say :  To  sac- 
rifice to  Yahweh  am  I  come']  the  casuistry  of  the  commentators 
attempts  to  justify  Samuel's  reticence,  on  the  ground  that  he  told 
one  of  the  reasons  for  which  he  came.  —  3.  And  invite  Jesse  to 
the  sacrifice  —  /  will  tell  thee  what  thou  shall  do  —  and  anoint 
whom  I  shall  point  out  to  thee. — 4.  The  command  is  carried  out, 
and  at  Samuel's  approach,  the  elders  of  the  city  came  trembling  to 
meet  him]  Samuel  had  the  word  of  Yahweh,  and  therefore  dis- 
posed of  life  and  death  :  videtur  fuisse  consternatio  orta  ex  impro- 
vise adventu  tanti  viri  (Schm.).  Hence  their  question  :  Does  th\ 
coming  betoken  good,  O  Seer?  i  K.  2*1  As  Samuel's  coming  could 
hardly  bring  war,  but  might  bring  calamity,  the  translation  peace 
is  not  appropriate.  —  5.  Giving  a  reassuring  answer  and  stating 
the  ostensible  object  of  his  coming,  he  adds  :  Purify  yourselves 
and  rejoice  with  me  at  the  sacrifice]  which  was  of  course  a  feast, 
9*^.  The  purification  required  was  removal  of  ceremonial  defile- 
ment. Samuel  himself  prepared  (consecrated)  Jesse  and  his  sons, 
and  invited  them  to  the  sacrifice]  the  ritual  observances  necessary 
in  such  case  were,  of  course,  best  known  to  a  priest-prophet. 
What  follows  seems  to  take  place  at  the  lustration,  and  we  hear 


XVI.  I-I3  145 

no  more  of  the  sacrifice.  — 6.  When  they  came  in  order  before 
him  (as  appears  from  the  later  verses),  he  was  pleased  with  the 
eldest,  Eliab,  and  said  to  himself:  Surely  in  the  presence  of  Yahweh 
is  his  anointed'^  12^.  A  dialogue  went  on  in  the  consciousness 
of  the  prophet.  His  own  choice  was  moved  by  personal  attrac- 
tions, but  Yahweh  looked  deeper.  —  7.  Look  not  at  his  person  or 
the  height  of  his  stature]  though  this  had  been  emphasized  (in 
the  other  document)  in  the  case  of  Saul.  —  For  I  have  rejected 
him]  so  far  as  the  particular  question  now  before  us  is  concerned. 

—  For  not  as  man  sees  doth  God  see]  the  text  is  emended  after 
(§.  —  For  man  looks  at  the  appearance,  but  Yahweh  looks  at  the 
heart]  the  contrast  is  between  bodily  and  mental  endowments.  — 
8,  9.  A  similar  sentence  is  passed  on  Abinadab  and  Shammah.  — 
10.  So  fesse  made  his  seven  sons  pass  before  Samuel]  namely,  the 
seven  who  were  in  the  house,  only  to  discover  that  Yahweh  had 
not  chosen  these.  — 11.  To  Samuel's  inquiry  whether  all  had  come, 
Jesse  confesses  :  There  is  still  the  youngest,  and  he  is  a  shepherd 
with  the  flock]  if\  Samuel  asks  that  he  be  sent  for:  for  we 
will  not  begin  the  sacrifice  until  he  come  hither]  the  text  is  not 
altogether  certain.  — 12.  Jesse,  in  accordance  with  the  command, 
sent  and  brought  him  :  And  he  was  ruddy,  a  youth  of  fine  eyes 
and  goodly  appearance]  nearly  the  same  description  is  repeated 
17*^.  Samuel  receives  the  command  to  anoint  him.  — 13.  So  he 
was  anointed,  and  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  came  upon  David  from 
that  day  onwards]  as  had  been  the  case  with  Saul,  10"'".  David 
has  not  been  mentioned  by  name  until  this  point.  This  is  prob- 
ably intentional,  to  heighten  the  effect.  The  narrative  ends  with- 
out further  account  of  the  proposed  sacrifice,  only  adding  after 
the  anointing  :  Samuel  arose  a?id  went  to  Raniah. 

1.  in'^'i'N  lSi]  generally  we  find  "^  followed  either  by  another  imperative, 
or  by  a  finite  verb  with  1.  But  cf.  inpN  nj  7\i^  Num.  232';  is;j'N  nsS  Num. 
24".     •'r'',  'leoo-ai  is  found  also  in  the  form  t^n  (perhaps  man  of  Yahweh).* 

—  •'PiNn]  in  this  sense  in  E  (passages  are  cited  above).  —  2.  •;^DZ'^]  the  perfect 
with  7uaw  consecutive  continues  the  imperfect  in  any  of  its  senses,  so  after 
particles  which  give  a  contingent  sense,  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  115,  Davidson,  Syntax, 
§53  h,  and  the  examples  there  cited,  especially  2  S.  12^^.     The  pisqa  in  the 


*  But  'B*  seems  to  be  one  element  of  the  name  "Hf^ax,  26*,  etc.    Hommel  com- 
pares I-shai  with  I-chabod,  I-thamar  and  I-ezer  {Altisrael  lleberlieferung,  p.  ii6). 


146  I  SAMUEL 

middle  of  the  verse  indicates  (as  usual)  a  different  mode  of  verse  division. 

—  npa  nSj;"]  Dt.  ai''  Is.  'j'^^.  The  expression  indicates  that  nSiy  might  be 
used  of  the  young  of  other  animals  (?  the  camel).  —  "!T2]  cf.  14**. — 
3.  nJTi]  is  a  mistake  for  nat^  which  is  used  with  Nipii  v.*  (erroneous  antici- 
pation of  the  natJ  in  the  latter  verse).  —  -\-hn  ncN'Tifx]  perhaps  whom  I  shall 
command  thee,  cf.  nin>  1'^  n:;N  >3  2  S.  16". — 4.  iPNip*?  .  .  .  i-nn>i]  the  ron- 
struciio  pregnans  as  often,  Jd.  14°  15"  i  S.  21-.  —  ncNM]  might  be  justified  as 
the  indefinite  one  said;  but  as  the  elders  are  a  distinct  and  limited  body,  it  is 
probable  that  we  should  read  the  plural,  with  the  versions  and  30  MSS.  (DeR.). 

—  D'^i;']  read  o'r'^i'n.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  ®  adds  0  ^xiitoiv,  that  is  nsi-i, 
which  can  be  construed  here  only  as  a  vocative.  The  insertion  by  a  scribe  is 
hardly  probable,  while  the  omission  by  one  who  thought  the  title  not  digni- 
fied enough  for  Samuel  is  supposable.  —  5.  v.:npnn]  the  regular  term  for  pre- 
paring oneself  for  approaching  God,  Jos.  3^.  —  nara  tn  cdnji]  koX  evcppavd-riTf 
/ler'  iju.ov  ffri/xepov  @^^ :  et  state  meciim  et  jocundimini  \  (Cod.  Leg.).  As  f& 
is  entirely  commonplace  and  @-^^  is  more  vigorous,  I  have  followed  Th.,  al., 
in  adopting  the  latter.  —  -j'-ipM]  is  used  of  Moses  when  he  consecrated  the 
priests,  Ex.  28*1  (P),  but  also  when  he  prepared  the  people  for  the  special 
presence  of  God,  Ex.  19I*  (E);  cf.  also  i  S.  "f-.  —  6.  The  names  of  the  three 
sons  here  mentioned  are  repeated  ly^^.  —  iCN^i]  the  verb  is  frequently  used 
in  the  sense  of  saying  to  oneself,  thinking. — in]  is  strongly  asseverative. — 
7.  ihvSt;]  all  that  appears  to  the  eye.  —  c-txn  nxn^  tj-n]  the  ellipsis  is  too 
harsh  and  we  must  suppose  a  fault  in  the  text.  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.  emend,  after  @, 
to  omSn  nx'T'  DiNn  hn-i''  nrso.  Th.  had  proposed  the  same  except  that  he 
retained  irx.  He  is  now  followed  by  Ki.,  with  the  translation  :  God  does  not 
regard  what  man  regards.  This  is  defensible,  but  if  part  of  ©  is  taken,  the 
presumption  is  in  favour  of  the  whole.  —  2'j''"'^]  is  difficult,  because  it  does  not 
occur  elsewhere  in  this  sense — though  nearly  so  in  Lev.  13^  Num.  11'  (?) 
cf.  Lev.  1355  cited  by  Dr.  It  must  be  contrasted  with  aa':''?;  as  the  latter 
must  mean  (Yahweh  looks)  at  the  inner  man  (cf.  BDB.  s.v.')  we  need  an 
expression  meaning  at  the  outer  man  ;  els  irpSauirov  (3  may  be  only  an  attempt 
to  render  |^,  but  invites  us  to  substitute  D'js^  for  which,  however,  there  is  no 
analogy.  —  8.  a-'jos]  the  same  name  occurs  7^.  —  9.  n-rr]  is  apparently  the 
same  with  ny^i:',  2  S.  13^.  — 10.  vj3  n>'3w']  means  his  seven  sons,  not  seven 
of  his  sons,  which  would  be  differently  expressed.  It  is  therefore  inaccurate. 
nna  followed  by  1  seems  to  be  Deuteronomic,  Dt.  7*  14^  18"  i  S.  10-*. — 
11.  isrn]  supply  ^13V^  as  in  Jos.  3^'^  4"  (JE).  —  ixr]  seems  to  be  lacking 
in  (S  and  the  sense  is  good  without  it  (Bu.).  —  njni]  is  probably  an  abbrevi- 
ated spelling  of  inj-ii,  though,  as  the  subject  immediately  precedes,  it  is  not 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  suffix  be  expressed.  —  |nx3  nyi]  not  pasturing 
the  flock  but  acting  as  shepherd  with  the  flock. —  3Dj]  KaraKXidcofxei'  (5'^; 
auaKMdunev  (&^;  discumbemus  IL.  As  avaKXiais  seems  to  represent  3D":  in 
Cant,  i^''^  it  is  not  certain  that  ^  had  a  different  reading:  KaraKXivofxai  more- 
over does  not  anywhere  render  3"".  As  33D  is  used  of  going  about  the  altar 
as  a  part  of  the  sacrificial  worship,  Samuel  may  mean  we  will  not  begin  the 


XVI.  14-23  14*; 

sacrifice  until  he  come.  %  seems  to  interpret  312'n.  — 12.  z^y;  ra^-Oi']  is  im- 
possible in  spite  of  n.x-m  nij^-ai*,  17^2,  j^  both  passages  we  must  restore  D*?;" 
20^^  as  was  seen  by  Graetz  and,  independently  of  him,  by  Krenkel,  ZA  TW. 
II.  p.  309.  Kl.  proposes  -\';'V  •'jiaiN,  red-haired.  —  ■'Ni]  for  hnic,  here  only. 
— 13.  n^xrii]  perhaps  chosen  with  conscious  reference  to  io'°.  The  accession 
of  the  spirit  in  the  case  of  Saul  was,  however,  spasmodic.  The  idea  of  the 
author  seems  to  be  that  with  David  it  was  constant.  —  nn]  so  written  in 
Samuel  and  Kings;  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  Tin.  The  meaning 
of  the  name  is  unknown.    Cf.  BDB.  s.v.  —  n'^j.'Di]  of  time  as  30^5, 

14-23.  The  first  account  of  David's  coming  to  court.  —  Saul  is 
tormented  by  a  divine  visitation,  apparently  mental  perturbation. 
Music  being  a  known  remedy,  his  courtiers  recommend  him  to 
seek  a  skilful  harper.  On  his  approval  of  the  plan,  David  is 
mentioned  by  one  of  the  courtiers,  and  Saul  sends  for  him.  Com- 
ing to  court,  David  speedily  establishes  himself  in  the  favour  of 
the  king. 

The  affliction  of  Saul  is  ascribed  to  an  evil  spirit  from  Yahweh 
in  v.",  the  remainder  of  the  account  has  the  Spirit  of  God,  twice 
with  the  adjective  evil  (w.^^-  ^^),  once  in  the  current  text  without 
qualification.  The  difference  in  the  use  of  the  divine  name  prob- 
ably shows  that  v."  has  been  modified  by  the  redaction.  The  rest 
of  the  paragraph  is  homogeneous  except  a  slight  insertion  in  v.". 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  the  exact  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
the  mind  of  this  author.  There  seems  to  be  no  trace  of  a  belief 
in  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  throughout 
the  earlier  period  of  Hebrew  Hterature.  And  if  the  belief  existed, 
the  spirits  could  hardly  be  called  evil  spirits  of  God.  In  an  instruc- 
tive passage  of  the  later  history,  i  K.  22^^^,  we  find  the  Spirit 
offering  to  be  a  spirit  of  deceit  in  the  mouth  of  the  prophets. 
From  this  we  conclude  that  the  Spirit  thought  of  as  the  agency 
of  evil  was  the  same  Spirit  which  stirred  up  men  to  good,  and 
it  is  not  improbable  that  the  adjective  evil  is  a  later  insertion 
in  the  account  before  us.  The  author's  conception  is  certainly 
very  different  from  that  of  v.^^  in  which  the  Spirit  seems  to  be 
viewed  as  the  constant  endowment  of  a  consecrated  person. 

14-23.  In  14^2  the  author  remarks  that  whenever  Saul  saw  a  valiant  man 
he  attached  him  to  himself.  This  cannot  be  the  conclusion  of  the  history  of 
Saul,  and  there  is  every  probability  that  it  was  intended  to  introduce  the  history 
of  David.     The  original  connexion  with  the  passage  before  us,  however,  has 


148  I   SAMUEL 

been  obscured.  In  the  body  of  the  paragraph,  Saul's  affliction  is  ascribed  to 
a\n''S  nn.  The  original  narrative  must  have  used  the  same  term  at  the  first 
mention  of  the  trouble.  But  we  now  tind  in  v.",  nin>  nsa  njjTnn,  and  as  the 
opening  part  of  that  verse  expressly  declares  that  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  had 
departed  from  Saul  (with  evident  reference  to  his  coming  upon  David,  v.'^) 
we  conclude  that  v.i*  has  been  composed  for  its  present  place.  The  critics 
are  not  agreed;  Ku.  {IlCCfi.  p.  384  cf.  p.  388)  supposes  something  cut  out  for 
the  insertion  of  151-16^*.  Bu.  {RS.  p.  214)  and  Co.  {Einl^.  p.  102)  find  16" 
the  direct  continuation  of  14^2^  Ki.  supposes  that  this  is  the  beginning  of  a 
new  document  —  a  life  of  David. 

14.  As  now  read,  the  verse  says  that  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  de- 
parted from  Saul  and  an  evil  spirit  from  Yahweh  troubled  him']  the 
verb  means  fell  suddenly  upon  or  startled.  The  affliction  mani- 
fested itself  in  sudden  or  unreasoning  fits  of  terror.  Both  mental 
and  physical  disease  (but  especially  mental)  were  ascribed  to  the 
agency  of  evil  spirits  until  very  recent  times,  even  in  the  most 
enlightened  communities,  cf.  Schm.  I.  p.  549,  Nevius,  Demon 
Possession  (1896).  The  wording  of  this  verse  may  show  that 
the  author  had  such  an  idea,  though,  of  course,  he  did  not  think 
of  an  organized  kingdom  of  Satan,  such  as  meets  us  in  later  times. 
He  is  careful,  in  fact,  to  show  that  this  agent  (or  agency)  was 
entirely  subject  to  Yahweh  by  defining  it  as  he  does.  The  Arab 
idea  that  an  insane  person  is  possessed  by  a  jinn  is  nowhere  dis- 
tinctly expressed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Besides  the  lying  spirit 
in  the  mouth  of  Ahab's  prophets,  we  may  cite  here  the  evil  spirit 
sent  by  God  between  Abimelech  and  his  subjects  in  Shechem,  Jd. 
9-^  Possibly  the  spirit  of  jealousy  mentioned  in  Num.  5^^  may 
be  brought  into  the  same  category.  The  term  used  in  the  rest  of 
this  account  shows  a  different  conception.  — 15,  16.  Saul's  ser- 
vants propose  a  remedy  for  his  affliction  :  An  evil  spirit  of  God  is 
troubling  thee ;  let  thy  seniatits  speak,  and  they  will  seek  a  niati 
skilful  in  playing  the  lyre]  the  instrument  is  one  of  those  most 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  Music  is  associated 
with  benign  possession  (by  the  spirit  of  God)  in  the  case  of  the 
Prophets,  10'''  2  K.  3'^  Here  it  is  expected  to  procure  rehef  from 
obsession.     A  similar  belief  was  held  by  the  Greeks  and  Latins.* 


*  Ut  ostendit  Pythagoras  apud  Senecam,  Schm.  p.  551  citing  Serarius,  "  qui 
addit  plures  autores  atque  exemplaria." 


XVI.  14-23  149 

— 17.  Saul  assents,  saying:  Look  out  for  me  a  man  who  plays 
7oell  and  bring  him  to  me\  the  king  puts  the  quaUfication  in  some- 
what higher  terms  than  the  courtiers.  — 18.  One  of  the  attendants 
mentions  David  as  the  very  man  for  the  place  —  a  musician,  a 
7nan  of  valour,  a  soldier,  judicious  in  speech,  and  a  man  of  pres- 
ence, and  Yahweh  is  with  him'\  the  panegyric  is  the  recommenda- 
tion of  a  friend  at  court,  and  must  not  be  taken  too  literally.  But 
it  certainly  implies  that  David  had  already  had  some  experience 
in  war,  and  had  attained  to  man's  estate.  No  supposition  will 
enable  us  to  harmonize  this  statement  with  the  earlier  part  of  this 
chapter,  and  with  some  parts  of  17.  — 19.  The  result  is  that  Saul 
sends  messengers  to  Jesse,  saying  :  Se7id  me  David  thy  son'\  that 
he  is  described  as  being  with  the  flock  is  probably  an  afterthought 
of  a  scribe,  though  it  was  not  by  any  means  derogatory  to  a  grown 
man  to  take  charge  of  the  flocks,  as  is  seen  in  the  cases  of  Moses 
and  Jacob.  —  20.  Obedient  to  the  message,  Jesse  took  ten  loaves 
of  dread  and  a  skin  of  wine  and  a  kid'\  the  modest  present  of  a 
farmer  to  his  king,  and  sent  them  by  the  hand  of  David  his  son  to 
Saul']  it  was  not  good  form  to  approach  the  king  without  a  pres- 
ent.—  21,  22.  David  was  taken  into  Saul's  service  and  Saul 
loved  him  and  he  became  one  of  his  armour-bearers]  the  king 
surrounded  himself  with  a  body-guard  of  these  squires.  With  the 
consent  of  his  father,  David  was  thus  a  permanent  member  of  the 
court.  —  23.  And  when  the  spirit  of  God  came  upon  Saul,  David 
would  take  the  lyre  and  play,  and  Saul  would  breathe  freely,  and 
ivould  be  well,  and  the  evil  spirit  would  depart  from  him. 

14.  inn>'3i]  the  perfect  with  waw  consecutive  has  frequentative  force,  — 
niTi  PND  nj;-i"nn]  the  spirit  is  nowhere  else  described  with  so  much  circum- 
spection. In  Samuel  we  find  both  nini  nn  (10^)  and  □••hSn  nn.  The  MSS. 
vary  in  1 1".  In  one  instance  |§  has  r\';-\  nin-'  nn  where  (5  found  d^hSn.  The 
tendency  of  the  scribes  to  substitute  d^hSn  for  the  more  sacred  name  makes 
it  probable  that  in  this  case  (5  is  secondary.  Both  r\y-\  chSn  nn  and  nni  nn 
n;-i  seem  to  me  to  be  ungrammatical,  and  I  suspect  that  the  original  was 
simply  D-inSs  nn  throughout  this  paragraph.  — 16.  yish  y\2y  unx  widn'' 
irp^']  is  hardly  possible  (as  is  shown  by  We.,  Dr.,  and  acknowledged  by  Bu.) 
though  retained  by  Kl.,  and  Ki.,  with  a  slight  change.  (^^  has  tlirdrwaav  Stj 
oi  SovKoi  ffov  fviiniv  aov  kqX  QnTri<rdro>aav  which  should  probably  be  restored. 
S>  omits  after  nj  v.^^  to  ijjnx  xrinN^  v.i".  Probably  the  translators  did  not 
have  10J1X,  as  the  omission  then  becomes  a  clear  case  of  homeoteleuton. — 


T50  1  SAMUEL 

tua  j?i»]  is  in  V.18  tJj  yi'.  As  there  is  no  reason  why  the  expression  should 
vary  in  so  short  a  space  we  should  probably  read  ]n  >"i>  in  both  cases,  and 
this  is  favoured  by  ®.  On  the  iijd  cf.  Benzinger,  //edr.  Archdol.  p.  274.  — 
a'n'?N]  is  lacking  in  ©^S.  —  i^'a  pj]  18^'' I9^  the  variant  of  ©  (/i^^/^a// //ay  om 
his  lyre)  is  the  substitution  of  a  more  obvious  word.  — 17.  pj"^  a^a  sj  Is.  23^® 
Ez.  3332  Ps.  333.  —  ■>>  NJ-1N1]  cf.  •'S  \-i\si  v.i.  — 18.  -I3T  jnji]  discriminating 
in  speech.  —  isn  ^"Ni]  generally  we  find  ixn  no',  Gen.  39**.  But  in  English 
we  also  speak  of  a  man  of  presence  instead  of  a  man  of  good  presence. — 
12>"  nin>i]  the  meaning  is  that  he  is  prospered  in  what  he  undertakes,  10" 
Jd.  1^2;  cf.  Gen.  39-.  — 19.  }SX3  -\vvC\  is  regarded  as  a  harmonistic  insertion 
by  Bu.  and  Co.  {Einl^.  p.  102).  The  objection  to  it  is  that  Saul  has  nowhere 
been  told  that  David  is  with  the  flock.  —  20.  cn'^  ncr]  is  contrary  to  analogy. 
Bread  is  always  counted  in  loaves,  and  we  should  doubtless  (with  We.,  Dr.) 
correct  to  Dn>  rnr;%  which  is  found  in  the  parallel,  1 7I".  mc;?  was  first  cor- 
rupted to  •\':';  which  is  represented  in  (^^^,  and  then  as  that  was  seen  to  be 
absurdly  small  iirn  was  substituted.  ©^  h^s  expanded  the  text  as  has  I  — 
asinum,  et  imposuit  super  gomor  panis  (Cod.  Leg.)  — and  this  has  been  taken 
by  Bu.  into  his  text  in  the  form  an*?  xra  r*?);  C';"'i  -n^r.  But  this  is  one  of  the 
frequent  cases  in  which  the  longer  text  is  suspicious.  —  21.  ViD*^  ■'?:j;m]  ex- 
presses the  fact  that  David  became  one  of  the  king's  personal  attendants, 
I  K.  12®.  —  23.  a^n'^N  nn]  is  corrected  in  all  the  versions  to  n>"\  nn  or  nn 
nj?i  aM'?N.  I  suppose  |^  to  be  original,  as  the  more  difficult  reading,  and  more 
likely  to  be  emended  by  a  scribe.  —  '^isrS  nni]  Job  3221,  where  Elihu  declares 
that  he  must  relieve  himself  by  speech.  The  word  would  therefore  favour  @'s 
understanding  of  Saul's  malady  as  accompanied  by  fits  of  suffocation.  But  cf. 
nnn,  Ex.  8^^.  —  nyin  nn]  can  doubtless  be  justified  by  parallel  instances,  cf. 
Dr.,  jVotes,  p.  45  (on  6^^).  But  I  suspect  the  whole  last  clause  to  be  a  late 
addition,  the  sense  being  complete  without  it. 

XVII.  1-XVIII.  5.  The  single  combat  of  David  with  Goliath. 
—  The  familiar  story  need  not  here  be  rehearsed.  We  may  pass 
at  once  to  the  critical  problems  which  it  presents.  The  first  fact 
which  claims  attention  is  that  a  large  family  of  Greek  MSS.,  rep- 
resented by  (3^,  omit  considerable  sections  of  the  narrative,  to 
wit,  i'7i--3i«  17^-18^.  The  critics  are  still  divided  on  the  question 
which  recension  is  original.  Wellhausen  in  his  study  of  the  text 
decided  for  i3,  because  harmonistic  omissions  imply  a  critical  in- 
sight which  we  cannot  suppose  in  the  translators.  This  argument, 
though  aftervvards  given  up  by  We.  himself,  is  still  good.  The 
universal  rule  in  such  cases  is  that  the  presumption  is  against 
the  longer  text.  The  argument  is  strengthened  in  this  case  by 
the  phenomena  observed  in  chapter  iS,  where  also  some  sections 


XVII.  i-xviii.  5  151 

are  omitted  by  (§^.  In  that  chapter  it  is  generally  agreed  that 
the  omission  leaves  a  continuous,  and  therefore  original,  text. 
The  probability  that  the  same  causes  have  been  at  work  in  the 
two  contiguous  chapters  is  very  strong.  In  the  present  chapter, 
the  shorter  text  is  perfectly  consistent  with  itself,  and  the  omis- 
sions do  not  leave  any  appreciable  hiatus.  Whether  the  omitted 
sections  also  form  a  continuous  narrative,  as  is  claimed  by  Cornill, 
may,  however,  be  doubted.  Yet  they  have  the  appearance  of  parts 
of  an  independent  document  which  has  lost  something  in  being 
fitted  into  another  text. 

We  have  had  two  accounts  of  David  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
Our  first  thought  is  that  the  two  documents  are  continued  in  the 
present  story,  and  that  the  lines  of  cleavage  are  indicated  by  the 
differences  in  the  text.  In  fact,  the  omitted  sections  show  affin- 
ity with  i6'-^^  In  both,  David  is  the  shepherd  lad,  the  youngest 
of  his  father's  sons.  The  natural  sequence  of  the  anointing  by 
Samuel,  is  an  exploit  which  will  bring  David  to  the  notice  of  the 
people.  More  difficulty  is  encountered  in  making  171-11-33^0.42-54 
continue  i6^*'^l  In  the  account  of  David's  coming  to  court,  he 
is  described  as  already  an  experienced  warrior,  while  in  our 
chapter  he  is  called  by  Saul  a  youth.  This  objection  is  not 
perhaps  decisive  ;  Saul  might  well  call  a  younger  man  by  this 
term,  even  though  he  had  already  reached  years  of  discretion. 
Nor  can  we  say  that  David's  inexperience  in  the  use  of  armour 
of  proof  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  what  is  said  in  i6^^  Even 
an  experienced  warrior  might  not  be  familiar  with  that  sort  of 
armament.  And  again,  the  use  of  the  sling  is  not  a  sign  of  youth 
or  inexperience.  The  weapon  used  by  the  Benjamites  who  could 
sling  at  a  hair  without  missing,  Jd.  20^",  and  who  are  evidently 
regarded  as  a  formidable  corps,  was  not  a  plaything. 

But  when  all  is  said,  the  incongruity  of  this  account  with  what 
precedes  is  marked.  Saul  appears  as  a  timid  and  irresolute  man. 
The  whole  impression  made  by  David  is  different  from  the  de- 
scription of  him  we  have  just  had.  The  style  of  the  narrator  is 
more  difTuse  and  less  vivid  than  the  parts  of  the  Saul  document 
which  we  have  studied.  For  these  reasons  it  seems  impossible  to 
make  the  identification  proposed.  Yet  we  need  an  account  of  an 
exploit  on  the  part  of  David  to  account  for  Saul's  outbreak  of 


152  1  SAMUEL 

jealousy.  The  author  who  makes  him  Saul's  favourite  armour- 
bearer  in  1 6,  and  then  makes  Saul  plot  against  him  in  i8,  must 
give  a  motive  for  the  change  of  mind.  He  must,  at  least,  make 
David  very  successful  in  battle  and  so  arouse  the  king's  jealousy. 
The  fact  that  Goliath  was  slain  by  Elhanan  2  S.  21^*  would  weigh 
somewhat  against  the  present  form  of  this  narrative.  The  natural 
conclusion  is  that  in  place  of  this  chapter  there  was  originally  (as 
a  continuation  of  16-^)  a  brief  account  of  David's  prowess  against 
the  Philistines.  This  was  later  replaced  by  the  present  circum- 
stantial story,  which,  however,  was  first  circulated  without  the  addi- 
tions which  we  find  in  i^  as  compared  with  (3. 

On  the  critical  questions  the  reader  may  consult,  besides  the  usual  authori- 
ties, W.  R.  Smith,  OT/C^.  pp.  120-124,  431-433;  Cornill  in  the  Kdnigsberger 
Studieu,  I.  pp.  25-34;  and  Bonk,  De  Davide  hraelitarum  Rtge  (Disserta- 
tion, 1891),  pp.  17-27.  All  these  authors  agree  that  the  recension  of  @  has 
not  arisen  by  omissions  from  that  of  J§,  but  that  a  different  document  has 
been  inserted  in  |§.  WRS.  argues  for  the  original  coherence  of  the  narrative 
of  (S  with  1 61*-^,  which  I  have  not  brought  myself  to  assert.  Yet  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  our  supposing  that  there  once  stood  here  a  brief  account 
of  David's  exploit  which  did  continue  i6'^23^ 

1-11.  Fresh  attack  by  the  Philistines.  —  The  enemy  invade 
Judah.  The  situation  is  described,  the  point  of  importance  being 
the  presence  of  a  champion  who  challenges  Israel.  —  1.  The 
Philistines  gathered  their  forces  for  war']  a  similar  opening  is 
found  28^  —  And  gathered  at  Shocoh]  identified  as  "a  strong 
position  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  ridge  "  west  of  Bethlehem, 
still  bearing  the  name  Shuweikeh.  An  invasion  of  Judah  in  order 
to  attack  Saul  is  hardly  probable,  and  an  early  author  would  make 
the  Judahites  call  upon  Saul  for  help.  The  invading  army  camped 
betzveen  Shocoh  and  Azekah]  mentioned  in  Jos.  15^  in  connexion 
with  Shocoh.  From  its  name  it  seems  to  have  been  a  stronghold, 
cf.  Jer.  34".  —  In  Ephes-Dammim']  as  the  situation  is  sufficiently 
described  by  the  names  of  Shocoh  and  Azekah,  this  redundant 
statement  is  suspicious.  On  the  conjecture  which  emends  it  to 
on  the  brink  of  the  waters  see  the  critical  note.  —  2.  Saul  with  his 
army  camped  in  the  Valley  of  E la h]  or  of  the  Oak,  cf.  2ii*'.  The 
present  name  JVady  es-Sant  resembles  the  ancient  one  in  that 
Sant  is  also  a  tree.  — And  arraved  the  battle  to  meet  the  Philis- 


XVII.  1-8  153 

tines']  4"  2  S.  lo^- '".  —  3.  And  the  Philistines  xvere  standing  on  the 
hill  on  this  side,  and  Israel  was  standing  on  the  hill  on  that  side^ 
and  the  valley  ivas  between  them']  this  is  evidently  meant  to  de- 
scribe the  situation  at  the  time  of  the  duel,  and  favours  the 
shorter  text,  in  which  David's  attack  follows  at  once  upon  the 
challenge ;  whereas  in  the  section  inserted  by  ^  the  challenge 
was  repeated  morning  and  evening  for  forty  days.  —  4.  And  there 
came  out  from  the  ranks  of  the  Philistines  a  champiori]  this  is  the 
only  word  we  can  use  —  the  Hebrew  term  is  obscure.  —  Whose 
name  was  Goliath  of  Gath]  according  to  2  S.  21^^  he  belonged  to  a 
family  of  giants.  His  height  —  six  cubits  a?id  a  span  —  would  be 
at  the  smallest  computation  about  ten  English  feet. — 5-7.  He 
was  formidable  not  only  by  his  size,  but  also  by  reason  of  his 
armour.  The  defensive  armour  is  all  of  bronze  —  helmet  and 
breastplate  of  scales]  like  the  scales  of  a  fish,  plates  overlapping 
each  other  and  allowing  free  movement ;  whose  weight  was  five 
thousand  shekels  of  bronze]  say  a  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  avoir- 
dupois.—  And  bronze  greaves  upon  his  feet]  there  seems  to  be  no 
doubt  of  the  meaning,  though  the  word  for  greaves  occurs  no- 
where else.  —  And  a  bronze  javelin  betiveen  his  shoulders]  the 
text  is  somewhat  doubtful.  A  javelin  was  carried  between  the 
shoulders,  at  least  sometimes,  as  Bochart  shows  from  Homer 
(citation  in  Keil  and  Dr.).  But  the  bronze  seems  to  indicate  a 
defensive  weapon,  and  some  Rabbinical  authorities  conjectured 
a  back  plate.  —  7.  And  the  shaft  of  his  spear  was  like  a  weaver's 
beam]  in  size,  2  S.  21*^  i  Chr.  11^;  and  the  head  of  the  spear  was 
six  hundred  shekels  of  iron.  The  principal  object  of  the  descrip- 
tion is  to  show  how  impregnable  the  man  seemed  to  be.  Added 
to  the  enormous  weight  of  his  panoply,  was  his  helper  and  squire 
—  and  one  carrying  the  shield  went  before  him.  —  8.  The  cham- 
pion, having  stepped  forward  from  the  ranks,  stood  and  cried  out 
to  the  ranks  of  Israel]  it  was,  and  is,  the  Arab  custom  for  the 
warrior  to  vaunt  his  own  prowess  and  to  satirize  his  enemies,  as  a 
challenge  to  single  combat.  In  this  case  the  challenge  is  based 
upon  the  uselessness  of  a  general  engagement  when  the  single 
combat  would  settle  the  whole  matter ;  Why  do  you  come  out  to 
form  the  line  of  battle?  Am  not  I  a  Philistine,  and  you  servants 
of  Saul?     He  offers  himself  as  a  sample  of  his  nation.     Choose  a 


154  I  SAMUEL 

man  and  let  him  come  down  to  me !  The  Israelites  standing  on 
the  slope  were  above  him. — 9.  The  whole  issue  will  be  staked 
on  the  duel  —  If  he  be  able  to  fight  with  me  and  smite  me,  then  we 
will  become  your  servants^  and  conversely.  — 10.  In  conclusion 
the  champion  renews  the  challenge  :  /  have  taunted  the  ranks  of 
Israel  to-day — give  me  a  man  that  we  may  fight  together']  the 
challenge  becomes  a  taunt,  when  no  one  is  brave  enough  to 
accept  it.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  some  abusive  language 
has  been  left  out.  — 11.  The  only  result  in  the  ranks  of  Israel  is 
fear,  amounting  almost  to  a  panic.  That  the  situation  could  not 
last  forty  days  is  evident.  In  the  original  narrative  David,  already 
a  member  of  Saul's  body-guard,  steps  forward  at  once  and  accepts 
the  challenge  — v.'^^  is  the  immediate  continuation  of  this  verse. 

1.  The  verse  continues  the  preceding  narrative  as  well  as  it  joins  to  any  of 
the  preceding  sections.  —  on^jns  'd  ibdxm]  cf.  Dni:nD  nN  'd  iX3pM,  28I.  The 
second  idds^i  is  suspicious  and  may  indicate  that  the  text  has  been  made  up 
from  two  documents.  —  n^ir]  Suix'i^  @.  As  Eusebius  speaks  of  two  villages, 
upper  and  lower,  it  is  possible  that  the  plural  is  original  (We.  who  refers 
to  Euseb.  Onom.  under  So/cxti).  Two  separate  places  with  this  name  are 
mentioned  in  Joshua  i^^-  ^.  One  of  them  was  near  Kebron,  the  other  in  the 
Shephela.  Probably  the  latter  is  intended  here.  Ruins  still  bear  the  name 
Shuweikeh  (Baed.,  Palestine?  p.  161,  GAS.,  Geog.  pp.  202,  227),  — a^m  DBN3] 
on  the  reading  of  certain  MSS.  of  @,  Lagarde  ( Uebersicht,  p.  76)  restores 
D'cn  1002,  cf.  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  193  note.  The  overfulness  of  the  text  favours 
this,  or  something  like  it,  and  Buhl  (  Geog.  p.  90)  is  inclined  to  adopt  it,  though 
it  seems  doubtful  whether  there  was  water  enough  in  the  wady  to  justify  the 
language.  Pas-Dammim  occurs  i  Chr.  1 1^*  as  the  scene  of  a  battle  fought  by 
David  and  his  men.  Possibly  the  text  here  is  conflate. — 2.  On  the  Wadi  es- 
Sant,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  18.  — .-i':'s]  terebinth  or  oak,  cf.  Moore,  Judges,  p.  121/. 
with  the  references  there  given.  —  3.  T^H-^^h  Ti>',  to  draw  up  the  line  of  battle, 
usually  without  nDn'7C,  The  language  of  the  account  reminds  us  of  the 
description  of  Michmash  (nrn  as  14-^).— 4.  nunnn]  the  army  has  already 
been  described  as  standing  in  order  of  battle,  and  it  is  plain  that  we  should 
read  noiyca  with  <5  (Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Kl.,  Bu.,  Ki.).  \Vhere  (5'^  got  its  dupli- 
cate translation  t'/c  TrafT^s  rov  \aov  t5)s  Trapard^eus  is  not  clear.  —  a'j3n-!i'''N] 
has  not  been  satisfactorily  explained.  @  has  di/rj/j  SwarSs,  5L  vir  spurius. 
The  Hebrew  is  generally  interpreted  as  the  man  of  the  interspace  between  two 
armies.  But  the  space  between  two  armies  is  not  two  spaces  —  except  in  the 
probably  rare  case  where  a  watercourse  divides  it.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
reason  for  the  dual.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Josephus  can  be  cited  for  this 
interpretation,  though  he  describes  Goliath  as  standing  between  the  two 
armies.     Kimchi  in  this  interpretation    (cited   by   Dr.  and   also   by  Schm.) 


XVII.  8-1 1  155 

voices  Jewish  conjecture.  Earlier  Jewish  tradition  is  represented  by  it  and  a 
fragmentary  Targum  (cited  by  Dr.  from  Lag.)  according  to  which  the  words 
mean  one  born  of  mixed  race  —  the  Targum  adds  that  he  was  the  son  of  Sam- 
son and  of  Orpah  the  Moabitess.  Kl.  conjectures  ■'ir'cn,  heavy  arfned.  —  rriSj] 
names  of  men  have  the  feminine  form  not  infrequently  in  Arabic.  For  six 
cubits  @  has  four,  which  hardly  makes  the  giant  large  enough  to  carry  his 
armour.  —  5.  p^'hj]  some  alloy  of  copper.  As  remarked  by  We.,  |§  is  con- 
sistent in  making  the  defensive  armour  of  this  material,  and  the  offensive 
of  iron.  —  6.  nvi'pi'p]  also  of  the  scales  of  the  'great  dragon'  Ezek.  29*. — 
pcnj]  bronze  and  iron  O.  —  nnsci]  should  be  pointed  as  a  plural,  /cfTjyuISes 
@  — Th.,  We.,  al.  —  ti'''':i]  dffTris  (§  everywhere  except  in  this  chapter  translates 
either  p:;  or  njv.  Kl.  conjectures  tv;,  which,  however,  is  always  a  bowl  or  pan. 
Possibly  this  clause  has  been  interpolated  from  v.*^.  —  7.  \'m'\  Kt.  is  doubtless 
to  be  corrected  to  VJi  Q*'e.  —  nuc]  occurs  only  in  the  phrase  of  the  text.  Cf. 
Moore,  Proc.  Am.  Or.  Soc.  1889,  p.  179,  and  fudges,  p.  353.  —  njx]  seems  to 
have  been  the  large  shield,  in  distinction  from  the  smaller  pc.  — 8.  \-itt''7D.-i]  for 
which  @  has  a.\\6(pvKos  without  the  article.  The  latter  seems  more  vivid,  as 
though  the  champion  in  assumed  modesty  said :  I  am  one  of  many,  make  trial 
of  me  and  judge  of  the  rest  by  the  result.  —  n3]  is  unintelligible.  Restore 
\-\T\2  with  the  versions,  cf.  i  K.  iS^^  (Dr.  and  Weir).  — 9.  The  regular  hypo- 
thetical sentence  beginning  with  an  imperfect  and  carried  on  by  a  perfect  with 
waw  consecutive,  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  130  a.  — 10.  ingin]  can  mean  only 
I  have  insulted  ox  taunted,  and  must  describe  what  the  giant  has  already  done. 
As  the  preceding  verses  contain  only  the  challenge  to  fight,  we  must  suppose 
that  the  unaccepted  challenge  was  itself  an  insult,  as  indeed  it  was.  But  there 
may  have  been  some  abusive  language  in  the  original  document  which  a 
scribe  left  out  as  blasphemous.  —  11.  i.-ihm]  a  strong  word.  They  ruere  broken 
in  spirit,  were  disfnayed,  cf.  Dt.  i^i  31^  Jos.  i^. 

12-31.  David's  coining  to  camp.  —  The  narrative  goes  back 
to  the  family  of  Jesse  at  Bethlehem.  The  three  sons  who  are 
named  in  16^^  are  here  said  to  have  gone  to  the  army.  David, 
the  youngest,  is  called  from  the  flock  by  his  father  to  carry  sup- 
plies to  his  brothers.  He  comes  to  the  camp  just  as  the  Philis- 
tine utters  his  customary  challenge.  Inquiring  more  particularly 
about  the  promised  reward,  he  is  taken  to  Saul,  who  consents  to 
his  fighting. 

The  paragraph  is  lacking  in  &^  and  is  marked  with  an  asterisk 
in  some  MSS.  It  is  inserted  in  ^  and  in  ^,  but  the  differences  are 
such  as  to  warrant  us  in  saying  that  the  two  translations  are  made 
by  different  hands.  In  the  case  of  ^  also,  the  translator  does  not 
appear  to  be  the  one  from  whom  we  have  the  rest  of  the  Book. 


156 


I  SAMUEL 


12-16.  The  household  of  Jesse  is  described  so  far  as  is  neces- 
sary to  the  present  purpose.  Jesse  himself  is  too  old  to  go  to  the 
war,  and  David  is  regarded  as  too  young.  Three  of  the  sons  are 
in  the  ranks.     What  has  become  of  the  other  four  is  not  told.  — 

12.  And  David  7oas  son  of  an  Ephrathite  of  Bethlehem  Judah 
whose  natne  was  Jesse,  and  who  had  eight  sons.  The  man  was  in 
the  days  of  Saul  an  old  man,  advanced  in  years']  such  is  apparently 
the  intention  of  the  ungrammatical  or  corrupt  Hebrew.  The  ad- 
jective Ephrathite  as  applied  to  inhabitants  of  Bethlehem  is  found 
only  here  and  in  Ruth  i".  — 13,  14.  The  three  sons,  whose  names 
are  given,  had  gone  after  Saul]  the  tautology  of  the  verses  is  in- 
tolerable.—  David  was  the  you7igest~\  as  already  told.  — 15.  The 
verse  is  a  plain  attempt  to  harmonize  this  account  with  16^*"^.  As 
it  stands  it  can  mean  only  that  David's  custom  was  to  go  to  and 
fro  between  his  home  and  the  court.  The  improbability  is  obvi- 
ous, and  the  contradiction  with  16-  is  not  yet  removed. — 
16.  Another  harmonistic  verse,  intended  to  give  David  time  to 
reach  the  camp.  As  Bethlehem  is  only  a  few  miles  from  Shocoh 
the  author  has  been  too  generous  :  The  Philistine  drew  near  morn- 
ing and  evening  and  took  his  stand,  forty  days. 

The  present  form  of  this  paragraph  seems  to  be  due  to  the 
redactor.  It  cannot  have  continued  16^''^  directly,  but  seems  to 
be  dependent  on  that.  There  would  be  no  difificulty  in  making 
the  author  of  16'"'^  speak  briefly  of  the  Philistine  invasion  and 
add  :  the  three  oldest  sons  of  Jesse  went  after  Saul  to  the  war,  con- 
tinuing by  V.''. 

12.  nrn]  if  it  be  grammatical,  the  word  must  qualify  David :  and  this 
David,  son  of  an  Ephrathite.  But  even  then  the  sentence  does  not  give  a 
clear  construction.  The  word  is  omitted  by  S,  and  was  differently  read  by 
gAL  —  probably  these  point  to  an  original  Nin  which  would  be  in  place. — ■ 
D'rjNa  no]  is  unmeaning.  The  synonym  of  )pt  is  D>oo  N3  which  should 
probably  be  restored  here.  (S^S  seem  to  point  to  a^'juo  N3  against  which 
nothing  can  be  said,  except  that  it  occurs  nowhere  else.  Dr.,  following  Hitzig, 
strikes  out  K3  as  erroneous  duplication  of  the  two  letters  which  follow.  Kl. 
conjectures   n-rnScn  'c-jNa  Nh":  of  which  there  seems  to  be  a  hint  in  ST.  — 

13.  13'^n  .  .  .  ^i^>^^^]  is  redundant  and  impossible.     One  of  the  two  verbs  must 
be  stricken  out,  and  the  last  one  is  actually  omitted  by  @^S. 

17-19.  The  mission  of  David.  —  He  is  commanded  by  his 
father  :   Take  to  thy  brothers  this  epha  of  parched  corn]  parched 


xvii.  12-23  157 

corn  is  ears  of  wheat  or  barley  plucked  just  before  they  are  ripe, 
and  roasted  or  singed  in  the  fire.  It  is  still  eaten  in  Palestine, 
and  is  especially  fitted  for  provision  for  travellers  or  soldiers,  cf. 
2  S.  1 7-^.  The  epha  is  something  over  a  bushel.  The  army  had 
of  course  no  regular  commissariat.  To  this  provision  were  added 
ten  of  the  round  flat  loaves  of  the  fellahin.  —  And  bring  them  in 
haste\  2  Chr.  35'".  — 18.  David  was  also  to  take  ten  cheeses  to 
the  captain  of  the  thousand,  to  ask  his  brothers  of  their  welfare, 
and  to  take  their  pledge.  What  this  means  is  uncertain,  and  no 
emendation  yet  suggested  improves  upon  the  text.  Possibly  some 
token  had  been  agreed  upon  which  they  should  send  home  in 
place  of  a  letter.  — 19.  Jesse  concludes  his  command  by  indi- 
cating the  locality  in  which  they  were  to  be  found. 

17.  nin  cn^]  read  nrn  sn^n,  the  n  has  been  lost  after  mry  (Dr.,  Bu.). — 
18.  3'^n-i  ^-s-in]  although  not  found  elsewhere,  plainly  means  cheeses.  Nothing 
else  made  of  milk  would  be  appropriate.  Ancient  tradition,  as  represented  in 
the  versions,  agrees  with  this. — nn^i;;]  oVa  a.v  xp'iC'"'''"'  {^yvdiar))  (5"^  may 
point  to  onjTi  =  their  need,  as  was  pointed  out  by  Cappellus,  Critica  Sacra, 
p.  286,  whereas  et  cum  quibiis  ordinati  sunt  IL  would  favour  an^njj.  But  npn 
would  agree  with  neither  of  these.  — 19.  That  the  verse  is  part  of  Jesse's 
speech  is  seen  by  Schm.  and  most  of  the  recent  commentators.     Kl.  dissents, 

20-25.  David's  visit  to  the  camp.  —  Rising  early  in  the  morn- 
ing, he  left  the  flock  in  the  hand  of  the  keeper']  cf.  v.".  After  his 
journey  of  about  twelve  miles,  he  came  to  the  entretichmentjust  as 
the  army  was  going  forth  to  line  of  battle  and  shouting  the  war- 
cry]  lit.  shouting  in  the  battle.  But  the  battle  was  not  joined. 
The  picture  of  the  two  armies  going  through  this  parade  forty 
days  in  succession,  only  to  hear  the  swelling  words  of  Goliath,  is 
ludicrous.  —  22.  On  discovering  the  situation,  David  put  off  the 
vessels']  bags  or  baskets,  we  may  suppose,  into  the  hand  of  the 
keeper  of  the  baggage,  and  ran  to  the  ranks]  the  eagerness  of  a 
lad  to  see  the  battle  needs  no  comment.  The  boys  among 
Mohammed's  followers  at  Medina  wept  when  they  were  pro- 
nounced too  young  to  go  to  war.  As  he  had  been  commanded, 
he  cafne  and  asked  his  brothers  of  their  welfare]  cf.  v.'^.  —  23.  The 
champion  appears  *  and  speaks  according  to  these  words]  the  words 

*  Notice  that  the  champion's  name  is  given  in  full,  as  if  ha  had  not  been  named 
before. 


S58  i  SAMUEL 

given  above.  —  24.  And  David  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  heard, 
and  when  they  saw  the  man,  they  feared  greatly  and  fled  before 
him.  The  received  text  puts  the  effect  before  the  cause.  The 
language  implies  that  the  ranks  were  thrown  into  confusion.  — 
25.  The  universal  talk  was  to  this  effect :  Have  you  seen  this 
man  ?  To  insult  Israel  he  has  come  up.  The  king  will  greatly 
enrich  the  man  who  shall  senile  him.  He  will  give  him  his  daughter 
also,  and  will  make  his  father's  house  free  in  Israel^  exempt  from 
exactions  of  service  or  of  property. 

20.  -<:;-']  is  used  of  a  keeper  of  sheep  nowhere  else.  —  ns'm]  without  the 
object  is  not  common,  and  one  is  tempted  to  correct  to  yo'i.  —  n'7j;'cn]  the 
same  word  (without  the  accusative  ending)  26^''.  <&^  has  aTpoyyvXwjis 
here,  which  means  something  round  or  rounded — an  entrenchment  around 
the  camp?  The  Hebrew  word  is  usually  supposed  to  mean  a  wagon-barri- 
cade. But  we  never  hear  of  wagons  in  Saul's  army,  and  the  hill  country  in 
which  he  marched  was  exceedingly  unfavourable  to  them.  —  NS^n]  by  omitting 
the  article  we  get  a  good  circumstantial  clause,  as  was  already  seen  by  Tanchum. 
—  nrrn'^rrD]  may  have  been  originally  n::n^cS  (Th.).  —  21.  liym]  the  femi- 
nine with  a  collective  subject,  cf.  asin  ^nni,  2  S.  S^. — 22.  C'Bm]  here  in  the 
sense  g{ putting  off  from  one.  —  3''^:)]  a  word  of  wide  signification  —  the  things 
which  he  had  with  him.  —  -icvj-]  the  guard  left  with  the  camp  equipage.  — 
n:im]  is  lacking  in  ©L^j^.  — 23.  i^in  Nim]  cf.  Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  166.  nnycD 
Kt.  is  evidently  a  scribe's  error  for  niD-\j?nD  Qre.  —  n'^xn  anaio]  the  reference 
is  to  the  words  given  in  v.*.  The  present  account,  if  once  an  independent 
document,  had  a  similar  speech  of  Goliath  either  here  or  as  a  part  of  its  intro- 
ductory paragraph.  —  in  j?Da'''i]  should,  perhaps,  be  joined  with  v.^*,  in  which 
case  a  i  should  be  prefixed  to  amsn^,  so  (5^  understands.  — 24.  ins  .  .  .  ion] 
the  two  clauses  are  in  the  wrong  order  (logically),  and  I  have  therefore  re- 
versed them,  with  @^.  But  the  whole  verse  accords  ill  with  v.25,  and  may  be 
a  late  insertion.  —  25.  '?NTi"'  i:"n]  is  to  be  taken  collectively.  It  was  not  one 
man  who  was  sent  out  with  the  offer  of  reward,  but  the  reward  was  a  matter 
of  common  fame.  —  an^s-m]  Ges.26  225.— n'^j-n]  is  lacking  in  S  and  super- 
fluous. —  n*?;']  is  better  pointed  in  the  perfect  tense. 

26-31.  David's  desire  to  meet  the  Philistine.  —  He  inquires 
more  particularly  of  the  reward  to  be  given,  and  thus  brings  upon 
himself  a  rebuke  from  his  brother.  —  26.  Two  questions  are 
reported,  —  the  first  concerns  the  reward  :  What  shall  be  done  to 
the  man  7vho  shall  smite  yonder  Philistine  and  take  away  reproach 
from  Israel?  The  insult  of  the  champion  lies  as  a  burden  upon 
the  people  until  it  is  removed  by  the  acceptance  of  the  challenge. 


xvn.  24-31  1^9 

David's  estimate  of  the  champion  is  manifested  in  a  second  ques- 
tion :  For  who  is  this  U7icircumcised  Philistine  that  he  has  dared 
to  insult  the  soldiers  of  a  living  God?  The  Philistines  alone 
among  the  neighbours  of  Israel  are  stigmatized  as  uncircumcised, 
Jd.  14^  15'^  I  S.  14'^.  The  language  of  the  question  is  taken  from 
v.^^.  The  people  reply  accordi7ig  to  the  word  just  reported. — 
28.  His  brother  Eliab  heard  the  question,  and  was  angry  and 
questioned  him  :  Why  is  it  that  thou  hast  come  down  ?  With 
whom  hast  thou  left  that  morsel  of  a  flock  ?  The  questions  imply 
blame,  which  is  now  directly  expressed  :  I  knoiu  thy  self-will  and 
the  evil  of  thy  heart,  for  to  see  the  battle  hast  thou  come'\  the  wil- 
fulness of  a  headstrong  boy.  —  29.  The  first  half  of  David's  reply 
is  plain  enough.  The  second  half  is  more  difficult :  Was  it  not  but 
a  word  ?'\  which  is  generally  accepted,  is  not  satisfactory.  David 
did  cherish  the  intention,  for  which  he  was  rebuked  by  his  brother ; 
and  it  would  be  an  evasion  for  him  to  plead  that  as  yet  he  had 
done  nothing  but  ask  a  question.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  impor- 
tance ?  seems  to  be  what  we  need,  and  probably  the  Hebrew  will 
bear  that  interpretation.  —  30,  31.  The  earnestness  of  David  is 
shown  by  his  refusing  to  debate  the  matter  with  his  brother,  and 
turning  to  another  quarter,  where  his  inquiries  are  answered  as 
before.  His  words  —  evidently  those  expressing  contempt  for  the 
Philistine  champion  —  were  heard  and  reported  to  Saul,  who  took 
him  to  himself.  Perhaps  we  should  read  and  they  took  him  and 
brought  hifn  before  Saul. 

26.  t'7n]  may  have  a  somewhat  contemptuous  force.  —  inn]  with  the  force  of 
a  subjunctive  perfect;  I  have  given  a  free  translation. — a^in  otiSn]  Dt.  5^^  — 
27.  nrn -^J^D]  is  used  to  avoid  repetition. — 28.  r\ir\r\  jNxn  t3;?D]  the  sense  is  evi- 
dent, though  we  cannot  say  in  ^r\^\^  the  fragment  of  those  sheep.  —  \r\\~\  is 
the  unrestrained  impetuousness  of  a  headstrong  boy.  —  29.  xin  nji  nS.t]  waj 
it  not  but  a  word  (from  ^T  through  Kimchi  to  most  modern  interpreters) 
would  require  the  limitation  in  Hebrew  as  well  as  in  English.  Was  it  not  a 
command oi  my  father?  which  is  Luther's  idea,  should  also  be  more  distinctly 
expressed.  Is  it  not  an  affair?  would  certainly  be  an  allowable  translation 
for  the  passage.  Nonne  res  vera  istud  (Schm.)  is  substantially  the  same,  and 
hat  es  denn  keinen  grund?  (Kl.)  shows  a  similar  apprehension.  Kl.  refers  to 
Am.  6^3_  —  31^  innpii]  we  should  expect  another  expression,  either  he  called 
him,  or  they  brought  him  before  Saul.  ©^  jjas :  they  took  him  and  brought  him 
before  Saul. 


l6o  I  SAMUEL 

32-39.  David  volunteers  to  meet  the  Philistine. — The  sec- 
tion joins  immediately  to  v.'\  as  any  one  may  convince  himself 
by  reading  them  together  :  Saul  and  all  Israel  heard  these  words 
of  the  Philistine  and  were  terrified  and  feared  exceedingly.  But 
David  said  to  Saul :  Let  not  my  Lord 's  courage  sink  within  him  / 
I  will  go  and  fight  this  Philistine.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a 
better  connexion.  And  although  the  general  tenor  of  the  narra- 
tive is  against  its  direct  coherence  with  i6^*"^,  this  particular  open- 
ing is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  picture  of  David  there  presented. 
—  32.  A  slight  correction  of  the  text  is  needed,  and  the  transla- 
tion already  given  is  on  this  basis.  —  33.  Saul  objects  that  David 
is  a  youth  and  he  a  man  of  war  from  his  youth.  The  language  is 
not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  i6'*,  for  to  a  seasoned  warrior 
Hke  Saul,  David's  comparative  youth  is  in  evidence.  Still,  it 
hardly  seems  likely  that  the  author  of  16^^^  would  have  put  the 
objection  in  just  this  form.  —  34.  David  gives  a  chapter  from  his 
experience :  Thy  servant  was  keeping  sheep  for  his  father^  this 
again  is  not  inconsistent  with  16'*  because  the  verb  allows  us  to 
date  the  experience  some  distance  in  the  past.  —  And  the  lion 
and  also  the  bear  would  come,  and  take  a  sheep  from  the  fiock'\ 
the  occurrence  was  repeated  more  than  once.  The  two  animals 
mentioned  are  well-known  enemies  of  the  flock.  —  35.  In  such  a 
case,  I  would  go  out  after  hifn  and  smite  him  and  deliver  it  from 
his  mouth.  The  tenses  indicate  that  this  also  was  a  repeated 
experience.  And  if  he  rose  up  against  me,  then  I  would  seize  hifn 
by  the  chin  and  sniite  him  and  slay  him.  —  36.  The  application  to 
the  case  in  hand  :  Both  lion  and  bear  did  thy  servant  slay,  and  this 
uncircumcised  Philistine  shall  be  like  one  of  them.  The  next  clause 
is  like  the  conclusion  of  v.-^.  —  37.  The  concluding  sentence  of 
David's  speech  is  a  profession  of  faith  :  Yahweh  who  delivered  me 
from  the  paw  of  the  lion  and  from  the  paw  of  the  bear  will  deliver 
me  from  the  hand  of  this  Philistine.  The  evidence  of  confidence 
is  sufficient  to  convince  Saul,  who  gives  his  consent  with  a  prayer 
that  Yahweh  will  be  with  David.  —  38.  Saul's  loan  of  his  armour 
is  comprehensible,  even  if  David  were  already  an  experienced 
soldier ;  for  the  occasion  was  no  common  one,  and  the  king  had. 
of  course,  the  best  armour.  —  He  clothed  David  with  his  garments] 
is  the  author  playing  upon  David's  coming  elevation  to  the  throne? 


XVII.  32-39  l6l 

Besides  the  helmet  of  bronze  |^  has  a  coat  of  mail,  which  is  not 
confirmed  by  &^. — 39.  David  girded  his  sword  over  the  coaf^ 
his  own  sword  is  the  natural  meaning,  so  that  in  the  opinion  of 
the  author  he  was  already  a  warrior.  Thus  armed  he  made  a  vain 
attempt  to  walk,  for  he  had  not  proved  them'\  that  is,  these  equip- 
ments. In  contrast  with  the  heavy-armed  Phihstine,  his  strength 
lay  in  ease  and  rapidity  of  movement.  The  armour  was,  therefore, 
given  up. 

32.  din]  ®  renders  •'jix,  which  is  appropriate,  especially  when  we  remember 
that  David  is  in  Saul's  service  (Th.,  We.,  al.).  — v*??]  refers  to  Saul  himself, 
cf.  Jer.  81^  It  is  difficult  to  find  any  other  English  rendering  than  -Mithin  him, 
though  the  conception  is,  doubtless,  that  the  heart  weighs  upon  the  discour- 
aged man. — 34.  r\->7\'\  might  be  used  if  David  had  just  come  from  the  flock, 
but  it  more  naturally  applies  to  a  state  which  he  has  quitted  some  time  in 
the  past. —  N3i]  must  be  frequentative.  —  3nn-nt<i]  is  impossible,  ^nn  r|f<', 
suggested  by  Graetz  {Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I.  p.  197)  on  the  ground  of  @,  is  appro- 
priate, and  probably  original.  It  may  indicate  that  the  Syrian  bear  was  a 
more  formidable  enemy  than  the  Syrian  lion  —  even  the  bear,  nr,  found  in 
some  editions,  is  only  a  modern  error  for  nr.  —  35.  The  tenses  continue  those 
in  the  preceding  verse,  except  op-'i,  which  is  supposed  by  Davidson,  Syntax, 
54,  R.  I,  to  be  chosen  to  express  a  vigorous  supposition.  In  fact,  a  break  in 
the  consecution  is  needed  because  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  the  animal 
always  stood  against  him.  —  36.  ann-oj]  must  be  made  amnTN  aj  to  be 
grammatical.  —  cnn]  @  adds :  Shall  I  not  go  and  smite  him  and  remove 
reproach  to-day  from  Israel?  For  who  is  this  uncircumcised  [that  he  should 
taunt  the  ranks  of  a  living  God]  ?  The  whole  is  modelled  after  v.^^.  Possibly 
this  verse  originally  ended  with  one. —37a.  ^n  -\nt<ii]  superfluous,  to  our 
notion,  but  quite  in  accordance  with  Hebrew  usage,  which  thus  introduces 
concluding  sentences  of  speeches.  It  is,  therefore,  original,  though  omitted 
by  (@B  (retained  by  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.).  The  break  in  the  sense  is  indicated 
by  the  space  in  the  middle  of  the  verse.  In  fact,  a  new  paragraph  begins  with 
the  second  half  verse.  —  38.  1■'^D]  a  plural  in  form,  but  as  a  singular  na  is 
attested  by  2  S.  10*,  it  is  possible  that  this  is  intended  here;  so  (@  understood. 
The  garment  intended  is  worn  by  warriors  or  officials,  Jd.  3!^  (Ehud),  2  S.  10* 
(David's  ambassadors),  i  S.  18*  (Jonathan),  2  S.  20^  (Joab).  Kl.,  therefore, 
supposes  that  it  was  a  coat  of  defence  (made  of  leather?);  the  yLOLvluas  (3  was 
of  sheepskin.  But  this  is  not  certain.  There  seems  no  way  of  interpreting 
the  language  except  to  suppose  that  the  author  makes  Saul  recognize  David's 
superior  worth,  and  virtually  abdicate  to  him  by  clothing  him  in  the  kingly 
garment.  A  later  paragraph  has  the  same  idea  when  it  makes  Jonathan 
exchange  garments  with  David,  thus  figuratively  putting  him  in  his  place.  — 
'Pji]  is  the  wrong  tense,  and  is  omitted  by  (5^.  Kl.  supposes  the  original  to 
have  been  ]r:v  nc.  —  »3ip]  is  written  y^io  elsewhere,  and  by  a  number  of  MSS. 
M 


1 62  I  SAMUEL 

is  so  given  here.  —  ]v\^  ipn  B'3':'mj  found  in  J^  is  omitted  by  ^^,  and  is  prob- 
ably a  late  interpolation.  —  39.  no'?'?  '?nm]  is  impossible.  iKowiadev  &^  ren- 
ders nS'i,  cf.  Gen.  19^^,  (Aey  wearing  themselves  to  find  the  door,  that  is,  they  tried 
unsuccessfully  to  find  it.  The  emendation  is  suggested  by  Schleusner,  Novus 
Thesaurus  (1820),  and  independently  of  him  by  several  others  (Dr.,  Notes). 
With  this  meaning  of  the  verb,  @  is  consistent  in  adding  a7ra|  koI  Sis.  'How 
@^  came  to  exwAaive  does  not  appear.  —  in  anon]  should  probably  be  read 
onDM  with  (5^,  for  David  had  been  clothed  by  others,  who  would  also  take 
the  garments  off  (@^  omits  David's  name,  though  it  has  the  verb  in  the 
singular). 

40-54.  The  duel.  —  David  goes  out  with  the  weapon  to  which 
he  is  accustomed  —  the  sUng  —  taking  pains  to  provide  suitable 
stones.  After  an  exchange  of  speeches,  he  hits  the  target  so  suc- 
cessfully that  the  giant  falls  prostrate,  and  is  despatched.  The  fall 
of  the  champion  is  followed  by  the  rout  of  the  Philistine  army. 

40.  David  took  his  club  in  his  hand'\  a  very  ancient  weapon, 
and  still  effective  among  the  Bedawin.  One  of  David's  soldiers 
used  it  successfully  against  an  Egyptian  champion,  2  S.  23^^  — 
And  chose  five  sftiooth  stones  from  the  bed  of  the  stream  and  put 
them  in  his  scrip]  the  word  is  probably  a  technical  term  for  the 
sHnger's  box  or  bag,  in  which  he  carried  his  ammunition.  —  And 
[took]  his  sling]  a  well-known  and  formidable  weapon,  Jd.  20^*^. 
—  41.  The  verse  is  lacking  in  & ;  and  as  it  breaks  the  connexion, 
we  may  disregard  it.  —  42.  The  Philistine  looked  and  saw  David 
and  despised  him,  because  he  was  a  youth]  the  rest  of  the  descrip- 
tion is  identical  with  that  given  in  16^-.  —  43,  44.  The  Philis- 
tine's contempt  and  self-confidence:  Am  la  dog,  that  thou  contest 
against  me  with  a  club  ?]  that  he  adds  imprecations  by  his  gods  is 
only  what  we  expect.  With  the  threat  to  give  David's  flesh  to  the 
birds  of  heaven  and  to  the  beasts  of  the  field,  cf.  Dt.  28^®  Is.  18® 
Jer.  15^  —  45-47.  David's  reply  begins  with  an  allusion  to  the 
Philistine's  superiority  in  arms,  as  compared  with  the  club  to 
which  he  has  made  scornful  allusion.  Yet  as  contrasted  with  the 
sword  and  spear  and  javelin,  David  feels  himself  armed  with  the 
name  of  Yahweh  Sebaoth,  God  of  the  ranks  of  Israel  which  thou 
hast  insulted  this  day]  the  Massoretic  division  of  verses  is  wrong, 
and  the  words  this  day  belong  here.  David's  confidence  overtops 
that  of  the  Philistine  :  And  Yahweh  will  deliver  thee  into  ?ny  hand 


XVII.  40-54  I63 

and  I  will  cut  off  thy  head,  and  will  give  thy  carcase  and  the  car- 
cases of  the  camp  of  the  Philistines  to  the  birds  of  heaven  and  to 
the  beasts  of  the  earthy  the  boast  of  the  giant  is  thrown  back  at 
him.  The  result :  all  the  earth  shall  know  that  Israel  has  a  God'\ 
something  of  which  the  heathen  are  not  yet  convinced.  The 
immediate  lesson  to  those  present  is  indicated  :  all  this  congrega- 
tion shall  know,  that  not  by  sword  and  spear  doth  Yahweh  save, 
for  the  battle  is  Vahweh's']  to  dispose  of  according  to  his  own 
sovereign  will.  —  48-49.  There  are  indications  that  one  of  the 
accounts  here  made  the  battle  somewhat  prolonged,  David  ad- 
vancing and  retreating  according  as  the  giant  moved  about  in  the 
field.  In  the  recension  of  (3,  however,  the  intention  is  to  let 
David  finish  the  duel  by  a  single  blow,  and  this  is  consistently 
carried  out  in  what  follows.  Read  therefore  :  And  the  Philistine 
rose  and  came  to  meet  David~\  joining  immediately  to  what  fol- 
lows :  Ajid  David pict  his  hand  into  the  bag  and  took  thence  a  stone 
and  slang  it'\  every  movement  is  of  importance  to  the  historian 
in  a  time  like  this  —  and  smote  the  Philistine  in  the  forehead~\  S 
paraphrases  by  saying  between  the  eyes.  The  force  of  the  blow  is 
seen  in  the  fact  that  the  stone  sank  into  his  forehead~\  so  that, 
stunned,  he  fell  on  his  face  to  the  earth.  —  50.  The  verse  is  lack- 
ing in  (©^,  and  breaks  the  connexion.  —  51.  And  David  ran  and 
stood  over  the  Philistine  and  took  his  sword  and  killed  him']  in 
this,  which  is  the  original  form  of  one  text,  it  was  David's  sword 
which  he  used,  and  this  agrees  with  the  mention  of  his  sword 
above,  v.^.  With  the  cutting  off  of  their  champion's  head,  the 
Philistines  realized  the  situation  and  fled.  —  52.  The  men  of  Israel 
and  Judah  rose  and  raised  the  war-cry]  the  mention  of  Israel  and 
Judah  separately  has  some  colour  here,  because  the  battle  was  on 
Judahite  territory.  The  pursuit  extended  to  the  entrance  of  Gath] 
so  is  to  be  read,  and  to  the  gates  of  Ekron]  so  that  the  corpses 
were  strewed  all  the  vidiy  from  Sharaim]  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
battlefield  to  Oath  and  to  Ekron.  —  53.  The  pursuit  was  followed 
by  plundering  the  camp  of  the  enemy.  —  54,  The  conclusion  of 
the  account  is  evidently  unhistorical. 

40-54.  The  account  is  overfull,  and  is  apparently  the  result  of  conflation. 
The  omissions  of  @  show  this,  but  are  not  as  complete  a  guide  to  the  original 
documents  as  in  the  early  part  of  the  chapter.  — 40.    iS'^d]  in  2  S.  23^1  the 


164  1  SAMUEL 

weapon  is  called  a  Jr.  The  oxgoad  of  Shamgar  was  essentially  the  same 
weapon.  — i'?"iS'N  D>j;in  '''?33]  is  evidently  a  gloss  intended  to  explain  Dip*?',  a 
word  which  occurs  nowhere  else  (We.,  Bu.).  —  Bi|"'S''2i]  he  would  not  have 
distributed  the  stones  in  two  receptacles.  The  i  is  therefore  certainly  wrong 
(omitted  by  &<3^).  Omission  of  the  preceding  clause  makes  the  sense  clear. 
It  should  be  remarked  however  that  (§  seems  to  have  read  o^ph^h  yh  IB'K  = 
(the  shepherd's  bag)  which  he  had  for  a  yalkut  (cartridge  box). — n>3  ipS""] 
goes  back  to  the  verb  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.  I  suspect  that  the  earliest 
text  had  only  \y^i  v'^pi  I'^po  hn  ^n  npii. — 41.  The  whole  verse  is  lacking  in 
@^,  the  last  clause  lacking  in  (§^^^.  It  reads  in  |^ :  and  the  Philistine  kept 
coming  nearer  to  David,  and  the  man  bearing  the  shield  was  before  him.  It 
is  at  least  too  early  in  the  narrative,  for  the  mention  of  the  man  with  the  shield 
is  appropriate  only  when  David  is  about  to  sling  the  stone.  It  emphasizes  the 
difficulty  he  had  in  his  attack.  Probably  the  verse  is  a  fragment  of  the  same 
document,  which  is  omitted  by  (g  elsewhere.  —  42.  nsio  nD^'oy  ''jsi;<i]  is 
borrowed  from  the  description  in  1612,  even  to  the  textual  error  of  djj  for  aS;'. 
That  David  was  a  youth  is  sufficient  reason  for  the  Philistine's  contempt,  the 
rest  is  superfluous. — 43,  44  are  duplicates.  One  of  the  two  speeches  is  suffi- 
cient to  introduce  David's  reply,  and  this  is  apparently  v."*^.  In  the  feeling 
that  David  should  reply  to  both,  ©^  or  its  original  inserted  at  the  end  of  *^, 
KoX  ein-ec  Aauj'S  ovxU  o.\\'  f)  x*'/'"  kvvSs. — ■''^n]  takes  the  place  of  ■>'?;'.  The 
plural  niSp23  is  out  of  place;  read  n^p.D3.  —  mt:M  nnnj]  is  more  commonly 
y-)i<n  -a,  which  21  MSS.  (DeR.)  have  here,  but  cf.  Joel  i^o.  —  46.  ntn  arn]  is 
connected  with  the  preceding  by  (5IL,  and  this  involves  the  reading  -jnjDi  for 
Ti.iD\  This  is  obviously  correct  (Th.),  though  rejected  by  We.,  Bu.  That, 
the  fate  of  Goliath  will  be  decided  this  day  is  plain  without  the  express  state- 
ment, both  texts  moreover  have  ntn  orn  later  in  the  verse.  —  njno  ijo]  is 
defensible,  taking  -\jd  collectively.  But  with  @  we  should  probably  read  •\-\\q 
njna  i-ijs%  so  Th.,  We.,  Bu.  —  f-ixn  n^n]  instead  of  the  ma-n  ncno  of  v.**. — 
ipT'i]  as  pointed,  must  give  the  purpose  of  the  victory :  that  all  the  earth  may 
know.  It  would  be  possible,  however,  to  point  V"".  in  which  case  the  verb 
would  simply  carry  on  the  narrative,  cf.  Ex.  14*- 1*  (P)  Is.  492°. — '7Nits"'?J 
@SIL  seem  to  have  read  Vnico.  —  47.  ^r\pr\'\  is  a  late  word,  cf.  Jd.  20^. — 
ncnVcn  mniS]  seems  not  to  occur  elsewhere.  —  48.  ap-o  nini]  would  seem 
to  intimate  that  as  often  as  the  giant  endeavoured  to  come  to  close  quarters, 
David  gave  back,  at  the  same  time  plying  him  with  stones  from  the  sling.  An 
indication  of  the  same  view  is  seen  in  the  n^nycn  near  the  end  of  the  verse, 
for  this  would  naturally  mean  the  ranks  of  Israel.  The  whole  second  half  of 
the  verse  from  in:;^  is  lacking  in  (5^,  which  also  reads  at  the  beginning  koX 
dveo-Tij.  The  shorter  form  thus  presented  is  consistent  with  what  follows,  and 
I  have  adopted  it. — 49.  p{<]  is  expanded  into  nnx  ps  by  Bu.,  following  ^^, 
but  this  seems  unnecessary.  —  pxn  yaoni]  (5  adds  Sia  t^j  KfpaKalas,  which  is 
favoured  by  We,  and  adopted  by  Bu.  It  seems  doubtful  whether  one  could 
say  that  the  stone  sank  through  the  helmet,  while  it  is  entirely  proper  to  say 
that  it  sank  into  the  forehead.  —  50.   The  verse  is  evidently  the  concluding 


XVII.  55  i65 

remark  of  one  of  the  documents.  So  David  was  stronger  than  (he  Philistine 
with  the  sling  and  with  the  stone,  and  smote  the  Philistine  and  slew  him,  though 
there  %uas  no  sword  in  the  hand  of  David'\  the  last  clause  is  not  an  introduc- 
tion to  what  follows  (Th.) ,  but  emphasizes  the  simplicity  of  the  shepherd  boy's 
armament.  Like  the  rest  of  this  document,  it  is  lacking  in  (5^.  — 51.  neStt^i 
n-\;Tic]  is  lacking  in  (5^,  and  evidently  a  redactional  insertion  intended  to 
bring  the  verse  into  harmony  with  the  preceding.  —  62.  0''rm''?Dn-nN]  hitiaw 
avrOiv  @^,  either  form  may  be  an  afterthought,  as  the  sense  is  good  without 
either.  —  nm  tni2"i>]  as  the  name  of  a  town  is  expected  we  should  read 
pj  ^Nn  vwith  the  original  of  ©^i^.  —  p^p;']  is  doubtless  correct  as  compared 
with  Askalon  of  (§.  —  anyj-]  is  evidently  intended  to  be  a  proper  name;  and 
a  town  of  this  name  is  mentioned  (Jos.  15^^)  in  immediate  connexion  with 
Shocoh  and  Azekah,  therefore  probably  to  be  found  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
battlefield.  In  order  to  make  sense  we  must  emend  (with  Kl.)  to  oi-\J7B'  '[•^■ya, 
or  better  ^ny;*-:  17^5,  —  that  the  wounded  fell  all  the  way  from  the  battlefield 
to  the  two  cities  is  information  which  is  quite  in  place.  The  conjecture  of 
We.,  adopted  by  Bu.,  which  reads  a^nyu'.-i  'y\-^  (with  (5),  and  understands  by  it 
the  roadway  in  the  gates  of  the  two  cities,  falls  to  the  ground  on  considering 
-\p,  which  follows.  The  wounded  might  fall  in  the  gateway  at  the  cities,  but 
not  to  the  cities.  —  53.  p'^"'^]  the  verb  is  found  with  nnx  also.  Gen.  31^6  (E). — 
54.  -'"^ii'n']  is  so  evidently  out  of  place  here  that  we  are  forced  to  consider 
the  clause  an  insertion  of  a  late  editor,  in  which  case  we  shall  regard  the 
whole  verse  with  suspicion.  The  mention  of  David's  tent,  however,  is  per- 
fectly in  accord  with  the  narrative,  1 6^^-23,  which  makes  him  a  member  of 
Saul's  staff. 

XVII.  55-XVIII.  5.  David's  introduction  to  the  court.  —  Saul 
professes  complete  ignorance  of  David  and  instructs  Abner  to 
make  inquiries.  Abner  brings  the  young  hero  to  the  king,  and 
Jonathan  is  especially  drawn  to  him.  A  firm  friendship  is  ce- 
mented between  the  two  young  men,  and  David  is  taken  into  the 
king's  service. 

The  most  ingenious  harmonists  have  not  succeeded  in  reconcil- 
ing this  paragraph  with  16^^^.  As  it  is  lacking  in  the  original 
form  of  (§,  it  must  be  judged  like  vv.^^"^'  above. 

55.  The  narrative  goes  back  a  little  :  And  when  Saul  saio 
David  going  forth  to  meet  the  Philistine,  he  said  to  Abtter,  the 
general  of  the  army :  Whose  son  is  the  lad,  Abner  ?  There  is  no 
reason  to  take  the  question  in  any  but  the  literal  sense.  It  implied 
Saul's  entire  ignorance  of  David.  The  inquiry  for  his  father  was 
equivalent  to  asking,  who  is  he  ?  The  attempt  of  Keil  to  show 
that  Saul's  question  did  not  imply  ignorance  of  David  is  entirely 


1 66  T  SAMUEL 

futile,  and  is  refuted  moreover  by  Abner's  confession,  which  was  : 
By  thy  life,  O  king,  I  do  not  know"]  the  Bedawy  still  swears  dy  the 
life  of  the  person  addressed.  —  56-58.  Abner  is  commanded  to 
make  inquiry,  and  when  David  returned  from  smiting  the  Philis- 
tine, Abner  took  him  and  brought  him  before  Saul,  with  the  Philis- 
tine's head  in  his  hand'\  where  he  answered  Saul's  question.  That 
there  was  a  more  extended  conversation  which  is  not  reported 
seems  implied  by  the  following  verse. 

XVlll.  1.  When  David  had  finished  speaking  with  Saul,  the 
soul  of  Jonathan  was  bound  up  with  the  soul  of  David']  cf.  Gen. 
44**  (J)-  The  manifestation  of  Jonathan's  love  is  seen  in  the 
covenant,  v.^.  —  2.  Saul  takes  David  into  his  service,  and  did  not 
allow  him  to  return  to  his  father's  house]  the  parallel  is  i6^. — 
3.  And  Jonathan  made  a  covenant  with  David]  in  the  following 
Jonathan  alone  acts,  and  hence  the  slight  conjectural  change  here 
adopted  is  desirable.  The  covenant  between  the  two  is  also  de- 
scribed ^23**),  where  Jonathan  recognizes  David  as  the  future  king, 
and  stipulates  that  himself  shall  be  prime  minister.  A  covenant 
of  brotherhood  was  made  by  Mohammed  between  the  Fugitives 
and  the  Helpers.  Each  Meccan  was  made  brother  to  a  Medinan, 
and  the  bond  was  regarded  as  closer  than  blood  brotherhood. 
Something  of  the  kind  is  intended  here.  —  4.  In  making  the  cove- 
nant, Jonathan  stripped  himself  of  the  cloak  which  he  had  on]  the 
garment  mentioned  is  one  worn  by  the  well-to-do  ;  and  gave  it  to 
David,  and  his  accoutrements  also,  including  his  sword  and  his 
bow  and  his  girdle]  the  simple  shepherd  lad  is  thus  fitted  to  shine 
at  court.  —  5.  Saul  gave  David  a  command  in  the  army,  in  which 
he  showed  good  capacity  —  such  is  the  order  of  the  clauses  in  &". 
So  far  from  the  promotion  being  offensive  to  the  older  soldiers, 
//  pleased  all  the  people  and  also  the  servatits  of  Saul]  his  court 
officials.  There  seems  no  reason  to  dissociate  this  verse  from  the 
rest  of  the  paragraph,  as  is  done  by  Bu.  The  first  clause  of  v.^  is 
transitional,  as  is  shown  by  its  being  lacking  in  ^.  The  redactor, 
by  this  clause,  returns  from  the  digression  concerning  David's  pro- 
motion to  the  main  stream  of  the  history. 

XVII.  55-XVIII.  6.  The  paragraph  is  lacking  in  ©^  etc.,  jhe  attempts  to 
harmonize  the  accounts  are  numerous.     Schmid  supposes  that  i6**"^  belongs 


XVII.  55-XVTII.  5  167 

chronologically  after  this.  But  consideration  of  that  account  shows  that 
David  was  there  unknown  to  Saul,  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  after 
the  conflict  with  Goliath.  —  55.  pin-idi]  cf.  jis'ji  at  the  opening  of  v.^^. — 
ni'^c'tj]  on  the  force  of  nr  in  such  a  question,  cf.  BDB.  s.v.  (4).  —  •]trDJ~''n] 
by  the  life  of  thy  soul,  cf.  20*.  —  I'^Ci^]  is  the  vocative  with  the  article — a 
common  construction.  —  dn]  after  oaths,  is  negative. — 57.  itij  \ia''?Dn  rxti] 
a  circumstantial  clause.  —  XVIII.  1.  There  seems  to  be  some  confusion  in 
this  and  the  following  verse.  That  Saul  took  him  seems  to  belong  with  v.^, 
and  v.-  interrupts  the  account  of  Jonathan's  friendship,  begun  in  v.i.  The 
form  of  the  sentence,  nn  .  .  .  ij'dji,  also  makes  a  difficulty.  As  it  stands,  it 
would  naturally  mean :  When  David  ceased  speaking  {jince  Jonathan'' s  soul 
was  bound  up  in  the  soul  of  David"),  then  Jonathan  loved  him.  This,  of  course, 
is  impossible.  There  is  reason  to  suspect,  therefore,  that  the  parenthetical 
clause  is  an  interpolation;  and  the  explicitness  of  the  last  clause  is  an  argu- 
ment in  the  same  direction. — nnsM]  is  probably  a  mistake  for  in^nxM,  the 
regular  form,  which  is  substituted  by  the  Qre.  —  3.  nni]  is  objected  to  by  We., 
and  omitted  by  Ki.  (in  Kautzsch).  Bu.,  in  his  text,  changes  to  in'^,  which 
relieves  the  difficulty.  The  received  text  may  be  due  to  the  tendency  to  make 
David  prominent,  which  manifests  itself  in  ^^,  where  we  find  David  the  king. 
It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  "S  nna  m3  usually  means  to  prescribe  terms 
as  a  conqueror  does  to  the  conquered,  Jd.  2^  Dt.  7^  i  S.  11^.  On  the  meaning 
of  the  word  T\^-\':i  cf.  Moore  on  Jud.  ■^^  and  reff.  —  4.  Sij?Dn-nN]  is  what  would 
be  the  second  accusative  in  an  active  form  of  the  verb,  cf.  Dav.,  Syntax,  74  c. 
—  mDi]  seems  to  include  the  weapons  which  follow.  The  girdle  is  much  es- 
teemed among  the  Orientals.  —  5.  The  order  of  the  clauses  adopted  above 
from  @L  seems  the  only  natural  one.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  there  has 
been  corruption  or  interpolation  of  the  verse.  Kl.  proposes  to  read :  And 
David  catne  out,  clothed  with  all  that  he  [Jonathan]  had  put  upon  him,  and 
brought  him  back  to  the  vien  ofxuar,  and  it  pleased  all  the  people  and  the  ser- 
vants of  Saul.  Something  like  this  may  have  been  the  original  text,  showing 
how  fully  Jonathan  adopted  the  young  warrior.  —  S'oa''']  is  justified  by  Dr., 
Azotes,  but  '?''3B'M,  suggested  by  We.,  certainly  makes  better  sense.  After  nsm 
we  need  to  be  told  whither  David  went.  The  theory  of  Bu.  (^RS.  219),  that 
this  verse  (as  it  stands  in  |^)  belongs  with  16'^^,  seems  to  be  refuted  by  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  reason  for  David's  promotion,  unless  it  be  some  feat  of 
arms.  That  he  successfully  played  the  harp  would  be  an  argument  in  favour 
of  keeping  him  in  the  vicinity  of  the  king,  instead  of  giving  him  a  command 
in  the  field.     The  verse  seems  therefore  to  belong  in  its  present  environment. 

XVIII.  6-30.  Saul's  jealousy  of  David.  —The  eulogies  of  the 
women  who  greet  the  returning  army,  rouse  the  jealousy  of  Saul. 
He  therefore  removes  David  from  service  near  his  person,  and 
appoints  him  over  a  band  of  soldiers  in  the  field.  David's  activity 
and  discretion  are  such  that  his  hold  on  the  people  increases,  which 


l68  I  SAMUEL 

increases  also  Saul's  fear.  Michal,  the  younger  daughter  of  Saul, 
falls  in  love  with  David,  and  Saul  makes  this  an  occasion  for  expos- 
ing David  to  new  dangers.  David's  success  adds  to  the  king's 
dislike,  which  now  becomes  a  settled  hatred.  This  is  the  main 
stream  of  the  narrative,  which  is  preserved  to  us  in  the  text  of  (3^. 
It  is  interrupted  in  ^  by  inconsistent  insertions.  One  of  these 
(w.^*''^)  tells  of  Saul's  attempt  to  murder  David.  Another  (vv.""'^) 
gives  the  account  of  an  unfulfilled  promise  of  Saul  to  give  his  older 
daughter  to  David.  Leaving  these  out,  we  find  a  consistent  and 
well-planned  story,  of  whose  unity  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It 
belongs  with  i6^*"^.  The  />/us  of  ^  consists,  in  all  probability, 
of  fragments  of  another  document,  though  their  coherence  is  not 
so  marked  as  in  the  case  of  the  sections  omitted  by  (3  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  and  the  early  part  of  this.  As  already  pointed 
out,  the  consistency  of  the  text  of  (3  here  is  an  argument  for  the 
originality  of  the  same  text  in  1 7. 

6-30.  On  the  critical  questions  there  is  considerable  disagreement.  We. 
(  TBS.)  remarks  on  the  consistency  of  the  text  of  (3^.  Bu.,  in  his  text,  assigns 
12-19  to  E,  the  rest  of  the  chapter  (except  minute  fragments)  to  J.  I  agree 
that  the  main  narrative  is  connected  with  i6''*-23.  But  I  cannot  account  for 
the  text  of  G^,  except  by  supposing  that  it  represents  one  document  and  that 
the  omissions  represent  another. 

6-16.  The  original  narrative  seems  to  have  consisted  of  ^'^'-  ^■ 
12a.  13-16^  for  this  is  all  that  is  represented  in  one  recension  —  that 
of  (3^.  The  interpolated  section  tells  of  Saul's  attempt  to  transfix 
David  with  the  javelin,  an  outbreak  which  comes  too  early  here. 
A  similar  attempt  is  related  farther  on  in  the  narrative. 

6.  The  first  part  of  the  verse  has  already  been  remarked  upon. 
The  paragraph  originally  began  :  And  the  dancing  women  came 
out  from  ail  the  cities  of  Judah']  this  would  appropriately  continue 
the  account  of  the  death  of  Goliath  or  any  similar  story.  —  To 
meet  Saul  the  king]  the  prominence  which  David  has  in  the  history 
leads  f3^  to  read :  to  meet  David.  The  women  of  the  Bedawin 
still  dance  out  with  singing  to  meet  the  warriors  returning  from  a 
foray.*  —  With  timbrels  and  with  rejoicing  and  with  cymbals']  the 
zeugma  is  awkward,  and  possibly  the  second  word  is  corrupt. 


Doughty,  Travels  iti  Arabia  Ceserta,  I.  p.  452. 


XVIII    6-15  169 

The  timbrel  [tambourine]  was  the  instrument  most  frequently 
carried  by  the  women  when  dancing,  Ex.  15^  Jd.  11^.  —  7.  The 
women  sang  antiphonally,  as  is  still  the  custom  in  Eastern  festivals  : 

Saul  slew  his  thousands. 
And  David  his  myriads. 

—  8.  The  incident  was  unpleasant  to  Saul'\  as  we  can  well  under- 
stand :    To  David  they  give  the  myriads  and  to  me  the  thousands, 

—  9.  The  result :  Saul  kept  his  eye  on  David  from  that  day  on- 
ward'\  in  suspicion  and  dislike. 

[The  interpolation  w.^""  is  a  duplicate  of  ig^*'-  and  is  here  cer- 
tainly out  of  place.  It  tells  that  on  the  morrow  the  evil  spirit  of 
God  came  upon  Saul  and  he  played  the  prophet  within  the  house 
while  David  was  playing  as  was  his  custoin.  And  Saul  had  the 
spear  in  his  hand,  and  he  raised  the  spear,  saying  to  himself :  I 
will  smite  it  through  David  into  the  wall  But  David  moved  away 
from  before  him  thrice.  Saul's  murderous  impulse  manifested  itself 
in  a  similar  attempt  at  a  later  stage  of  the  history.  There  it  is  in 
place,  because  he  had  exhausted  his  indirect  means  of  getting 
David  out  of  the  way.] 

12,  13.  Originally  the  verses  read  :  And  Saul  feared  David 
and  removed  him  from  being  near  him,  and  made  him  captain  of  a 
thousand;  and  he  went  out  and  came  in  at  the  head  of  the  soldiers'] 
the  meaning  is  obvious,  and  the  connexion  is  good  in  itself,  as 
well  as  with  v.^  Saul's  suspicion  grew  into  fear,  and  he  would  no 
longer  trust  David  in  personal  attendance  (as  armour-bearer,  16^^) 
on  himself.  But,  not  wishing  to  insult  the  people's  favourite,  he 
gave  him  a  post  of  honour  which  was  also  one  of  danger,  keeping 
him  on  service  in  the  field.  The  connexion  is  broken  in  the 
received  text  by  the  insertion  of  the  loss  of  the  Spirit  (so  we  must 
interpret  ^-'' )  as  a  motive  for  Saul's  fear ;  such  a  motive  is  here 
incongruous  and  unnecessary.  — 14.  The  result  of  the  move  was 
only  to  bring  out  David's  virtues  more  conspicuously.  —  In  all  his 
ways  David  showed  wisdom,  and  Yahweh  was  with  him]  to  pros- 
per him ;  compare  the  case  of  Joseph,  Gen.  39^.  — 15.  On  per- 
ceiving this,  Saul's  fear  was  heightened  —  he  stood  in  dread  of  him. 


170  I   SANTUEL 

— 16.  In  contrast  with  this  was  the  affection  of  the  people  :  But 
all  Israel  and  Jiidah  loved  David,  because  he  went  out,  and  came 
in  before  thetn. 

6.  TiS'SDn  .  .  .  jitt'a]  is  coloured  by  Bu.  as  belonging  to  a  different  document 
from  DNiaa  tim.  In  fact,  one  of  the  two  verbs  is  superfluous.  It  would  be 
equally  easy  to  suppose  Dvsoa  the  insertion  of  a  scribe.  The  text  of  (5^ 
adopted  above  seems  entirely  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case.  —  dtjhJ 
a/ x"?*'^'""'''"  ®  —  possibly  combining  D'''^'jn  with  niSnsn',  which  comes  later. 
But  a  change  from  niSSncn  is  explicable,  in  case  of  a  scribe  who  thought  that 
word  applicable  to  professional  dancing  women,  and  who  wished  to  avoid 
making  them  the  subject  here,  cf.  Jd.  2i23.  —  -nt:''?]  (or  -it'?  Qre)  seems  not 
represented  in  <S^.  —  nnr:;:'3i]  the  collocation  seems  awkward  to  us.  We.  cites 
I  Chr.  13^  as  parallel;  but  the  parallel  is  not  exact.  The  Z'^^Z'  is  mentioned 
nowhere  else.  —  7.  nipns'cn]  is  lacking  in  (S^. — -^  nan]  \s  gentt&Wy  io  smiie 
among,  6^^  Num.  33*.  The  only  exceptions  that  I  find  are  this  verse  and  the 
citations  of  it  in  2112  295.  —  vd'^no]  should  be  read,  with  the  Q7-e.  —  8.  inn 
rrj.'3  jJT'i  IN?:  SiNi'S]  is,  doubtless,  expanded  from  the  simpler  text,  which  is 
represented  in  @  ^is'tr  >J"|JJ3  yT'i.  ni33"\  should  doubtless  be  nnain  @,  to 
correspond  with  q^'dSkh  (We.,  Bu.).  —  nji'^cn  in  iS  ii>'i]  is  lacking  in  (g^. — 
9.  Jiy]  to  be  read  pij?,  with  the  Qre.  The  verb  occurs  here  only.  Being  a 
denominative,  the  form  is  probably  intended  to  be  a  Poel  participle  (so  Dr.), 
for  ]'!'}y::.  There  are  a  few  examples  of  such  shortened  forms.  — 10,  11.  The 
verses  are  lacking  in  the  same  MSS.  of  (5,  which  are  without  1712-31.  They 
contain  another  version  of  19^-.  There  Saul's  attempt  is  continued,  even  after 
David  has  once  escaped.  Here  the  attempt  has  no  noticeable  consequences, 
and  everything  goes  on  as  if  it  had  not  been  made.  —  mnnc]  must  refer  to 
the  day  after  the  triumphal  entry.  But  this  was  too  early  for  Saul's  jealousy 
to  have  reached  such  a  height,  and  David  certainly  would  not  have  entertained 
thoughts  of  becoming  the  king's  son-in-law  after  such  an  exhibition  of  hatred. 
—  Najnn]  the  verb  in  this  form  ordinarily  means  to  prophesy.  The  man  pos- 
sessed by  the  evil  spirit  acts  in  the  same  way  as  the  man  possessed  by  the 
good  spirit  —  videtur  spiritum  hunc  malum  imitatum  esse,  ut  simiam,  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  et  ex  Saule  ineptum  prophetam  fecisse,  Schm.  p.  621.  —  pijnni]  the 
lance  which  was  the  insignium  of  the  chieftain,  as  is  still  the  case  with  the 
Arabs.  — 11.  Sbii]  is  pointed  as  though  from  '^>B,  which  occurs  in  20^8,  with 
the  meaning  to  hurl.  But  here  the  spear  seems  not  to  have  been  actually 
hurled,  and  we  should  probably  point  SisM  from  '^a:,  he  lifted  up  —  (S^-a  ^^ 
Th.,  al.  —  hdn]  is  perhaps  to  be  pointed  n:N,  with  ST.  — 12.  @^  has  only  the 
first  clause  of  the  verse,  and,  as  in  the  other  cases,  represents  the  original  text. 
The  other  clause — because  Yahweh  luas  with  him  while  he  had  departed 
from  Saul — is  an  insertion  on  the  basis  of  the  verse  16I*,  which  is  itself  an 
editorial  construction.  Yahweh  and  the  spirit  of  Yahweh  are  interchangeable, 
Jd.  \(y'-^.  —  14.  'i'dS]  read  S33  with  the  versions  (Th.),  and  read  also  voin  with 
the  Qre. 


XVTTI.   i6-iq  171 

17-19.  David  and  Merab.  —  Saul  offers  his  older  daughter, 
Merab,  to  David  in  marriage,  on  the  vague  condition  that  he  be 
courageous  and  fight  the  enemies  of  Yahweh.  The  king  was 
really  moved  in  this  by  the  hope  that  David  would  fall  in  battle. 
When  this  did  not  prove  to  be  the  event,  he  unscrupulously  broke 
his  word  and  gave  his  daughter  to  another. 

The  section  is  one  of  those  lacking  in  (3^,  and  we  naturally 
connect  it  with  the  others.  In  one  of  these  we  find  that  Saul's 
daughter  was  to  be  the  reward  of  the  man  who  should  smite  the 
Philistine  champion,  1 7^.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  pres- 
ent paragraph  is  intended  to  show  how  Saul  failed  to  carry  out 
that  offer.  With  this  agrees  the  manner  in  which  this  section 
opens.  Saul  proposes  his  daughter  without  any  evident  occasion, 
unless  it  be  that  David  has  a  claim  on  her  already ;  there  is  no 
question  of  a  price  to  be  paid.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that 
this  story  is  the  sequel  of  17^.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite 
irreconcilable  with  the  following  paragraph,  which  recounts  David's 
marriage  with  Michal.  As  we  shall  see,  the  proposition  there  made 
is  quite  a  new  thing,  and  the  form  in  which  it  is  made  shows  entire 
ignorance  of  a  previous  similar  proposal  such  as  we  have  now 
before  us. 

17.  Saul  takes  the  initiative  and  offers  Merab  to  David,  with 
the  stipulation  (if  such  it  can  be  called)  :  On/y  be  a  valiant 
man,  and  fight  the  battles  of  Yahweh']  for  the  last  phrase,  cf.  25^'^ 
and  the  title  'Book  of  the  Battles  of  Yahweh,'  Num.  21".  In 
this  proposition,  Saul's  real  thought  was  :  Let  not  my  hand  be  upon 
him,  but  let  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  be  upon  hini]  as  is  set  forth 
also  in  the  bargain  struck  for  Michal.  — 18.  David's  reply  is  mod- 
est :  Who  am  I,  and  what  is  ?ny  father's  clan  in  Israel,  that  I 
should  be  son-in-law  to  the  king?  It  was  the  part  of  a  gentle- 
man to  depreciate  his  own  worth.  Similar  language  is  used  by 
Saul  himself  when  the  kingly  dignity  is  offered  him.  — 19.  The 
appointed  time  came,  but  she  was  given  to  Adriel  the  Mehola- 
thite]  in  the  received  text  the  same  man  is  mentioned,  2  S.  21*, 
but  as  the  husband  of  Michal.  The  historical  uncertainty  is 
obvious.  Saul's  action  as  here  represented  is,  of  course,  a  deadly 
affront. 


172  1  SAMUEL 

17-19.  Budde  and  Kittel  make  the  paragraph  a  part  of  the  same  document 
which  immediately  precedes.  It  seems  to  me  that  v."'^'^  continues  v.'^.  The 
contrast  between  Saul's  fear  of  David  and  the  people's  love  of  him  (v.^®) 
is  heightened  by  the  fact  that  even  Saul's  daughter  loved  him  (v.'^). — 
17.  n'-njn],  like  Leah,  Gen.  29!^,  for  which  we  find  m^aan  i  S.  14*^.  Merab 
is  mentioned  only  in  this  passage,  and  in  14*^  in  |^.  She  is  put  in  place  of 
Michal  (perhaps  correctly)  by  ©^  jn  2  S.  21*.  —  '?'n"t3"'J  14*2  2  S.  2".  —  ^cn] 
said  io  himself,  as  not  infrequently.  — 18.  >3S  rnD'i'S  "n  101]  the  hayy  ox  Arab 
kindred  group  "  was  a  political  and  social  unity,  so  far  as  there  was  any  unity 
in  that  very  loosely  organized  state  of  society."  The  -n  was  therefore  the  same 
as  the  -no'^'r,  and  ^^  has  only  one  of  the  two  words  here.  We.  and  others 
suppose  the  original  to  have  been  "n,  which  was  afterwards  explained  by  the 
insertion  of  ''3N  rnijj'::,  and  then  misunderstood  by  the  punctuators.  I  prefer 
to  read  'JN  'n  ^::i  with  (5^.  The  mention  of  one's  father  in  such  a  connexion 
is  natural,  especially  to  an  oriental.  — 19.  n.--n;'a]  a  time  seems  to  have  been 
set,  Schm.  622.  ":'N'-n>'  is  an  Aramaic  equivalent  of ':'.S'"M",  Jer.  36^'', —  God 
is  my  help  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  (Nestle,  Am.  Jour.  Sem. 
Lang.  XIII,  p.  173).  In  2  S.  21*  this  Adriel  is  called  Son  of  Barzillai. — 
^0*702:1]  a  native  of  Abel  Meholah,  a  place  in  the  Jordan  valley,  cf.  Jd.  "f^  with 
Moore's  note. 

The  same  phenomenon  shows  itself  here  as  in  some  earlier  cases;  two 
accounts  are  so  similar  that  we  suspect  them  to  be  variants  of  the  same  origi- 
nal. In  this  case  the  proposal  of  Merab  is  another  form  of  the  story  of  Michal, 
And  as  the  former  puts  Saul's  behaviour  in  a  worse  light  than  the  latter,  it  is 
probably  designed  to  take  its  place  in  the  document  which  we  have  already 
seen  to  be  prejudiced  against  Saul. 

20-30.  David  marries  Michal,  Saul's  daughter.  —  The  account 
shows  no  knowledge  of  the  preceding  paragraph.  Michal  is  called 
the  daughter  of  Saul,  without  reference  to  any  other.  Her  affection 
for  David  comes  to  Saul  as  a  welcome  occasion  to  bring  David 
into  danger.  He  opens  negotiations  indirectly.  All  these  indi- 
cations point  to  the  independence  of  the  narrative.  The  step 
taken  is  the  second  of  Saul's  attempts  to  overthrow  David,  the 
first  having  been  to  give  him  service  in  the  field,  v.^^. 

20.  Michal  loved  David,  and  when  they  told  Saul,  the  matter 
was  right  in  his  eyes'\  2  S.  17^.  —  21.  The  reason  was  that  he 
thought  to  make  use  of  her  as  a  snare,  or,  more  properly,  as  a 
bait,  to  lure  him  on  to  his  destruction,  so  that  the  hand  of  the 
Philistine  should  be  upon  him']  as  above,  v.'^  The  remainder  of 
the  verse  is  an  interpolation. — 22.    It  would  be  unbecoming  in 


XVIIT.  20-30  173 

the  king  to  make  advances.  He  therefore  commands  his  servants  : 
Speak  to  David  privately']  after  giving  a  favourable  account  of 
David's  standing  with  the  people,  they  were  to  advise  :  now  be- 
come son-in-law  to  the  king]  the  verb  is  used  elsewhere  of  i7iter- 
marrying  with  families  or  tribes,  Dt.  7^  —  23.  David  objects  his 
lack  of  the  qualifications  :  Is  it  an  easy  thing,  in  your  estimation, 
to  become  son-in-law  to  the  king  when  I  am  poor  and  of  no  reputa- 
tion ?  cf.  v.^^  —  24,  25.  When  the  reply  was  reported  to  Saul,  he 
instructed  his  courtiers  to  meet  the  material  objection,  which  was 
that  David  was  too  poor  to  pay  the  usual  price  for  a  king's  daugh- 
ter :  The  king  has  no  desire  for  a  price]  the  word  is  regularly  used 
of  the  price  paid  by  a  man  for  a  wife.  Our  word  dowry  conveys  a 
wrong  impression.  Marriage  by  purchase  can  be  traced  in  many 
regions.  For  example,  coemptio  seems  to  have  been  one  method 
of  marriage  among  the  Romans.  Old  Testament  examples  are 
familiar,  as  Jacob,  who  paid  the  price  in  service.  A  sum  of  money 
is  supposed  to  be  given  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  22'*'. 
But  the  king's  desire  \%for  a  hundred  foreskins  of  the  Philistines. 
If  the  Philistines  alone  were  uncircumcised  among  the  inhabitants 
of  Palestine,  the  kind  of  trophy  chosen  is  explicable.  The  osten- 
sible object  was  :  to  be  avenged  oti  the  king's  etiemies ;  the  real 
purpose  was  to  cause  David  to  fall  by  the  hand  of  the  Philistines. 
—  26,  27.  The  proposition  was  acceptable  to  David,  who  rose  and 
went,  he  and  his  men,  and  smote  among  the  Philistines  a  hundred 
men]  which  the  received  text  has  made  two  hundred  ;  and  brought 
their  foreskins  and  paid  them  in  full  to  the  king  in  order  to  become 
son-in-law  to  the  king.  The  king  had,  therefore,  no  pretext  for 
further  delay,  and  gave  him  Michal,  his  daughter,  to  wife.  The 
original  continuation  of  this  verse  seems  to  be  19".  What  follows 
here  is  an  account  of  the  mental,  or  moral,  state  of  Saul,  with  a 
renewed  panegyric  of  David.  —  28.  And  Saul  saw  that  Yahweh 
was  with  David,  and  that  all  Israel  loved  him]  the  double  favour 
(of  Yahweh  and  of  the  people)  increased  Saul's  dread.  Vv.-*''  -^''•'^'* 
are  lacking  in  (§^.  See  the  critical  note. — 29.  The  climax  of 
the  chapter  is  here  reached  —  So  Saul  feared  David  yet  more.  — 
30.  A  panegyric  of  David,  such  as  we  have  had  to  superfluity.  It 
simply  says  that  as  often  as  the  Philistines  made  their  incursions 
David  acted  wisely  above  all  the  servants  of  Saul,  and  his  name 


174  I  SAMUEL 

was  exceeding  precious.      It  is  intended  to  point   the  contrast 
afforded  by  Saul's  conduct,  as  related  in  the  following  verse. 

20.   Sd^d]  the  name  appears  as  MeAxo-^  in  O  and  as  '?n>3':'D  in  S).     It  is 
possible  therefore  that   the  form   is  contracted   (or  mutilated)   from  SndSd. 
Olshausen  {Gr.  §  277  f.)  supposed  it  to  be  another  form  of  Sno^c.  —  21.  trpinS] 
Ex.  10'^.     The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  an  evident  interpolation  and  is  lack- 
ing in  (gs  a'-.    It  breaks  the  sense,  for  Saul  would  not  first  make  the  proposition 
to  David  and  afterwards  insinuate  it  by  his  servants.    As  it  stands,  the  sentence 
can  only  be  an  attempt  to  harmonize  this  narrative  with  the  account  of  Merab. 
But  what  the  editor  meant  by  it  is  difficult  to  discover.    The  important  word  is 
OTiB'a,  which  can  only  mean  on  two  conditions  (shalt  thou  be  my  son-in-law), 
Pseudo-Hier  Qtiestiones.    But  what  the  two  conditions  are  is  not  told,  and  this 
moreover  would  not  harmonize  the  two  accounts.    We  should  expect  something 
like  the  Jewish  interpretation  by  two  (so  (&^)  i.e.,  by  a  double  tie,  or  by  one 
0/  the  two  (so  W).    But  the  former  would  be  ironical,  and  the  latter  leaves  the 
main  word  unexpressed.     We  are  forced  therefore  to  leave  the  problem  un- 
solved.    Kl.  supposes  a^nyi'i  =  in  tzvo  years,  but  this  does  not  help  the  real 
difficulty.     (5^  has  eV  to.1%  Swdfieaiy  (in  virtiite  I),  which  probably  represents 
only  a  conjecture.  —  22.   vi^i\  of  what  is  done  stealthily,  24*.  —  innnn]  one  is 
tempted  to  translate  propose  yourself  as  son-in-law,  which  the  form  would 
certainly  bear.     But  this  could  not  be  carried  through  the  passage,  cf.  v.^''.  — 
^So3]  probably  shows  the  real  force  to  be  ally  yotirself  by  marriage  with  the 
Aing.  — 23.   n-^p:^  is  the  exact  opposite  of  i33j.  Is.  3*.  —  25.   inca]  cf.  Schm. 
p.  623;  on  Arab  customs  WRS.  Kinship,  p.  78.     Greek  examples  are  cited  by 
Driver  and  Nestle  {Marginalien,  p.  14,  citing  //.  9,  141  ff.  2831?.).— 13]  some 
good  Hebrew  MSS.  have  dn  >3  in  the  text  —  and  this  is  the  reading  of  the 
Babylonian  school  (Cappellus,  Critica  Sacra,  p.  190;   Baer,  p.  118).  —  niSij?] 
We.  refers  to  Dillmann,  Lex.  Ethiop.  s.v.     Josephus  gives  six  hundred  heads 
as  the  price,  in  order  not  to  offend  the  taste  of  his  Gentile  readers.  —  26.    nSi 
D'DM  inSo]  is  lacking  in  (g^  inserted  in  (5^.  after  the  first  word  of  the  next 
verse.     It  is  an  interpolation,  intended  to  magnify  David's  zeal  (We.,  Dr.). — 
27.   0\-iNa]  is  another  change  of  the  same  sort.     (5  has  one  htmdred,  which  is 
confirmed  by  2  S.  3I*.     nn  after  n^m  is  lacking  in  (S  IL.  —  dinSs'i]   should 
probably  be  read  dnSdm,  David  being  the  subject.     He  alone  could  pay  in 
full  to  become  the  king's  son-in-law.     The  change  to  the  plural  was  made  to 
avoid  the  disagreeable  picture  of  David  presented  by  the  word,  one  especially 
offensive  to  later  ritual  ideas  —  for  which  reason  also  it  was  omitted  by  ®b 
(We.). 

Repeated  consideration  of  the  natural  connexion  of  the  narrative,  forces 
me  to  the  conclusion  expressed  above,  that  in  the  original  story  Saul's  attempt 
to  murder  David  in  his  house  (19"*)  was  made  on  his  wedding  night.  Other- 
wise we  have  an  incident,  whose  character  stamps  it  as  original,  which  we  can- 
not fit  into  the  history.  In  case  this  be  correct,  we  sholild  probably  join  19^1  to 
18^'  by  taking  two  words  from  the  end  of  19I0,  and  reading  Ninn  nS^Sa  >nM. 


XVIII.  20-XIX.  2  175 

28.  j.n>ij  lacking  in  (S^l^  j^  superfluous.  —  innans  Swif-na  '^31131]  can  be 
translated  only  parenthetically  :  '  Saul  saw  that  Yahweh  was  with  David  (while 
Michal,  Saul's  daughter,  loved  him)  and  he  feared.'  But  the  effect  is  not 
harmonious,  and  we  should  doubtless  restore  the  reading  of  ®  ^^  '^nib'i  So  131 
nnN  (©I'  combines  the  two  texts).  This  gives  an  additional  reason  for  Saul's 
fear,  which  is  what  we  expect.  —  29.  iDXii]  the  Qre  substitutes  IDri;  the 
difference  is  only  one  of  spelling.  —  ni'^  for  Nn^*^,  cf.  Ges.26,  §  69  n.  The  latter 
part  of  -8  and  the  whole  of  29f-  are  lacking  in  (g^;  they  point  out,  superfluously, 
the  contrast  between  Saul's  attitude  and  that  of  David.  The  original  opening 
of  19I  may  have  been :  And  Saul  was  hostile  to  David,  which  is  now  read  in 
i829. 

Chapter  XIX.  Saul's  attempts  upon  David. — The  chapter  is 
made  up  of  four  sections,  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  each 
other. 

1-7.  Temporary  conciliation  of  Saul.  — Saul  gives  orders  to 
slay  David.  Jonathan,  after  warning  David,  intercedes  for  him 
with  success  and  brings  him  again  before  Saul. 

The  connexion  of  the  paragraph  is  not  plain.  It  appears  to  be 
another  version  of  the  story  contained  in  20^-^.  Its  object  is  to 
account  for  David's  continuance  at  court  after  Saul's  hatred  had 
become  so  pronounced. 

1-7.  The  opening  of  the  chapter  would  follow  very  well  any  of  the  state- 
ments of  Saul's  hatred  contained  in  the  preceding  chapter.  If  the  account  is 
secondary,  as  compared  with  2oi-39,  we  should  probably  refer  it  to  the  later 
of  our  two  documents.  Its  object  here  is  to  show  why  David  is  still  found  at 
court  after  Saul's  hatred  has  become  so  pronounced.  In  this  view  of  it,  we 
might  make  y}^-  join  immediately  to  iS^^a-  —  Saul  feared  David  yet  more, 
and  gave  orders  to  kill  him.  The  rest  of  the  section  would  be  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  this  command  with  the  following  paragraph,  in  which  David  is  still 
the  king's  harper.  That  vM-  is  by  a  different  hand  from  what  follows,  is  made 
probable  by  the  difference  in  the  form  of  Jonathan's  name. 

1.  Saul  commanded  Jonathan,  his  son,  and  all  his  officers  to 
put  David  to  death']  the  writer  seems  not  to  have  mentioned  Jon- 
athan's friendship  for  David  earlier.  Here  he  introduces  it :  Yet 
Jonathan,  SatiPs  son,  delighted  in  David  exceedingly.  —  2.  Jona- 
than warns  David  :  My  father  is  seeking  to  put  thee  to  death;  now 
beware,  in  the  morning']  the  conversation  is  supposed  to  take  place 
in  the  evening.  —  Hide  thyself  and  remain  in  a  secret  place]  this 
is  the  natural  order,  though  not  that  of  the  received  text. — 


1/6  1  SAMUEL 

3.  The  proposition  ot  Jonathan  is  :  1  will  go  out  and  stand  by  the 
side  of  my  father  in  the  field  where  thou  art~\  so  that  David  would 
overhear,  and  be  informed  without  a  direct  communication  from 
Jonathan,  for  which  there  might  be  no  opportunity.  The  last 
clause  of  the  verse  :  and  whatever  I  see  I  will  tell  thee"]  does  not 
seem  to  bear  this  out,  and  there  may  be  interpolation.  —  4.  Jona- 
than's panegyric  is  little  calculated  to  soothe  Saul's  jealousy,  and 
represents  the  author's  view  rather  than  that  of  Jonathan.  The 
first  point  is  :  [David]  has  not  been  at  fault  in  regard  to  thee,  and 
his  actions  towards  thee  are  exceeding  good']  this  is  appropriate  to 
the  object.  —  5.  The  next  is  not  so  certain  to  make  a  favourable 
impression:  Atid  he  risked  his  life]  28^^  Jd.  12^;  and  smote  the 
Philistine,  and  Yahweh  wrought  a  great  deliverance]  by  him,  as 
(§^  rightly  interprets.  The  deliverance  was  in  fact  a  reason  for 
Saul's  favour  rather  than  his  anger.  Whether  he  was  in  a  frame 
of  mind  to  apprehend  this,  is  not  so  certain.  Still  at  the  time  he 
had  rejoiced,  as  Jonathan  reminds  him.  —  And  why  wilt  thou  sin 
in  the  matter  of  innocent  blood  in  slaying  David  without  cause  ? 
25^^  I  K.  2^^  —  6.  The  plea  was  effectual  and  Saul  gave  his  oath  : 
By  the  life  of  Yahweh,  he  shall  not  be  put  to  death.  —  7.  There- 
upon Jonathan  called  David]  the  evident  implication  is  that  he 
was  not  far  away,  as  was  planned  in  vv.^  ^  —  And  Jonathan 
brought  David  to  Saul  and  he  was  in  his  presence  as  heretofore] 
instead  of  being  obliged  to  hide  from  him. 

1.  iPJV]  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter  we  find  jrjin\  The  form  here  may  be 
due  to  a  scribe.  But  elsewhere  we  observe  considerable  constancy  in  the 
urage  of  the  different  documents.  —  vi3j;]  of  the  officers  of  the  king,  as  else- 
where.—  2.  ''3N]  is  lacking  in  @^.  But  more  probably  it  alone  was  expressed 
originally.  —  np^aj  is  lacking  is  5.  —  ipd3  nair^i]  belongs  after  nN^nji  and 
this  order  seems  to  be  indicated  by  (5,  as  was  pointed  out  by  We.  The  w.^-  ^ 
are  supposed  by  Co.  and  Bu.  to  be  an  interpolation.  In  fact  the  sense  is  good 
without  them.  But  if  the  whole  paragraph  has  arisen  under  the  influence  of 
2oi-39j  these  verses  belong  to  it;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  that  chapter  is  an 
expansion  of  this  paragraph  it  is  probable  that  the  hiding  here  was  the  feature 
on  which  the  author's  mind  took  hold.  Bu.  proposed  at  first  to  strike  out  only 
'"',  while  Ki.  ascribes  the  whole  of  v.^  to  the  redactor.  —  3.  The  verse  seems 
inconsistent  with  itself,  as  the  only  object  of  Jonathan's  speaking  with  Saul 
iti  the  field  would  be  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  communicating  with  him  after- 
wards. And  yet  this  communication  is  promised  in  the  second  half  of  the 
verse.  —  no  n^N-\i]  cf.  nn  ^r\>\  =  whatever  it  may  be,  2  S.  18^.  —  4.   rtpyo]  is 


XIX.  3  10  177 

supposed  by  Dr.  lo  be  a  singular.  There  seems  no  reason  however  why 
Jonathan  may  not  make  his  affirmation  ^6'«^ra/ — to  the  effect  that  all  David's 
actions  are  blameless.  —  ■i'?"3ia]  the  words  seem  to  be  transposed;  possibly 
the  second  is  an  insertion,  as  it  is  not  represented  in  <3^^.  —  5.  loo^l  S  trans- 
lates 'and  he  put  his  life  in  i/iy  hands.'  —  nin>]  (gL  adds  5t'  ai/rov,  which  is  at 
least  correct  sense  (represented  also  in  S).  —  '«i'ni  hint  SK-ia'i'73'?]  kuI  nas 
'Upa7)K  eUov  nal  fxdpwav  6  (with  slight  variation)  =  nDB'M  nxi  'iy^  '?31.  The 
decision  between  the  two  is  not  easily  made.  On  the  one  side,  the  statement 
that  Israel  rejoiced  at  David's  success  seems  calculated  to  stir  up  Saul's  anger. 
But  this  is  true  of  nearly  all  Jonathan's  speech,  and  the  reading  of  (S  is  quite 
in  line  with  the  rest  of  the  speech.  On  the  other  side,  the  following  nr:--!  is 
more  forcible  if  connected  directly  with  the  statement  of  Saul's  earlier  attitude. 
For  this  reason  I  retain  ^.  —  6.  "^ipa  yDi:")]  in  the  sense  of  hearing  favourably 
Num.  2i3  (J)  Dt.  2ii«  Jd.  20^3_  —  7.  jpjin^  ^-iri]  the  subject  is  omitted  by 
5@BL  |(^.  'phe  repetition  of  Jonathan's  name  three  times  in  the  same  verse 
is  in  fact  surprising,  and  shows  the  desire  of  the  author  (or  perhaps  the  desire 
of  a  scribe)  to  call  especial  attention  to  Jonathan's  nobility  of  character. 

8-10.  Saul  attempts  David's  life.  —  The  incident  is  a  duplicate 
of  that  related  in  iS^"*"-,  and  the  two  accounts  are  possibly  variants 
of  one  original.  On  the  other  hand,  Saul  seems  there  simply  to 
have  hfted  the  spear  without  throwing  it,  and  it  may  be  the  idea 
of  the  author  that  David  was  saved  by  an  unintentional  turning 
away  —  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  possible  therefore  that  the 
two  accounts  are  intended  to  represent  two  successive  attempts 
of  the  same  kind,  separated  by  the  reconciliation  19^'^.  In  both 
cases  Saul's  hatred  is  motived  by  David's  success  against  the 
Philistines.  —  8.  And  there  zvas  war  again']  intimates  that  such 
had  been  the  case  before.  As  the  account  stands,  the  reference 
must  be  to  the  war  in  which  Goliath  was  slain.  —  9.  The  evil 
spirit  is  here  called  (in  31^)  the  evil  spirit  of  Yahweh,  contrary  to 
the  usage  of  other  passages.  The  emendation  suggested  by  (^ 
which  brings  them  into  conformity,  is  now  generally  adopted. 
The  circumstances  of  the  attack  are  given  :  IVhik  he  was  sitting 
in  his  house  with  his  spear  in  his  hand,  and  David  was  playing 
with  his  hand.  — 10.  This  time  the  frenzied  king  sought  to  pin 
David  to  the  wall  with  the  spear]  if  the  account  is  by  the  same 
hand  with  the  earlier  parallel,  18'"  ",  we  may  say  that  it  was  the 
fixed  idea  recurring  to  the  madman.  —  But  David  slipped  arvay 
from  Saul's  presence,  so  that  he  smote  the  spear  into  the  wall]  the 
language  is  different  from  that  used  above.     That  David  fled  and 


178  I  SAMUEL 

escaped  is  too  strong  language  to  use,  if  he  simi)ly  went  to  his 
own  house. 

8-10.  1  cannot  pretend  to  solve  the  riddle  propounded  by  the  interweaving 
of  texts  here.  It  seems  to  me  probable  however  that  one  document  gave  the 
following  order  of  events:  (i)  David's  conquest  of  the  Philistines;  (2)  Saul's 
first  attempt  with  the  spear;  (3)  Saul's  command  to  Jonathan,  followed  by  the 
temporary  reconciliation;  (4)  the  second  attempt  with  the  spear,  followed  by 
David's  flight. 

9.  n;-i  nini  nn]  cf.  the  note  on  16I*  (We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.  agree  in  the  emen- 
dation here).  —  inoa  Nini]  a  circumstantial  clause.  —  i>a]  read  nij  with  four 
Hebrew  MSS.  and  (5,  so  Th.,  We.,  al.  —  10.  •\''\'i\\  is  lacking  in  (@bl  go  that 
the  meaning  would  be  to  smite  David  zvith  the  spear.  The  grotesque  idea 
of  pinning  David  to  the  wall  is  more  likely  original,  in  the  account  of  a  man 
possessed.  —  laDM]  apparently  broke  azvay  from  what  he  was  doing.  —  bSci  dj] 
cannot  refer  to  David's  escape  from  the  immediate  danger,  which  is  sufficiently 
described  by  n^DM.  The  words  evidently  mean  that  he  left  the  court  and  city 
altogether.  —  .sin  n'^^Sa]  belongs  with  the  next  verse. 

11-17.  The  siege  of  David's  house.  —  Saul  sets  watchmen 
about  David's  house,  intending  to  kill  him  in  the  morning.  Michal 
warns  him  of  his  danger  and  assists  him  to  flee.  She  then  supplies 
his  place  in  bed  with  the  Teraphim.  Saul  sends  messengers  to 
take  David,  and  they  bring  back  word  that  he  is  ill  in  bed.  There- 
upon he  orders  him  to  be  brought  as  he  is,  and  the  deception  is 
discovered. 

The  paragraph  should  begin  with  :  and  it  came  to  pass  that 
night  from  the  end  of  v.'**.  The  first  question  is  :  what  night  is 
meant?  No  reference  has  been  made  to  a  night  at  all.  But  the 
most  natural  interpretation  is  that  David's  wedding  night  is  in- 
tended. Psychologically  this  is  also  what  we  should  expect. 
Saul's  growing  fear  has  led  him  to  promise  David  his  daughter  in 
marriage,  in  the  hope  that  the  price  to  be  paid  may  bring  David 
into  danger  and,  in  fact,  remove  him  by  death.  The  result  has 
been  only  to  increase  David's  reputation  and  Saul's  fear.  The 
crisis  comes  when  the  hated  parvenu  actually  takes  his  bride  to 
his  house.  This  will  be  the  time  to  strike ;  David  will  be  unsus- 
picious, his  friends  will  have  dispersed  after  the  marriage  feasting. 
Dramatically  nothing  could  be  more  effective.  To  this  should  be 
added  that  the  discrepancy  with  the  preceding  paragraph  is  as 
marked  as  could  be  conceived.     In  that  section  David  has  already 


XIX.  IO-I7  179 

'  fled  and  escaped.'     In  this  he  is  unsuspicious  of  the  king  until 
warned  by  his  wife. 

11-17.  The  considerations  urged  above  are  perhaps  sufficient  to  show  the 
probabiUty  of  the  connexion  of  this  passage  with  i8'^^.  That  the  account  is 
old  is  conceded,  but  which  document  furnished  it  is  not  agreed  upon  by  the 
critics.  Co.  is  uncertain;  Bu.  puts  it  with  E  and  makes  it  continuous  with  the 
preceding.     Ki.  also  makes  it  continuous  with  the  preceding. 

11.  And  it  came  to  pass  that  night'\  according  to  our  construc- 
tion the  night  of  taking  possession  of  the  bride ;  that  Saul  sent 
tnessengers  to  the  house  of  David  to  watch  it,  so  as  to  kill  him  in 
the  f?iorning.  David  was  so  unsuspicious  that  he  had  to  be  warned 
by  his  wife  :  If  thou  do  not  deliver  thy  life  to-night,  to-morrow 
thou  shall  be  slain']  the  fact  that  David  is  utterly  unprepared  for 
the  information  argues  for  the  connexion  suggested  above. — 
12.  The  escape  was  effected  in  that  she  let  David  down  through 
the  window]  similar  instances  are  Jos.  2^'",  and  the  case  of  Paul  in 
the  New  Testament,  Acts  9'-^^.  In  2i^*'-  we  find  David  coming  to 
the  priest  at  Nob  without  arms  and  without  attendants,  which  can 
be  accounted  for  only  by  this  verse.  — 13.  In  order  to  delay  the 
discovery  of  David's  flight,  and  so  give  him  an  opportunity  to  get 
away,  Michal  contrives  to  deceive  the  messengers.  —  She  took  the 
Teraphim]  the  household  god,  which  is  evidently  presented  as  in 
human  form ;  and  placed  it  on  the  bed]  a  plain  couch,  probably 
a  rude  frame  covered  with  leather;  and  a  cloth  of  goat's  hair  for 
his  pillow]  the  translation  is  only  a  conjecture.  —  And  covered  it 
with  the  garment]  which  regularly  served  for  that  purpose.  The 
Israelite  probably  covered  his  head  with  a  garment  when  sleeping, 
as  is  still  done  by  the  Arabs.  — 14.  In  the  morning  *  Saul  sent  mes- 
sengers to  take  David  and  they  thought  him  to  be  ill]  the  stratagem 
was  effective,  so  far  as  the  first  report  of  the  messengers  was  con- 
cerned.— 15.  And  Saul  sent  to  the  house  of  David]  as  we  may 
conjecturally  restore  the  reading  :  saying:  bring  him  on  the  couch 
to  me  that  I  may  slay  hitn.  — 16,  17.  The  ruse  is  discovered,  and 
Saul  expostulates  with  his  daughter  :  Why  hast  thou  deceived  me 
thus  f    Her  answer  is  a  false  plea,  that  her  life  had  been  threatened. 

*  Lohr  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  to  enter  the  house  of  another  in  the  night 
is  contrary  to  oriental  morals. 


I So  I  SAMUEL 

11.  The  verse  should  begin  Ninn  ^'?^'^^  'hm  reading  with  (5,  so  Th.,  We., 
al.  The  two  words  Nin  nS>s3  are  in  |§  connected  with  the  preceding  verse. 
Although  precedents  are  found  for  Nin  n'?''?3,  it  is  better  to  read  Ninn  -3  as  a 
n  may  have  easily  dropped  out  on  account  of  the  recurrence  of  the  same 
letter.  —  in^cn'^i]  is  an  example  of  the  reverse  error.  The  initial  1  has  been 
duplicated  from  the  preceding  word  (omitted  by  @).  —  i^'flj-nx  taVoD]  cf.  i  K. 
112.  — 13.  Dia-inn]  cf.  ZVVT.  18S1,  170 ff.  Kivoratpia  (5  seems  to  imply  a«(r«- 
tral  images.  The  word  is  found  always  in  the  plural,  but  is  here  quite  clearly 
applied  to  a  single  image;  and  this  image  is  apparently  of  the  natural  human 
size.  On  the  word  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  17^  with  the  references  there;  cf.  also  the 
Lexx.  with  reff.  and  Schm.  pp.  652,  659.  —  narn-'^N]  one  of  the  numerous  cases 
where  '?;•  and  Sn  are  confused.  —  los]  occurs  only  in  this  passage  and  is  not  yet 
explained  satisfactorily.  (§  read  12:,  and  Josephus  expands  this  into  a  statement 
that  Michal  put  a  goat's  liver  into  the  bed,  the  palpitation  of  which  (it  being 
freshly  killed  is  supposed)  made  the  messengers  of  Saul  think  David  was  gasp- 
ing with  his  illness.  The  objection  is  that  Michal  could  hardly  need  such  a 
device  even  if  she  had  a  freshly  killed  goat  in  the  house.  The  reading  of  |§ 
might  readily  be  changed  to  132  by  a  scribe  unfamiliar  with  the  word  102.  The 
cognate  words  m^r,  a  sieve,  and  i2D':,  a  metal  network,  as  well  as  i3?^,  2  K. 
8^^,  seem  to  indicate  for  this  word  something  woven  of  goat's  hair,  an;?  n>'n% 
Ex.  26^,  is  the  goat's  hair  covering  of  the  Tabernacle.  The  common  interpre- 
tation of  the  present  passage  is  that  Michal  put  a  mosquito  net  over  the  head 
of  the  image ;  so  Schm.  p.  653,  Ew.,  G  VI^.  III.  107  f.,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  77.  But  is 
a  net  of  this  kind  ever  made  of  goat's  hair?  It  seems  more  probable  that  she 
put  a  cushion  as  a  pillow,  riirsno  is  used  of  the  pillow,  Gen.  28"-  '*.  In  i  S, 
26  and  I  K.  19^  vrrxis  means  at  his  head,  a  phrase  which  would  not  naturally 
be  used  of  a  net  put  over  the  head.  Whatever  Michal  used  here  was  therefore 
probably  placed  as  a  pillow  5.  A  living  man  would  not  need  such,  being 
accustomed  to  sleep  on  his  arm.  The  Teraphim  would  lie  too  flat  unless  its 
head  were  supported  by  something  of  the  kind.*  But  again,  the  image  would 
be  destitute  of  hair,  and  there  is  still  a  possibility  that  she  took  a  bundle  of 
goat's  hair  and  made  it  simulate  David's  hair;  so  some  of  the  Rabbis;  cf. 
Schm.  p.  653.  All  this  shows  the  uncertainty  that  must  attach  to  any  transla- 
tion.— 14.  isxni]  but  if  the  mere  word  of  Michal  was  to  be  taken,  there  was 
no  need  of  the  elaborate  precautions  already  related.  We  should  read  nsN'i 
with  (S'^^,  making  the  messengers  the  subject.  They  came  to  take  him,  but 
seeing  the  bed  thus  arranged :  they  said  to  themselves,  he  is  ill.  — 15.  ...  rht'^-\ 
in]  if  the  messengers  had  once  seen  David,  as  we  have  just  supposed,  it  was 
superfluous  to  send  them  to  see  him  again.  Besides,  as  we  learn  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  verse,  their  object  was  to  fetch  him;   niNiS  is  therefore  cer- 

*  From  the  analogy  of  i  S.  26,  we  might  conjecture  that  she  put  a  skin  of  water 
at  the  head  of  the  bed,  a  sick  man  being  feverish  and  thirsty;  so  niij  ST,  and  Kim- 
chi,  apud  Schm.  p.  653.  But  there  are  several  familiar  words  for  waterskin,  and  we 
can  think  of  no  reason  why  so  rare  a  word  should  be  used  in  this  case. 


XIX.  iS-20  l8l 

tainly  wrong,  and  I  propose  to  change  it  to  ^••2^,  or  P"'3-'?k.  (S^^  has  only 
Kal  aTTOffTfWei  iir]  rhv  AaveiS,  which  also  would  meet  the  requirement.  — 
17.  "in^CK  no^]  on  the  idiomatic  use  of  nc'?  to  convey  a  threat,  cf.  Dr.,  Notes. 
The  original  continuation  of  this  account  seems  to  be  21^,  where  David 
comes  to  Nob  to  get  provisions  for  further  flight. 

18-24.  David's  miraculous  protection. —  David  flees  to  Ramah, 
where  Samuel  presides  over  a  choir  of  prophets.  Saul  sends  for 
him  repeatedly,  but  the  Spirit  of  God  comes  upon  the  messengers 
so  that  they  can  do  nothing  but  prophesy.  At  last  Saul  comes 
himself  and  has  the  same  experience.     Hence  arises  the  proverb. 

The  section  is  a  late  adaptation  of  lo^""^^,  which  explains  the 
origin  of  the  proverb  by  Saul's  experience  at  the  outset  of  his 
career.  The  present  writer  adapts  the  story  to  David's  life,  mak- 
ing its  point  his  miraculous  preservation  from  Saul's  persecution. 
In  its  emphasis  of  the  divine  care,  it  reminds  us  of  the  account 
iS"''-  where  we  suppose  the  original  meaning  to  have  been  that 
David  turned  from  Saul's  attempt  because  Yahweh  was  ivith  him. 
Because  of  this  resemblance,  we  may  conjecture  that  this  para- 
graph was  originally  the  sequel  to  the  second  attempt  with  the 
spear  —  1 9^"^°. 

18-24.  The  critics  agree  that  this  piece  is  late,  but  are  at  a  loss  as  to  its  con- 
nexions. The  theory  advanced  above  gives  its  probable  antecedent,  whereas 
its  later  continuation  may  plausibly  be  assumed  to  be  David's  flight  to  Achish, 
2inff._  'pj^g  appearance  of  Samuel  shows  the  general  stream  of  narrative  to 
which  the  story  must  be  reckoned. 

18.  But  David  fled  and  escaped^  resumes  the  narrative  of 
David's  fortunes,  after  the  diversion  made  by  Michal's  stratagem. 
—  And  came  to  Samuel  at  Ramah'\  Samuel's  home.  The  theory 
of  the  author  is  that  Samuel  would  be  able  to  protect  David. 
After  an  interview,  in  which  he  told  Samuel  of  his  experiences 
with  Saul,  he  and  Samuel  tvent  and  dwelt  in  .  .  .]  the  place  in- 
tended can  no  longer  be  made  out.  That  it  was  some  special 
building  in  Ramah  is  the  most  probable  conjecture  —  perhaps  the 
cloister  (coenobium)  of  the  prophets.  Such  a  dweUing  or  settle- 
ment existed  at  Gilgal  in  the  time  of  Elisha,  2  K.  6^"^  In  i  S. 
10^  it  is  implied  that  the  prophets  dwelt  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  the  sanctuary  would  be  the  proper  place  to  seek  the 
supernatural  protertion  which  is  here  described.  — 19,  20.    Saul  is 


l82  I  SAMUEL 

informed  of  the  fugitive's  place  of  sojourn  and  sends  messengers 
to  take  him  :  And  they  saw  the  company  of  prophets  prophesying 
with  Samuel  standing  over  them'\  the  rehgious  exercises  here  de- 
scribed are  evidently  of  the  enthusiastic  character  of  those  in 
lo* '°.  And  the  spirit  of  God  came  upon  the  messengers  of  Saul, 
and  they  also  prophesied~\  the  contagion  affected  them,  so  that 
they  were  unable  to  carry  out  the  king's  command.  —  21,  This 
was  repeated  with  a  second  and  with  a  third  company  of  satellites. 
—  22.  At  last,  SauVs  anger  was  aroused  and  he  also  went  to 
Ramah']  the  opening  of  the  verse  is  supplied  from  (§.  —  In  his 
progress,  he  came  to  the  cister?i  of  the  threshing-floor  which  is  on 
the  height,  and  asked :  Where  are  Satnuel  a?id  David ?]  the  text  is 
restored  according  to  (§,  —  23.  On  being  told,  he  went  thence, 
and  the  Spirit  of  God  canie  upon  him  also  and  he  marched  along 
prophesying  until  he  catne  to  .  .  .']  the  place  mentioned  is  the 
same  already  named  in  v.^^  —  24.  The  manifestations  in  Saul,  as 
in  the  others,  are  of  an  extravagant  character:  He  stripped  off  his 
clothes  and  prophesied  before  Samuel  atid  lay  naked  all  that  day 
and  all  that  night.  The  resemblance  to  the  ecstasy  of  the  der- 
vishes is  striking.  The  proverb  to  which  this  gives  rise  has  already 
been  mentioned.  The  surprise  which  it  expresses  is  far  more  in 
place  in  the  earlier  narrative  than  here,  where  Saul's  possession 
has  become  a  fixed  fact. 

18.  eSnii  ma  tni]  as  it  stands  may  be  the  original  conclusion  of  the  pre- 
ceding narrative  (Bu.).  —  pnja  Kt.:  nvj3  Qre\  the  word  is  entirely  unknown. 
©  adds  here  in  Ramah,  as  |§  does  in  vv.20-22f._  gu^  the  addition  there  is 
necessary;  here  it  is  not,  and  the  reading  of  ®  is  the  result  of  conformity. 
The  Kethib  is  presumably  to  be  pointed  pm:,  but  no  such  word  occurs  else- 
where. A  word  nij  from  a  root  meaning  to  dwell  or  to  sit  quiet  is  found,  and 
in  2oi  this  word  is  written  nij  (by  Baer  only),  which  would  be  the  plural  of 
nij.  @  seems  to  have  read  nin  {kv  'AuaS'^i",  corrected  into  eV  Uavidd  in  ^). 
As  pointed  out  by  Dr.  nij  "  denotes  in  particular  a  pastoral  abode,"  2  S.  7*. 
That  Samuel  and  David  should  have  taken  refuge  in  the  sheepfolds  is  impos- 
sible to  suppose.  In  2  S.  152^  David  says  to  Zadok :  "  If  I  find  favour  in  the 
eyes  of  Yahweh,  he  will  bring  me  back  and  show  me  Ais  dwelling,"  where  the 
word  nij  seems  to  designate  the  tent  in  which  Yahweh  dwelt.  As  the  prophets 
in  lo^  come  down  from  the  Bama  (which  was  the  sanctuary)  it  does  not  seem 
remote  to  suppose  the  original  here  was  nini  mj  or  nirr  ni:  which  has  been 
purposely  obscured  to  conceal  the  fact  that  there  was  a  sanctuary  at  Ramah 
(a  fact  which  the  later  time  could  not  rightly  estimate).      The  precarious 


XIX.  20-XX.  1 83 

nature  of  the  definitions  given  in  this  passage  is  well  exposed  by  Driver  in  his 
Notes.  For  completeness  I  may  add  that  Josephus  gives  a  proper  name 
YaXQaviQ  {Ant.  VI.  221  =  VI.,  XI.  5) ;  the  early  Jewish  tradition  is  represented 
by  NjD'riN  no  of  ST;  and  that  S  has  njv.  —  20.  nti]  cannot  be  right  and 
must  be  changed  to  ixnn  with  ©.  —  npnS]  is  an  unknown  word.  @<S  seem 
to  have  read  'rnp  or  n'7np  (cf.  Hoffmann,  ZATW.  III.  89). — a^K3j]  is  lacking 
in  @B  but  is  necessary  to  the  sense.  —  2Sj  -id;j]  the  two  words  together  are 
impossible,  and  must  be  explained  as  the  error  of  a  scribe  who  wrote  "io>'  from 
memory,  and  afterwards  inserted  the  correct  word  jsj.  K1.,  followed  by  Bu., 
proposes  nxjD  on  the  basis  of  f\'ht>  W.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  tB 
throughout  has  the  idea  that  Samuel  was  a  rabbinical  teacher,  and  its  inter- 
pretation must  be  taken  with  allowance;  moreover  nxjD  occurs  only  in  Ezra, 
Chronicles,  and  the  superscriptions  to  the  Psalms  (and  Hab.  3).  —  23.  iSm 
.WTajj  Kal  (6ufj.ci9r]  opy^  SoouA,  Kal  iiropevdrj  kuI  aiiTos  (&  (with  slight  varia- 
tion). The  touch  seems  natural,  and  the  loss  of  a  single  clause  is  not  difficult 
to  account  for.  —  Snjn  in—ij;]  is  ungrammatical.  Restore  pjn  iia  i;?  with 
(gBL^  and  for  ixo  read  istto  (iv  t$  'S.i<pei  @^,  eV  "S.etpi  (5^).  The  iflU'  or  bare- 
topped  hill  was  the  proper  place  for  a  threshing-floor.  Kl.  conjectures  (with 
slight  ground)  the  threshiitg-fioor  on  which  Samuel  was  accustomed  to  sit  in 
judgment. — The  second  iCvsn  means  one  said,  as  frequently.  —  nsna]  is  here 
superfluous  and  probably  to  be  omitted,  with  Bu.  Saul  is  already  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  Ramah  when  he  makes  the  inquiry.  —  23.  oa*]  error  for 
am  (^iKiWev  (§'^2  lacking  in  ^).  —  N^jnii  i^n]  I  have  no  hesitation  in  restor- 
ing the  regular  N3jnni  -pr\  which  we  should  expect  here.  —  24.  Nirroj]  is 
omitted  in  both  instances  by  (Q,^^,  in  the  second  instance  only  by  5.  One  of 
the  two  can  well  be  spared,  and,  if  either,  the  latter.  The  older  commentators 
(Theod.)  saw  in  the  stripping  off  of  the  clothes  a  sign  of  the  loss  of  the 
kingdom. 

XX.  1-XXI.  1.  David's  flight.  —  David  complains  to  Jona- 
than of  Saul's  purpose  to  kill  him.  Jonathan  reassures  him,  but 
offers  to  test  his  father's  state  of  mind  in  any  way  David  may  sug- 
gest. David  proposes  to  absent  himself  from  the  court  under  the 
plea  of  a  family  sacrifice.  If  Saul  condones  the  breach  of  eti- 
quette, they  will  know  that  all  is  well.  If  not,  David's  forebodings 
will  be  justified.  The  result  is  as  David  anticipated.  Jonathan 
communicates  the  result  of  his  test  by  a  sign  agreed  upon,  without 
personal  communication  with  David.  By  grace  of  the  redactor 
however  they  have  a  final  interview,  vv.'"*^^. 

It  is  evident  that  the  piece  does  not  agree  with  what  immedi- 
ately precedes.  The  hostility  of  Saul  is  as  yet  known  only  to 
David.     Even  Jonathan  is  ignorant  of  it.     This  points  to  a  time 


1 84  »  SAMUEL 

before  David's  journey  to  Rauiah,  before  the  attempt  frustrated  by 
Michal,  before  even  Jonathan's  former  intercession  with  his  father. 
Had  the  author  known  of  an  earher  attempt  at  reconciUation,  he 
would  have  made  at  least  a  passing  allusion  to  it  here.  The  diffi- 
culty into  which  we  are  brought  by  attempting  to  classify  the  para- 
graph with  either  of  the  two  main  sources  of  our  narrative  must  be 
obvious.  Yet  it  can  hardly  have  been  a  stray  leaflet  which  some 
scribe  inserted  after  the  double  story  was  already  completed.  It 
has  a  bearing  at  least  upon  the  life  of  David,  for  it  prepares  the 
way  for  his  treatment  of  Jonathan's  son  Meribbaal.  In  the  pres- 
ent state  of  our  knowledge  this  is  as  much  as  \vc  can  say. 

XX.  1-XXI.  1.  On  the  critical  questions  consult  the  usual  authorities  and 
what  is  said  above  in  the  Introduction,  §  5.  As  to  the  integrity  of  the  piece 
itself,  we  may  note  that  vv.'''^^  contradict  the  plain  implication  of  what  pre- 
cedes—  that  it  was  dangerous  for  David  and  Jonathan  to  communicate 
directly.  These  verses  are  probably  a  later  insertion.  The  rest  of  the  chapter 
seems  sometimes  overfull  and  may  have  been  interpolated.  Budde's  ex- 
cision of  vv.*"!^  as  redactional  however  has  not  commanded  any  large  meas- 
ure of  assent.  Bonk  gives  a  detailed  analysis,  which  also  lacks  probability. 
Verses  ^^'^^  may  be  from  a  different  source  from  the  rest  of  the  chapter. 

1-10.  The  first  clause  is  the  redactional  suture.  According 
to  the  rest  of  the  verse  David  came  and  complained  to  Jonathan 
of  the  conduct  of  Saul.  The  older  commentators,  who  accepted 
the  historicity  of  the  account  as  it  stands,  were  much  puzzled  to 
account  for  David's  behaviour.  Why  should  he  expose  himself  to 
further  danger  after  having  such  unmistakable  evidence  of  Saul's 
hostility  as  the  preceding  chapter  furnishes?  And  how  could 
Jonathan  be  so  ignorant  of  Saul's  temper  after  so  public  an  exhi- 
bition? Attempts  at  conciliation  (Schm.,  al.)  are  compelled  to 
explain  away  the  obvious  force  of  language.  David's  complaint 
shows  that  Saul  is  not  conceived  of  as  having  shown  open  hostil- 
ity:  What  have  I  done?  What  is  my  guilt,  and  what  my  sin 
before  thy  father,  that  he  is  seeking  my  life?  —  2.  Jonathan  re- 
assures David  (or  tries  to  reassure  him)  :  Far  be  it!  Thou  shalt 
not  die.  My  father  does  not  even  a  small  thing  7inthout  letting  me 
know,  and  why  should  my  father  hide  this  from  me  ?  Not  so  ! 
Jonathan's  complete  ignorance  of  Saul's  state  of  mind  could  not 
be  more  strongly  expressed.  —  3.    David's  reply  suggests  the  rea- 


XX.  i-s  185 

son  of  Jonathan's  ignorance:  Thy  father  well  knows  that  I  am  m 
favour  with  thee'\  the  standing  phrase,  elsewhere  translated  have 
foutid  grace  in  thine  eyes.  Saul's  thought  is  :  Let  not  Jonathan 
know  this,  lest  he  be  pained^  possibly  the  original  reason  was  lest 
he  make  it  known  or  something  equivalent.  Nevertheless,  by  the 
life  of  Yahwch  and  by  thy  life']  so  the  Bedawy  swore  "  his  tale  was 
truth  by  the  life  of  Ullah  and  by  his  son's  life."  *  —  There  is,  as  it 
were,  a  step  between  me  and  death]  either  another  step  forward 
would  plunge  him  into  destruction,  or  else  death  was  so  close 
upon  his  track  that  in  another  step  it  would  overtake  its  victim. 
—  4,  5.  To  Jonathan's  question:  What  dost  thou  desire  that  I 
do  for  thee  ?  David  replies  with  his  proposal :  To-morrow  is  the 
New  Moon.  But  I  shall  not  sit  with  the  king  to  eat  bread]  the 
plain  implication  is  that  David  was  expected  at  the  king's  table. 
His  absence  would  be  noted  —  evidence  enough  that  there  had 
been  no  open  breach.  The  New  Afoon  was  a  festival  from  the 
earliest  times.  To  the  present  day  the  Arab  of  the  desert  greets 
the  new  moon  with  devout  ejaculations,  and  the  women  'chant 
their  perpetual  refrain  of  a  single  verse,  and  dance  for  an  hour  or 
two.'t  We  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  observance 
goes  back  to  a  time  when  the  moon  was  an  object  of  worship. 
The  reason  why  David  would  not  be  at  the  table  :  But  thou  shall 
let  tne  go  and  I  will  hide  myself  in  the  field  until  evening]  the  po- 
liteness of  David  is  manifested  in  asking  Jonathan's  permission.  — 
6.  If  thy  father  miss  me,  then  thou  shall  say :  David  asked  leave 
of  me]  it  is  doubtful  whether  Jonathan  were  empowered  to  act  in 
the  king's  stead.  But  David  designedly  chooses  to  feign  such  a 
breach  of  etiquette  as  the  king  would  easily  condone  if  he  were  in 
a  good  mood.  The  permission  was  asked  (ostensibly),  to  run  to 
Bethlehem  his  city,  for  there  is  a  yearly  sacrifice  there  for  all  the 
clan]  like  Elkanah's,  2^^.  —  7.  If  Saul  should  condone  the  slight : 
then  it  is  well  with  thy  servant]  as  to  his  standing  with  the  king. 
Otherwise,  know  that  evil  is  deterniined  upon  by  him]  that  is,  by 
Saul,  cf.  25".  —  8.  David  pleads  the  agreement  already  made 
between  Jonathan  and  himself.     Thou  shall  deal  kindly  with  thy 


•Doughty,  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserta,  I.  p.  53. 

t  Doughty,  I.e.,  I.  pp.  366,  455. 


1 86  I  SAMUEL 

semant  because  into  a  bond  sanctioned  by  Yahwch  thou  hast  brought 
thy  servant^  an  agreement  with  divine  sanctions  between  the  two 
is  described  i8^,  and  another  was  made  later,  23^**.  If  there  be 
guilt  in  me,  do  thou  slay  me  —  to  thy  father  why  shouldst  thou  bring 
me?  The  strength  of  conviction  shows  itself  in  the  form  of  the 
protest.  —  9.  Jonathan  gives  renewed  assurance  of  his  willingness 
to  serve  his  friend  :  Far  be  it.'  If  I  know  at  all  that  evil  is  deter- 
mined by  my  father  to  come  upon  thee,  surely  I  will  tell  thee']  such 
must  be  the  meaning,  although  the  present  text  expresses  it  awk- 
wardly if  at  all  (cf.  the  note).  — 10.  David  asks  :  IVho  will  tell 
me  if  thy  father  answer  thee  harshly?]  the  question  implies  that  it 
would  not  be  safe  for  Jonathan  to  meet  David  personally.  The 
answer  is  given  in  v.^**^^  What  comes  between  is  not  a  part  of  the 
earliest  narrative. 

1.  ns-\3  .  .  .  m3'i]  is  called  the  redactional  suture  above.  It  is  possibly 
however  the  original  beginning  of  the  account  of  David's  flight  to  Achish, 
wrhere  it  would  fit  excellently  instead  of  21^^  —  jroin-'  ijaV  ->cnii  n3''i]  is 
rendered  in  @  as  though  it  were  iriNii  pjm''  ijsS  X3''i,  which  is  logically  better. 
Possibly  however  the  division  between  the  two  documents  is  between  the  two 
verbs,  so  that  the  original  connexion  was  Injini  ijdS  icxm  o^rDM  Dj  ^n^  — 
2.  r^z'yh  Kt. :  nz'y'K^  Qre.  The  former  intends  to  begin  if  my  father  had 
done,  but  this  is  not  suitable  to  the  present  context.  We  must  therefore  choose 
the  Qre  —  my  father  will  not  do.  —  in  '^nj  131]  is  lacking  in  @^  and  may 
have  fallen  out  by  scribal  mistake  of  the  second  ->:3T  for  the  first.  As  the 
shorter  text  makes  good  sense  however,  I  have  retained  it.  —  ''jtN  nSj^]  cf.  *2- 13 
and  9^^.  —  TNT  pN]  a  strong  expression  —  there  is  nothing  of  this.  —  3.  yac^i 
ii;']  as  We.  says,  David  has  not  sworn  as  yet,  and  does  not  swear  now.  ®  has 
only  ai'M,  which  is  all  we  need;  iij?  is  a  scribal  expansion  perhaps  duplicate 
of  in,  and  the  duplicatioii  of  its  j;  gave  rise  to  the  reading  of  |§.  The  second 
icnm]  means  says  to  himself,  as  often.  —  asy^'jEj]  the  author  of  this  passage 
would  seem  to  make  Saul  careful  lest  David  should  get  information,  rather 
than  lest  Jonathan  should  be  grieved,  and  traces  of  an  original  reading  with 
this  force  are  found  in  (§^,  which  has  p.\\  ov  ^ov\T)Tai,  which  would  represent 
nxjj'  ja  (We.).  (5^  has,  with  the  same  idea,  ottcos  ;u^  avayyfi\T] rep  Aau/S.  It 
is  difficult  to  suppose  however  that  yn''  was  the  verb  here  unless  we  read  ]d 
ixpv,  lest  they  take  counsel  together,  and  we  are  obliged  to  decide  for  |^,  as 
slightly  more  probable.  —  dSini]  strongly  adversative  to  Jonathan's  assertion 
that  there  was  no  reason  for  David's  suspicion.  —  I'iI'dj  "tii  nin^'in]  cf.  14''^ 
and  BDB.  s.v.  -"n.  The  ^z  is  >3  recitativum.  — ya'D?]  the  like  of  a  step  (Dr.) ; 
yvQ  occurs  here  only  —  the  verb  in  one  passage;  (5  seems  to  paraphrase. 
—  4.  int<n~nD]  does  not  seem  the  word  we  need:  rl  iindvp.i1  @  points  to 
niNH  ns,  which  exactly  fits  the  place.     In  that  case  we  should  point  nc'yxi, 


XX.  8-IO  i87 

^ai  I  may  do.  —  5.  l^'^^]  is  frequently  joined  with  the  Sabbath  as  a  day 
of  religious  observance,  2  K.  4^8  Is.  i^''  Am.  8*.  It  was  adopted  by  the 
Levitical  legislation,  Num.  ioi°  28"-!^;  cf.  Dillmann,  Exodus  und  Levit., 
p.  578  f.,  Benzinger,  Hebr.  Arch.,  §  69,  Muss-Arnolt,  JBL.  1892,  pp.  73  f., 
160  ff. —  3!;'N"3;^i  ijjNi]  is  generally  rendered  /  should  certainly  sit.  But 
if  David  had  meant  that  on  that  day  he  was  confidently  expected  at  the 
king's  table,  he  would  have  expressed  himself  unambiguously  to  that  effect. 
@  inserts  a  negative  and  this  reading  (ditn  nh  2V^  ""ajNi)  has  been  gener- 
ally adopted  since  We.  —  n''i;'i'?rn]  is  not  expressed  in  ©bl  and  is,  in  fact, 
superfluous.  David  did  not  know  that  he  must  remain  in  hiding  until  the 
third  day.  The  word  must  therefore  be  dismissed.  The  only  question  is 
whether  we  should  not  also  throw  out  the  whole  clause,  which  might  easily  be 
inserted  by  a  scribe,  in  anticipation  of  what  actually  followed.  —  6.  npc]  first, 
to  inspect  in  order  to  see  whether  any  is  missing  (13^^  14^').  then  to  discover 
that  some  one  is  missing.  —  Sn^'j]  with  the  proper  Niphal  force  —  asked  for 
himself,  Ges.^s  51  e.  —  DnS-n>3]  for  which  (5  read  Dn'?-n^3  i;;  (adopted  by 
We.,  Bu.).  —  7.  iS  n-im  mn'aNi]  koX  eau  <rK\rjpws  airoKpid^  <roi  (5  (with  slight 
variations).  The  latter  seems  on  the  whole  more  likely  to  have  been  substi- 
tuted for  the  former  than  the  reverse,  it  being  more  in  conformity  with  what 
actually  took  place,  v.i*^  (We.).  —  8.  S;]  should  evidently  be  dj?  with  (SSST. 
(We.,  Dr.,  Bu.). — nin''  p>-i2]  seems  to  be  used  nowhere  else  of  a  covenant 
between  men,  such  as  is  alluded  to  here,  but  cf.  Ex.  221^*.  —  nT-nnS]  is  ren- 
dered as  a  negative  (which  it  is  in  intention)  by  SiL.  —  9.  The  difficulty  is 
with  the  last  clause  of  the  verse :  -jS  t'JN  nnx  nSi.  It  is  possible  to  make  the 
whole  verse  (from  on)  an  oath  with  the  imprecation  suppressed  —  so  We. 
But  in  this  passage,  where  the  feeling  is  so  strong,  it  would  be  unnatural  to 
leave  out  so  important  a  part  of  the  asseveration.  It  is  also  possible  to  make 
the  last  clause  an  interrogation:  If  I  know  .  .  .  shall  I  not  tell  thee?  (Dr.) 
The  difficulty  would  be  relieved  if  we  had  instead  of  kS  an  emphatic  particle 
like  pN.  Such  a  particle  exists  in  the  form  of  S  in  Arabic  and  it  is  possible 
that  it  existed  also  in  Hebrew.  There  are  some  traces  of  it  aside  from  the 
present  passage,  as  Ex.  8^2,  which  is  closely  parallel  to  this :  If  we  sacrifice, 
.  .  .  surely  the  Egyptians  will  slay  us.  I  have  mislaid  the  reference  to  the 
article  (in  JAOS,  if  I  remember  correctly)  in  which  the  identification  of  this 
n'^  with  the  Arabic  la  was  made,  a  few  years  ago.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  ^^ 
adds  etr  ras  TroAeij  (tov,  which  is  also  found,  though  differently  placed,  in  (S'^B_ 
The  addition  is  difficult  to  account  for;  perhaps  npx  was  read  npN  and  was 
then  supplemented  by  an  adverbial  clause  inserted.  Kl.'s  adoption  of  the 
reading  will  hardly  command  assent.  — 10.  hd  in]  kav  (5  represents  ax,  which 
is  doubtless  original.  A  scribe  took  as  to  be  an  abbreviation  of  two  words, 
which  he  therefore  restored.  The  received  text  might  perhaps  be  justified  by 
analogies  (We.,  Dr.)  but  it  seems  simpler  to  correct  it. 

11-17.   Jonathan's  entreaty. — Jonathan  gives  renewed  assur- 
ance of  his  fidelity  and  takes  occasion  to  predict  David's  future 


1 88  1  SAMUEL 

accession  to  the  throne.  With  this  in  view,  he  entreats  David's 
kindness  for  himself,  or,  in  case  he  should  not  survive,  for  his 
children.  The  section  interrupts  the  main  thread  of  the  narra- 
tive, and  is  characterized  by  a  different  tone.  Instead  of  Jona- 
than's being  the  superior  and  David  the  suppliant,  their  position 
seems  reversed. 

11.  The  proposition  of  Jonathan  is  that  they  should  go  out  into 
the  field,  where  they  would  be  free  from  observation.  This  propo- 
sition contradicts  the  plain  intent  of  the  main  narrative,  according 
to  which  it  would  be  dangerous  for  them  to  be  seen  going  together 
to  the  field.  — 12,  13.  By  somewhat  radical  treatment  of  the  text 
we  restore  Jonathan's  promise  as  follows:  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel, 
is  witness  that  I  will  sound  fny  father  about  this  time  to-morrow, 
and  if  he  be  luell  disposed  towards  David,  then  I  will  send  for  thee 
to  the  field;  but  if  there  be  evil —  God  do  so  to  Jonathan  and  more 
also  if  I  bring  the  evil  upon  thee  ;  but  I  will  uncover  thine  ear  and 
will  let  thee  go,  and  thou  shall  go  in  peace.  The  two  alternatives 
are  plainly  put  and  the  imprecation  is  joined  with  the  appropriate 
one.  The  consciousness  of  the  author  that  the  latter  alternative 
would  be  realized,  shows  itself  in  the  concluding  clause  :  Atid 
Yalnveh  be  with  thee  as  he  has  been  with  my  father !  — 14, 15*.  The 
mention  of  David's  future  brings  a  request  that  his  grace  may  be 
extended  to  Jonathan  and  his  descendants.  The  writer  has  in 
mind  the  later  account  of  David's  treatment  of  Jonathan's  son.  — 
And  if  I  am  yet  alive,  thou  shall  show  me  the  kindness  of  Yahweh  ; 
But  if  I  should  die,  thou  shall  not  withdraw  thy  coi7ipassion  from 
my  house  forever']  the  two  alternatives  are  completely  stated, 
showing  that  the  remainder  of  the  verse  belongs  with  what  fol- 
lows.— 15^,  16.  Should  David  forget  the  covenant,  God  would 
be  the  avenger :  But  if,  in  Yahweh' s  cutting  off  the  enemies  of 
David  from  the  face  of  the  ground,  Jonathan  should  be  cut  off  with 
the  house  of  Saul,  then  Yahweh  will  require  it  at  the  hand  of  David] 
Jonathan  is  here  put  for  the  house  of  Jonathan  and  David  for  the 
house  of  David.  The  emphasis  laid  upon  this  matter  makes  us 
suspect  that  the  house  of  Jonathan  feared  the  ruling  dynasty  for  a 
long  time.  — 17.  Jonathan  continued  to  give  assurances  to  David, 
because  ivith  tender  love  he  loved  him,  cf.  i8^. 


XX.  11-17  i89 

12,  13.  The  text  has  suffered  in  transmission,  partly  because  the  sentence 
is  unusually  long.  As  it  stands,  it  is  impossible  to  call  it  good  Hebrew. 
After  nn  we  must  restore  i;;,  which  has  fallen  out  by  reason  of  its  similarity  to 
-in;  so  S  ■'^Dj,  while  ©  oI5e^  points  to  j;t,  a  corruption  of  the  same  original. 
Read  therefore:  IVidiess  is  Yahwek,  cf.  I2^  —  rfa'^Ss'n]  is  superfluous  here 
as  in  v.^,  having  been  put  into  the  text  to  make  the  promise  conform  to  the 
event.  —  njm]  should  be  j.ii  equivalent  to  a.si;  it  is  so  read  in  5,  while  (5^ 
gives  both:  koI  l^ov,  idv.  —  rx'N"^!]  the  n^  must  be  the  same  emphatic  parti- 
cle used  above  in  v.^,  here  as  there  in  the  apodosis.  —  ijtntik  \T'"'Ji]  is  lack- 
ing in  (5,  which  substitutes  e»y  ayp6v  (■*-^)  or  ejy  tJ)  TreSior.  The  latter  seems 
more  appropriate,  for  if  Saul's  mood  was  discovered  to  be  good,  Jonathan 
could  send  openly  to  the  field  and  fetch  David.  At  the  beginning  of  \}^  (5^ 
has  Kal  eav  KaKhv  ij,  which  at  any  rate  gives  an  appropriate  meaning.  I  sup- 
pose the  words  nyn  axi  mttri]  to  have  become  illegible  and  to  have  been  filled 
out  by  a  scribe  with  a  phrase  from  v.^^,  which  fits  in  the  context.  —  Sn  3U"  ^j 
on]  is  unintelligible;  @'^B  g^,  avoiaw,  iS^  eav  ixii  avoicui.  Both  point  to  ^cax 
for  '3N  and  with  non  we  must  here  read  (in  an  oath)  ex.  The  original  on 
Nos  was  miswritten  ■'3n-'?n,  with  which  something  had  to  be  supplied.  The 
original  reading  of  Jonathan's  oath  I  take  therefore  to  be :  S.siB'''  ti'^n  nin^  i>] 
^i'-;>  HD  i>  •;-\  jm  :  nT.;'n  -p  rhvn  rx  n'^i  in  ^tn  aia  pi  -ino  rj?3  ta^  pn  -ipnx  •'3 
-\-hy  yin  PN  N13X  ON  lyo''  noi  pjiniS  D'pSn.  — 14.  The  received  text  is  here 
also  corrupt.  —  ax  nSi]  is  a  duplication.  n'?i  was  written,  and  then,  to  make 
clear  that  n'?  was  not  meant,  ax  was  added.  —  p-'".— x'?!]  is  represented  by 
Koi  TToiTJcrets  @B,  TTOiTjo-Tjs  (5^,  showing  that  we  should  read  again  the  emphatic 
particle  in  the  apodosis.  —  nipi  -iDp]  cf.  2  S.  9^.  The  third  x*?!  should  be  read 
N^i  and  begin  the  next  verse.  — 15.  The  first  half  of  the  verse,  taken  with  the 
two  preceding  words,  makes  good  sense.  But  the  second  half  must  be  dis- 
connected, and  made  the  beginning  of  a  third  sentence.  —  nn3P3  xSi]  will 
barely  admit  of  connexion  with  the  preceding  (Dr.),  but  is  better  in  every 
way  when  read  pnjna  x';'i.  S  omits  tt"X,  perhaps  rightly.  — 16.  ppdm]  ei 
f^apdriaejat  @i%  rightly  pointing  p-;;-'  and  connecting  with  the  preceding  x'". 
Where  ©^  gets  eupedrjvat  is  difficult  to  say.  —  ]PJ1P^]  to  uvo/j.a  toO  'loivaddf 
(5^,  the  latter  is  adopted  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  but  does  not  seem  to  improve  the  sense. 
—  in  p>3"ay]  air6  rov  oXkov  AauelS  @-^B,  on  the  ground  of  which  We.,  Dr., 
restore  ape.  But  what  Jonathan  requests  is  not  that  his  house  may  continue 
tai^A  the  house  of  David  (as  its  dependants)  but  that  it  may  not  be  cut  off  />v 
them,  which  would  not  be  expressed  by  a;':^.  (5^  iJi-fra  rod  oIkov  SaovA  has 
some  claims  to  be  regarded  therefore  as  original.  —  in  >3ix  i^n]  cannot  be 
right,  as  is  evident;  read  in  it.  In  some  other  cases  ^ix  is  inserted  to 
avoid  an  imprecation  on  David.  There  is  also  a  trace  in  one  MS.  of  O  that 
the  word  was  doubtful.  — 17.  in~px  yorpS]  Jonathan's  love  is  no  reason  for 
his  adjuring  David.  We  are  compelled  therefore  to  read  'i"'7X  jj3D"pS  with  (§. 
The  main  object  of  the  interview  was  that  Jonathan  might  assure  David  on 
oath  that  he  would  not  betray  him  to  Saul.  —  ipx  ipjpn^]  has  arisen  by  dupli- 
cation of  the  following  words.     It  is  lacking  in  (S^. 


1 90  1  SAMUEL 

18-23.  Jonathan  describes  more  distinctly  his  plan  for  ac- 
quainting David  with  the  state  of  Saul's  mind.  — 18.  The  verse 
goes  back  to  ^°,  in  which  David  had  inquired  about  the  means  of 
communication.  First,  a  sketch  of  the  situation  :  To-morrow  is 
New  Moon  and  thou  shalt  be  missed,  when  thy  seat  shall  be  vacant'] 
the  sentence  is  no  doubt  tautological  and  perhaps  the  text  has 
suffered.  — 19.  What  is  intended  by  the  opening  of  the  verse  is 
not  clearly  made  out.  David's  course,  however,  is  marked  out 
for  him  :  Thou  shalt  come  to  the  place  where  thou  didst  hide  the 
day  of  .  .  .]  the  day  intended  is  no  longer  intelligible.  —  A/id 
shalt  sit  down  by  the  side  of  yonder  stone  heap]  the  nature  of  the 
stone  heap  is  not  defined.  —  20.  The  general  sense  of  the  verse 
must  be  that  Jonathan  will  choose  some  object  by  the  side  of 
David's  hiding  place  as  a  mark  at  ivhich  to  shoot.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  construe  the  present  text,  and  the  evidence  of  the 
versions  does  not  enable  us  to  reconstruct  it  in  better  shape. — 
21.  And  I  will  send  the  boy]  which  one  takes  to  recover  the 
arrows  when  shooting  at  a  mark:  Go  find  the  arrow!]  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  boy  is  to  be  directed  to  the  arrow  is  the  token 
for  David.  —  If  I  say  to  the  boy :  The  arrow  is  this  side  of  thee, 
pick  it  up  !  —  then,  come  !  for  it  is  well  for  thee,  there  is  nothing 
the  matter,  by  the  life  of  Yahweh]  the  sign  is  plain,  and  one  that 
naturally  suggests  itself.  —  22.  But  if  J  say  to  the  lad:  The  arrow 
is  beyond  thee  —  theti  go  !  for  Yahweh  sends  thee  away]  the  discov- 
ery of  the  mind  of  Saul  will  be  an  indication  of  God's  will  concern- 
ing David's  course.  —  23.  Jonathan's  final  word  of  confirmation  : 
And  as  for  the  word  which  we  have  spoken,  thou  and  I,  Yahweh  is 
witness  between  fne  a?id  thee  forever]  Yahweh  is  a  party  to  such 
solemn  engagements,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  Jacob  and  Laban, 
Gen.  3i^». 

18.  nps"!  ''d]  is  suspicious.  But  no  better  reading  suggests  itself.  — 19.  nit'Stfi 
nND  Tin]  gives  no  appropriate  sense.  @  substitutes  ipijn  for  -nn,  which  is 
adopted  by  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  but  does  not  seem  satisfactory.  That  David 
would  be  more  missed  on  the  third  day  than  on  the  second  is  true.  But 
there  was  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Saul's  mind  would  not  be  discovered 
on  the  day  following  the  interview.  David  should  not  wait  until  the  third  day 
to  come  to  the  place  where  he  was  to  hide.  I  suspect  that  nu'Sin  at  any  rate 
(and  perhaps  the  whole  clause)  is  an  insertion  of  the  same  hand  which  forced 
the  (hint  day  into  vv.^- ^2.   puj,  -^n  tni  is  what  we  expect.  —  ncycn  ora]  the 


XX.  i8-2^  19 1 

<Ti7y  of  the  deed  is  wholly  unknown  to  us.  'I'here  must  be  a  reference  to  some 
former  hiding  on  the  part  of  David.  But  the  only  account  of  such  a  hiding 
preserved  to  us  is  in  19^,  Jonathan's  former  intercession  for  David.  On  gen- 
eral grounds,  we  have  already  decided  that  that  account  was  not  known  to  the 
author  of  this  narrative.  It  is  difficult  moreover  to  see  how  the  day  of  that 
intercession  could  be  called  the  day  of  the  deed.  We.  supposes  a  reference  to 
Saul's  attempt  with  the  spear  (and  refers  to  Job  2>'^'^^.  But  David  did  not 
hide  himself  that  day,  so  far  as  we  know.  We  are  in  fact  wholly  in  the  dark. 
The  versions  —  t'^s  ipyaaias  @^,  tj)  ipyaai/j.]]  <@^^,  ^zm  operari  licet  IL,  n'?!!!! 
S^,  see  in  the  word  a  designation  of  a  working  day  in  distinction  from  the 
festival  day  of  the  New  Moon.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  ntt';;Dn  would  be 
used  to  mark  such  a  distinction  —  mny  would  be  more  natural.  —  SrNn  jdnh] 
if  correct  can  be  only  a  proper  name.  But  as  pointed  out  by  Th.  (S  (t6 
ipyaS  iKiluo  (5^,  rf  kidcjj  eKuucp  (g^)  read  both  here  and  in  v.*i  the  word  ajiN, 
which  would  naturally  mean  a  heap  of  stones,  cf.  the  proper  name  Argob  in 
Bashan,  Dt.  3^  i  K.  4^3.  We.  therefore  restores  r^n  aj-isn  Vsn,  which  is  gen- 
erally adopted. —  20.  miN  mi-  D^xnn  nir^c  ijni]  would  naturally  mean  :  and 
I  will  shoot  the  three  ai'rows  by  the  side  of  it.  But  why  three  arrows?  The 
later  account  speaks  of  only  two,  and  it  was  not  certain  in  advance  that  more 
than  one  would  be  needed.  The  three  arrows  are  spoken  of  as  if  already 
mentioned,  which  is  not  the  case.  This  half  of  the  verse,  moreover,  in  this 
wording  does  not  fit  the  remaining  words  —  to  send  for  me  to  a  goal.  If  this 
means  anything  it  makes  a  complete  tautology  when  taken  with  the  preced- 
ing. <§  reads  nifSi'  as  a  verb  —  and  I  xvill  triple  the  arrotvs,  or  and  I  luill  use 
three  arrows,  which  does  not  seem  to  give  any  help.  We.,  followed  by  Dr., 
Bu.,  reconstructs  n^xn^  li'Srx  ■'jni  =  a7td  I  on  the  third  day  [will  shoot]  with 
arrotvs,  which,  if  we  can  make  vhz'  mean  to  do  on  the  third  day,  somewhat  re- 
lieves the  difficulty,  though  the  sentence  is  still  awkward,  and  does  not  fit  well 
with  he  latter  part  of  the  verse.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Kl.  is  on  the 
right  track  in  seeing  in  mix  a  corruption  of  nxnN.  In  that  case  Jonathan  in- 
tended to  say :  '  /  will  choose  something  near  the  stone  heap  as  a  mark  at 
which  to  shoot.'  But  the  original  text  is  not  discoverable. -r  21.  ^\)}ir^'\  the 
boy,  whom  he  would  naturally  have  with  him  in  practising  archery.  —  nxd  ^'7] 
the  omission  of  -\dnS  is  unusual.  Possibly  the  original  was  simply  nxdS,  which 
has  been  expanded  under  the  influence  of  v.*^  where  we  have  nxd  y\.  — Dixnn] 
should  probably  be  the  singular  in  both  instances.  —  nxai]  must  begin  the  apo- 
dosis,  corresponding  to  ^'?  in  the  next  verse.  But  in  this  case  the  1  is  abnor- 
mal and  we  should  either  read  pnji,  or  else  with  ©^.B  onijt  (.^g  ,_  jj^g  latter 
alternative  is  favored  by  the  parallel  in  the  next  verse,  the  1  might  readily 
have  come  from  the  end  of  the  preceding  word.  —  lan]  is  sufficient  of  itself 
without  the  addition  of  an  adjective  {evil)  made  by  the  versions.  —  22.  Dixnn] 
the  singular  should  be  restored  here  also  with  @.  The  particular  arrow  which 
should  give  the  sign  was  the  one  in  Jonathan's  mind  all  through  the  speech. 
The  mistake  of  ||J  is  probably  because  the  form  isn  (which  occurs  as  an 
undoubted  singular  in  v.^^^)  was  taken  fur  an  abbreviated  plural,  the  usual 


192  1  SAMUEL 

singular  being  i*n. — 23.  It  seems  necessary  to  insert  ^J;  (ixaprus  (S)  after 
m.T,  or  else  to  point  the  last  two  words  of  the  verse  d'?i;?"i^;;  cf.  v.^^  as 
amended  above. 

24-34.  The  discovery  of  the  mind  of  Saul.  —  We  may  sup- 
pose that  the  interview  just  described  took  place  in  the  evening. 
The  new  moon  had  already  been  seen,  so  that  the  next  day 
(properly,  the  day  had  begun  with  the  sunset)  was  the  festival. 
—  24.  David  hid  himself,  and  the  festival  day  came,  an^  the  king 
sat  at  the  [sacrificial]  meal  to  eat.  The  time  of  day  is  not  given. 
But,  from  the  fact  that  Jonathan  waited  until  the  next  morning 
(after  the  second  day)  to  carry  his  tidings  to  David,  we  may  sup- 
pose it  was  late  in  the  day.  —  25.  The  king's  table  companions 
were  only  three.  The  ki?ig  sat  on  his  seat,  as  usual,  by  the  wall, 
and  Jonathan  was  opposite,  and  Abner  sat  by  the  side  of  Saul,  and 
DairnVs  seat  7vas  vacant.  The  simplicity  of  the  royal  table  is 
evident.  —  26.  The  absence  of  David  was  not  remarked  upon  at 
this  time,  the  king  supposing  a  ritual  reason  :  For  he  said  to  him- 
self:  It  is  an  accident:  he  is  not  clean  because  he  has  not  been 
cleansed'\  the  festival  being  a  religious  one,  no  one  could  eat  of 
the  meal  without  being  ritually  purified.  If  David  had  neg- 
lected the  proper  rite  of  preparation,  he  had  a  sufficient  excuse 
for  absence  from  the  table.  —  27.  The  second  day  matters  came 
to  a  crisis.  Why  has  not  the  son  of  Jesse  come  to  the  table,  either 
yesterday  or  to-day  ?  The  known  friendship  of  the  two  men  made 
it  probable  that  Jonathan  would  be  informed.  —  28.  Jonathan 
makes  the  excuse  agreed  upon  :  David  begged  of  me  leave  to  run 
to  Bethlehem.  —  29.  Specific  report  of  what  David  said  in  his 
request :  Let  me  go,  I  pray,  for  we  have  a  clan  sacrifice  in  the  city, 
and  that  was  what  my  brother  co7n7nanded  me.  The  appearance 
of  the  brother  instead  of  the  father  has  led  to  the  supposition  that 
David's  father  was  dead.  Possibly  we  should  read  my  brethren 
(with  (§),  and  understand  it  of  the  members  of  the  clan  in  gen- 
eral. Jonathan  would  then  make  the  impression  that  David  was 
invited  by  the  clan  to  be  present  at  the  festival,  undoubtedly  a 
reason  why  he  should  seek  to  go,  but  not  one  that  would  conciliate 
Saul.  In  Jonathan's  further  report  of  David's  words  is  another 
infelicity :  Let  me  slip  away  that  I  may  see  my  brethren  .'  The 
words  must  suggest  to  Saul  that  David  was  trying  to  escape  from 


XX.  24-34  193 

him.  —  30.  The  wrath  of  Saul  flames  out  upon  his  son  :  Son  of  a 
rebellious  slave  girl .'  Universal  custom  abuses  a  man  by  throwing 
opprobrium  upon  his  parents.  The  son  of  a  slave  girl  was  of 
mean  lineage ;  and  in  case  the  mother  were  rebellious,  her  son 
might  be  suspected  of  being  a  bastard.  Saul's  anger  did  not 
allow  him  to  reflect  on  the  injustice  of  his  abuse.  Do  I  not  know 
that  thou  art  a  companioti  of  the  son  of  Jesse,  to  thine  own  shame 
and  to  the  shame  of  thy  mother's  nakedness  ?  To  revile  a  man  by 
the  nakedness  of  his  mother  is  still  common  among  the  Orientals 
(Doughty,  I.  p.  269).  That  a  man  may  disgrace  the  womb  that 
bore  him  is  evident  enough.  But  Saul  in  his  excitement  puts  the 
thought  into  coarse  language. — 31.  The  reason  for  the  anger  is, 
that  David  is  a  rival  for  the  throne  :  For  as  long  as  the  son  of  Jesse 
lives  upon  the  earth,  thy  kingdom  shall  not  be  established^  the  suc- 
cession would  naturally  fall  to  Jonathan  as  the  most  capable,  and 
probably  the  oldest  of  the  sons  of  Saul.  In  the  correct  feeling 
that  Jonathan  will  know  where  David  is,  Saul  orders  him  to  send 
and  take  him,  adding :  for  he  is  doomed  to  dcath'\  cf.  2  S.  i  r".  — 
32,  33.  At  Jonathan's  question  why  this  should  be,  Saul's  rage 
gets  beyond  control :  And  Saul  raised  the  spear  at  him  to  S7nite 
hini]  as  he  had  attacked  David.  —  So  Jonathan  knew']  more  evi- 
dence could  scarcely  be  expected,  that  it  was  determined  by  his 
father  to  put  David  to  death.  —  34.  And  Jonathan  rose  from  the 
table  in  hot  wrath  and  did  not  eat  bread  on  the  second  day  of  the 
month  because  his  father  had  reviled  him]  the  result  of  the  inquiry 
was  not  simply  the  discovery  of  Saul's  purpose  towards  David,  but 
had  brought  unexpected  insult  to  himself. 

24.  onVn-Sy]  is  probably  right.  The  sitter  at  the  low  Oriental  table  is 
decidedly  above  the  food.  The  Qre  recommends  ^n,  but  the  change  is  un- 
necessary. @  seems  to  have  found  jnSrn  S>'.  —  25.  T'pn  3i:'1S"'^n]  is  rendered 
by  -napa.  rhv  to7xov  <S^,  and  iipn  Sx  is  quite  sufficient.  —  Dp''i]  why  Jonathan 
should  stand  while  the  others  sit  is  not  clear.  Kal  ■irpo(<pQaa(v  (&)^,  koI  Trpoeipda- 
(Tfv  avT6i'  (B^\  point  to  atp,  cf.  2  S.  22®  2  K.  19^2^  which  means  ^0  confront, 
generally  in  a  hostile  sense,  but  not  necessarily  so,  Ps.  21*.  The  reading 
Bipn  in  this  place,  suggested  first  (so  far  as  I  know)  by  Ewald,  G  VI^.  III. 
Ill,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  80,  is  now  generally  adopted.  —  26.  mpn]  various  accidents 
might  make  one  ritually  unclean.  —  mna  nS"i3]  is  tautological.  The  pointing 
ina,  suggested  by  @  (We.),  relieves  the  difficulty  to  a  certain  extent  only, 
but  seems  the  best  we  can  do. — 27.  T^'i  Z'-\r\r\  rinr;:]  is  impossible.  We 
o 


194  '  SAMUEL 

must  have  either  annn  mnoD,  or  else  'jB'n  ovn,  ^  has  both,  inserting  ovn. 
Probably  the  original  was  only  trinn  mnce.  —  on*^."!]  for  the  table,  as  in  v.2<.  — 
28.  Sn^'j  Sn'.:'j]  implies  an  urgent  request.  —  onS  P'a"- 1>']  I  cannot  persuade 
myself  that  the  sentence  is  complete  without  a  verb  such  as  is  supplied  by  @^ 
Spa/ielv,  or  <3^  iropevdfjvat,  or  by  tJC  hvoh,  though  the  difference  may  show 
that  the  translators  did  not  have  either  one  in  the  text;  yiS  seems  to  be  the 
simplest.  After  Bethlehem  (5S  add  his  city.  —  29.  nis  Nim]  the  unusual 
order  is  perhaps  due  to  an  error.  @  seems  to  have  read  simply  m>i. — 
nN"\si]  expressing  the  purpose  of  the  request  should  be  pointed  ns^si. — 
80.  nmrn  pi;'j]  is  made  up  of  two  words  otherwise  unheard  of.  Lagarde 
{Alittheil,  I.  p.  236  f.)  makes  the  best  of  the  present  text,  which  might  mean 
one  gone  astray  from  discipline.  It  seems  better  however,  on  the  basis  of  ®, 
to  restore  n^'j  (or  myj)  instead  of  niyj.  Only,  as  a  man  cannot  be  the  son 
of  more  than  one  woman,  the  plural  of  (g  is  not  allowable.  The  natural 
phrase  would  be  mnb  m;'j.  A  reflection  on  the  chastity  of  Jonathan's  mother 
is  evidently  intended,  and  nnn  is  used  of  Israel's  rebellion  against  Yahweh  (and 
adultery  with  other  gods),  showing  that  it  would  convey  such  a  reflection.  If 
m>j  is  original,  we  might  suppose  m"\r;n  to  be  a  gloss  intended  to  explain 
its  meaning  —  son  of  perverseness  would  fit  the  sense.  —  pS  nns  ina]  the  verb 
does  not  go  with  the  preposition;  (5  points  to  lah  or  i3n  (adopted  by  Th.  al.). 
—  31.  ■|.ii3'?ci  nrx]  the  nrx  does  not  agree  well  with  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 
It  is  lacking  in  ®-^^,  and  has  evidently  come  in  by  the  error  of  a  scribe,  who 
in  writing  x:):^  took  it  for  the  second  person,  and  naturally  put  down  n.iN  as  its 
subject.  Saul  was  not  afraid  for  Jonathan  personally,  but  for  his  succession  to 
the  throne.  —  nm'p]  already  he  is  marked  out  by  death  as  one  of  its  chil- 
dren, cf.  nin  8'>N,  I  K.  226.  —  33_  s.j,,j  ^s  in  the  earlier  case  (181I)  should 
probably  be  pointed  SbM,  fTTTjpev  (S'^^.  —  s^n  rh-:i\  the  lack  of  agreement  is 
obvious.  (S  reads  as  in  vv.^-  9.  But  the  particular  evil  is  here  defined  in  the 
clause  nnTN  n^":n^.  It  will  be  sufficient  therefore  to  correct  nvt  rhz  to  nnSs, 
with  We.  al.  —  34.  'tSn  3s;jj  ^o]  is  lacking  in  ®b_  and  is  unnecessary.  The 
wrath  was  fully  accounted  for  by  Saul's  insulting  language.  —  icSan]  awfTt- 
\f(rev  eV  avrov  @^  has  arisen  under  the  influence  of  nn'?3,  above.  Here  the 
absolute  rS;;  ni:  seems  harsh,  and  J§  is  to  be  retained. 

35-39.  The  warning  given.  —  As  already  agreed  upon,  Jonathan 
acquaints  David  of  his  danger.  On  the  next  morning  :  Jonathan 
came  into  the  field  to  the  rendezvous  with  David,  and  z.?,  agreed^  he 
brought  a  young  lad  with  him.  —  36.  Jonathan  starts  the  boy  to 
find  an  arrow,  and  then,  while  he  is  running,  shoots  another  to  fly 
beyond  hi^n.  —  37.  So  when  the  lad  came  to  the  place  of  the  [first] 
arrow  which  Jonathati  had  shot,  Jonathan  cried  after  the  lad  and 
said:  Is  not  the  arrow  beyond  thee .?]  this  is  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  agreement  as  worded  above.  —  38.   Jonathan  gives  an 


XX.  .55-41  195 

additional  message  :  Hasten  quickly,  do  not  stop !  The  words 
spoken  to  the  boy  were  intended  for  David's  ear.  So  Jonathan's 
lad  gathered  the  arrows  and  brought  them  to  his  master.  —  39.  The 
writer  reminds  us  that  the  lad  did  not  know  anything  of  the  real 
matter  in  hand,  dut  only  Jonathan  and  David  knew  it.  This  was 
evidently  the  conclusion  of  the  incident,  except  that  he  added 
what  we  now  find  in  21^ :  David  rose  from  the  place  where  he 
was  concealed  a7id  departed,  v^hWe  Jonathan  came  into  the  city. 

35.   nyioS]    the  appointment  naturally  included  both  place  and  time. — 

36.  D-'Xnn]  is  to  be  corrected  to  the  singular  as  above.  Jonathan  shot  a 
single  arrow,  and  while  the  lad  was  running  for  it,  he  shot  'Snn-riN,  the  par- 
ticular arrow  on  which  so  much  depended,  so  as  to  pass  beyotid  the  boy.  — 

37.  Ni'^n]  the  whole  line  from  this  word  to  -i>'jn  in  the  next  verse  has  fallen 
out  of  <@k  Possibly  it  made  just  a  line  in  some  early  manuscript.  A  part  of 
the  omission  is  suppHed  however  after  the  word  ctt^s  =  nDj;n.  —  38.  rnnn 
ns'm]  cf.  Driver's  note.  —  ^snn  Kt.'\  to  be  read  as  a  plural  {Qre).  —  n^m] 
should  be  pointed  NO^>i_  with  (S'^  and  the  margin  of  ^. 

40-42.  The  verses  give  the  account  of  a  final  interview,  with 
renewed  expressions  of  affection.  They  stultify  the  whole  preced- 
ing account,  however,  and  must  be  regarded  as  an  interpolation. 
If  it  was  so  dangerous  for  Jonathan  and  David  to  be  seen  together 
before  Saul's  mind  was  fully  known,  it  was  more  so  after  the  open 
breach  between  him  and  his  son.  Jonathan's  return  to  the  city 
without  his  arms,  after  sending  back  the  lad,  would  be  an  invita- 
tion to  swspicion.  The  interview  is  moreover  without  a  purpose. 
The  solemn  agreement  had  been  made.  The  leave  had  been 
taken.  Two  seasoned  warriors  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  so 
little  steadiness  of  purpose  that  they  must  have  one  more  embrace, 
even  at  the  risk  of  their  lives.  For  these  reasons  we  must  regard 
the  paragraph  as  no  part  of  the  narrative  just  considered.  Nor 
does  it  agree  with  any  earlier  part  of  the  book.  Its  allusions  to 
what  took  place  in  w.^^^  are  unmistakable.  We  must  therefore 
regard  it  as  an  editorial  expansion,  pure  and  simple. 

40.  The  first  thing  is  to  get  rid  of  the  boy,  and  he  is  therefore 
sent  with  Jonathan's  weapons  to  the  city.  —  41.  David  then  arose 
from  the  side  of  the  stone  heap']  mentioned  above  as  his  hiding- 
place,  and  fell  with  his  face  to  the  ground,  and  prostrated  himself 
three  times']  the  occasion  would  not  seem  to  admit  of  such  exag- 


ig6  I  SAMUEL 

gerated  politeness.  —  And  each  kissed  his  friend  and  each  wept 
with  his  friend  until  .  .  .]  a  point  of  time  seems  to  have  been 
given,  but  is  not  now  discoverable.  —  42.  Jonathan  dismisses 
David  with  a  reminder  of  their  covenant :  As  to  what  we  two 
have  sworn,  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  Yahweh  will  be  betiveen  me 
and  thee,  and  betwee7i  my  seed  arid  thy  seed  forever.  The  Bedawy 
also  says  :  There  is  none  between  us  but  Allah  (Doughty,  I.  p.  267J. 

XXI.  1.  As  already  remarked,  this  verse  is  the  conclusion  of 
this  narrative,  and  must  have  stood  after  20^*. 

40.  Nian]  is  lacking  in  (5^^,  and  is  in  fact  superfluous. — 41.  2Jjn  Ssnd] 
from  the  side  of  the  South  Country  is  of  course  impossible.  Read  3JiNn  Sxnd 
corresponding  to  the  emendation  in  v.^^  (so  ®,  and  Sh  also  has  ns""!""  niS  jd 
here).  —  h>-\y\  •\r\-yf\  until  David  exceeded  (EV).  But  why  David's  vic- 
tory in  so  curious  a  contest  should  be  mentioned  is  impossible  to  conceive. 
@  has  nothing  to  represent  ■'n,  so  that  We.  proposes  Snjn  iy;  but  this 
nowhere  means  a  great  deal,  which  is  the  only  sense  we  can  give  it  here. 
Kl.  rightly  remarks  that  what  we  expect  is  a  point  of  time,  and  proposes 
Snj  Dv  n>',  which  however  does  not  seem  sustained  by  usage.  —  42.  ids^] 
is  the  erroneous  insertion  of  a  scribe  who  supposed  the  words  of  the  oath 
were  to  follow.  —  XXI.  1.  Dpii]  the  subject  seems  necessary,  and  David  is 
correctly  added  by  @. 

XXI.-XXVI.  David  an  outlaw  captain. 

XXI,  2-10.  David  comes  to  Nob,  where  his  appearance 
startles  the  priest.  He  excuses  his  lack  of  provision  and  of 
followers,  and  receives  the  sacred  bread  and  also  the  sword 
of  Goliath, 

The  brief  narrative  is  well  told.  The  natural  question  is  whether 
it  fits  on  to  any  of  the  preceding  sections.  The  surprise  of  the 
priest  indicates  that  David  was  accustomed  to  travel  with  a 
retinue.  This  is  appropriate  for  a  man  who  had  attained  promi- 
nence as  a  captain,  and  who  had  become  the  king's  son-in-law. 
The  condition  in  which  he  presents  himself — without  weapons 
and  without  food  —  is  unusual,  even  for  the  ordinary  traveller. 
This  is  inconsistent,  not  only  with  David's  usual  course,  but  even 
v/ith  the  representations  of  the  chapter  just  studied.  For  in  that 
chapter  David  had  ample  time  to  furnish  himself  for  the  flight 
which  he  suspected  would  be  necessary.     The  condition  in  which 


XX.  4'-XXT.  4  197 

he  appears  before  the  priest  is  the  natural  sequel  of  only  one 
preceding  section,  and  that  is  the  one  where  David  is  hastily  let 
down  through  the  window  of  his  house  at  a  time  when  guards 
were  already  posted,  when  there  might  be  danger  in  the  gleam 
or  clash  of  weapons,  and  when  in  the  sudden  terror,  bread  would 
not  be  thought  of.  These  reasons  seem  to  justify  the  connexion 
immediately  with  19^^ 

2.  The  verse  connects  well  with  19^^  or  19^*%  which  may  be 
the  original :  And  David  fled  and  escaped  the  night  of  his  wed- 
ding, and  came  to  Nob,  to  Ahimelech  the  priest']  Nob  was  a  sanct- 
uary, as  is  evident  from  the  continuation  of  this  account.  It 
was  within  the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  Saul,  or  he  could  not 
have  dealt  with  it  so  summarily.  A  town  of  the  name  is  located 
in  Benjamin  by  Nehemiah  (11^^),  and  the  same  is  intended  by 
Isaiah  in  his  picture  of  the  progress  of  an  invading  enemy  from 
the  north  (Is.  10''-).  From  the  latter  passage,  we  learn  that  the 
town  was  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Jerusalem.  This  situation 
would  answer  all  the  needs  of  our  passage.  David  would  natu- 
rally make  his  way  southward  from  Gibeah  so  as  to  reach  his  own 
clan.  He  would  stop  for  supplies  at  the  first  town  in  which  he 
might  have  friends.  Nob  lay  immediately  on  the  way  to  Beth- 
lehem, and  in  his  flight  (late  at  night)  he  would  reach  it  by  the 
early  dawn.  Ahimelech  the  priest  came  trembling  to  meet  David. 
In  16*  the  Sheikhs  of  Bethlehem  tremble  at  the  spiritual  autocrat. 
Here  the  priest  takes  the  same  attitude  in  presence  of  the  secular 
authority.  The  difference  in  the  point  of  view  is  obvious.  The 
priest  is  surprised  at  the  way  in  which  David  comes.  —  Why  art 
thou  alone,  a?id  no  man  with  thee .?]  the  evident  implication  is, 
that  David  was  usually  accompanied  by  an  escort.  —  3.  David 
invents  an  excuse,  to  the  effect  that  he  is  on  a  pressing  errand 
from  the  king,  and  one  that  requires  secrecy  :  The  king  com- 
manded me  a  matter  to-day,  and  said  to  me :  Let  no  man  know 
anything  of  the  matter  upon  which  I  send  thee]  the  natural  infer- 
ence is  that  he  must  not  attract  attention  by  travelling  with  a 
company.  He  intimates  however  that  the  troops  had  a  rendezvous 
appointed  :  And  the  young  men  I  have  appointed  to  meet  me  at 
a  certain  place.  —  4.   The  haste  of  the  departure  is  pleaded  as  a 


198  I  SAMUEL 

reason  for  asking  provision  :  Atid  now  if  there  be  within  thy  reach 
five  loaves  of  bread,  give  it  tne,  or  whatever  may  be  at  hand.  — 
5.  The  priest's  objection  to  giving  what  bread  he  has,  is  :  There 
is  no  co7n?non  bread  within  my  reach,  though  there  is  sacred  bread~\ 
the  latter,  being  consecrated,  must  be  handled  by  consecrated 
persons  only.  This  did  not  originally  mean  that  only  the  priests 
could  eat  it.  Like  the  sacrifices,  it  could  probably  be  eaten  by 
worshippers  duly  prepared  liturgically.  As  a  safeguard,  such  per- 
sons usually  partook  of  the  consecrated  food  within  or  near  the 
sanctuary.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  in  the  nature  of 
things  why  it  should  not  be  taken  away,  if  only  proper  care  was 
exercised.  —  If  only  the  young  men  have  kept  themselves  frotn 
womaji]  they  ?night  eat  it,  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  the  sen- 
tence. As  is  abundantly  clear  from  the  Pentateuchal  legislation, 
as  well  as  from  Arabic  usage,  the  sexual  act  renders  one  unfit  for 
any  sacred  ceremony  until  the  proper  purification  has  been  under- 
gone. —  6.  The  obscurity  of  David's  reply  is  probably  due  to  our 
ignorance  of  the  author's  conception  of  holy  and  profane.  In 
any  case  he  gives  assurance  on  the  particular  point  of  inquiry  : 
But  women  have  been  kept  from  us  as  always  when  I  go  on  an 
expedition.  As  war  was  a  sacred  work,  abstinence  from  everything 
profane  was  David's  habit  in  all  his  campaigns.  —  And  the  arms 
of  the  young  men  were  consecrated^  at  starting,  as  we  suppose 
was  the  custom  in  Israel,  from  the  expression  consecrate  war, 
Jer.  6*  Mic.  3*.  David  makes  his  assurances  so  strong  that  he 
even  says  (to  all  appearance)  that  if  the  bread  were  common 
bread,  it  would  become  consecrated  by  contact  with  the  conse- 
crated vessel  in  which  he  proposed  to  carry  it.  The  exact  words 
in  which  he  originally  embodied  this  declaration  are  unfortunately 
lost  to  us.  —  7.  The  plea  was  effectual,  and  the  priest  gave  him  con- 
secrated [food]  for  there  was  no  bread  there  except  bread  of  the 
preseyice  removed  frojn  before  Yahweh,  to  place  hot  bread  there,  the 
day  it  was  taken  away.  According  to  later  custom  this  was  done 
once  a  week,  Lev.  24^  —  8.  The  verse  is  evidently  designed  to 
prepare  for  Doeg's  betrayal  of  David  later,  2  2^.  Some  have  there- 
fore supposed  it  to  be  an  interpolation.  But  the  later  passage  seems 
to  presuppose  this  one.  Doeg  the  Edomite,  who  is  described  as 
Saul's  mulelierd,  was  kept  at  the  sanctuary  by  some  religious  (cere- 


XXI.  4-Jo  199 

monial)  obligation. — 9.  David  asks  further  for  spear  or  sword 
since  he  has  left  his  own  weapons  behind  :  For  the  king's  business 
was  urgent']  is  his  pretext.  — 10.  The  priest  tells  of  the  sword 
of  Goliath,  whom  thou  didst  slay  in  the  valley  of  Elah]  the  lan- 
guage is  used  to  indicate  that  David  had  a  better  title  to  the 
sword  than  had  any  one  else.  It  had  been  deposited  by  David 
in  the  sanctuary,  and  was  now  wrapped  in  a  mantel,  behind  the 
ephod]  the  last  phrase  is  omitted  by  #,  perhaps  because  of  dis- 
like of  the  ephod,  which  here  cannot  be  a  garment  or  a  breast- 
plate.    At  David's  desire,  the  sword  is  given  him. 

2.  naj]  with  an  unusual  form  of  the  (locative)  accusative  ending,  Ges.^^, 
90?;  Stade,  132  (p.  102).  Jerome  (according  to  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  198)  locates 
Nob  in  the  vicinity  of  Lydda.  But  there  would  seem  to  be  no  reason  why 
David  should  go  westward,  and  into  the  country  of  the  Philistines.  Perhaps 
Jerome  was  moved  by  the  following  account  of  David's  coming  to  Achish. 
But  that  is  from  a  different  document.  The  same  line  of  argument  is  followed 
by  Schm.  (p.  719  f.)  to  refute  those  who  suppose  David  to  have  fled  across  the 
Jordan  to  n3j  (cf.  Jd.  8^^).  —  ^'^D^^N]  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the 
second  half  of  the  name  is  one  of  the  names  of  Yahweh  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  8^^. 
We  find  an  n^nx,  14^,  who  officiated  as  Saul's  priest,  and  he  is  probably  the 
same  with  our  Ahimelech.  (@^^  has  Abimelech  here.  —  m  HNip"?]  (@ab  reads 
iPNipS,  which  would  be  natural  —  but  on  that  very  account  f^  must  be  taken 
to  be  original.  —  3.  pan  ■^Sainx'?]  @ab  j^as  poS  simply.  —  lai]  @  adds 
ff'fififpov,  which  is  appropriate  and  forcible.  The  day  began  with  the  evening. 
The  command  being  received  at  or  after  sundown,  to  be  carried  out  at  once 
would  plausibly  explain  David's  appearance  in  the  early  morning  at  Nob.  — 
nniNa]  seems  to  be  omitted  by  (3'^^.  With  the  negative  it  has  the  force  of 
at  all —  here  let  no  man  know  at  all  of  the  matter,  Ges-^^,  \y]  c.  —  yr^n  la'Ni] 
is  redundant  —  perhaps  a  scribe's  expansion.  —  Tiyir]  might  possibly  be  a 
Poel  form  (Ges.^s,  55  3;  Stade,  465).  But  the  meaning  is  not  so  good  as  if 
we  had  \'n;"%  which  should  probably  be  restored;  @  dta/j.e/j.apTvprifj.at  points  to 
^mpn,  which  was  read  as  if  from  -[v;.  But  the  form  might  equally  be  from 
ii'\  If  the  original  reading  were  imv>  it  might  give  rise  to  both  ''Py-\v  and 
"im;;n.  Kl.  proposes  \"ii>'ij,  Ex.  29*2  Job  2^^.  —  "'JdSn  i:Sd]  2  K.  6^.  —  4.  sj'i-nn] 
does  not  consist  with  the  definite  number  of  loaves  asked  for.  We  are 
compelled  therefore  to  read  ci'dx  with  (5^-^,  el  elaiv  (d  has  dropped  out 
uf  (@B  owing  to  its  resemblance  to  the  beginning  of  the  next  word). — 
NiCjn  in]  is  a  concise  way  of  saying,  or  whatever  thou  canst  find.  —  5.  Sn] 
is  the  opposite  of  cnp.  Of  course  we  cannot  judge  the  act  of  Ahimelech  by 
the  later  legislation  which  commanded  that  the  bread  of  the  presence  should 
be  eaten  by  the  priests  only,  and  only  in  the  sanctuary,  Lev.  24^.  There  is  no 
evidence  in  this  narrative  that   the   priest   did   not   take   all  the   precautions 


200  I  SAMUEL 

necessary.  —  pnn"'?^']  the  ^x  is  probably  erroneous  duplication  of  the  preced- 
ing '?n. — 6.  Confessedly  a  difficult  verse,  and  one  in  which  the  versions  give 
us  little  help.  For  the  religious  ideas  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  David's  assur- 
ances, cf.  WRS.  Jieligion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  365,  436.  —  dsj'Sb'  Sens]  cannot 
mean  that  the  privation  has  lasted  thr-ee  days  (AV.,  cf.  RV.),  nor  that  it  has 
lasted  about  three  days  which  would  have  been  differently  expressed.  It 
expresses  a  comparison :  as  yesterday  and  the  day  before,  i.  e.,  as  in  former 
times.  David  claims  that  his  custom  has  always  been  to  take  care  for  ritual 
purity  on  all  his  expeditions  and  that  this  is  no  exception.  —  vn^i]  must  carry 
on  the  description  of  what  took  place  at  the  start :  Women  were  taboo  .  .  . 
and  the  equipmetits  of  the  young  men  were  consecrated.  This  fully  meets  the 
priest's  scruples,  and  is  emphasized  in  what  follows.  —  Sn  '\'\•^  Nini]  is  unin- 
telligible. David  can  hardly  mean  that  he  is  upon  a  peaceable  (and  therefore 
common^  journey,  for  this  is  aside  from  the  main  purpose.  There  seems  to  be 
no  way  of  fitting  the  clause  into  the  context,  and  the  text  is  probably  unsound. 
From  the  clause  which  follows,  we  conclude  that  David  meant  to  say  that  even 
common  bread  would  become  consecrated  by  contact  with  the  already  conse- 
crated vessels  of  his  followers.  Possibly  the  change  of  "]^^  to  13T  might 
enable  us  to  get  this  meaning :  Sn  -(Jt  Nim  =  and  were  it  a  common  thing, 
nevertheless  it  would  become  consecrated  in  the  vessel  (in  which  it  will  be  car- 
ried) cf.  ®^  which  favours  this  construction,  though  it  retains  'y\~^.  —  ''3  ixi] 
would  probably  bear  the  construction  just  suggested;  ®^  seems  to  have  read 
o  only,  while  @^  neglects  the  words  altogether.  —  "''^la]  5io  to  aKivt\  fxov  @ 
perhaps  gives  the  original  meaning.  —  7.  B''iDicn]  the  plural  is  probably  due  to 
the  accretion  of  a  D  from  the  beginning  of  the  next  word  (We.) .  —  8.  isyj]  as 
the  root  is  used  above  for  that  which  is  religiously  forbidden  (taboo),  we  may 
suspect  that  it  means  here,  ^ept  by  a  taboo,  or  in  accordance  with  later  custom, 
kept  by  a  vow  (so  Schm.  who  compares  the  law  of  the  Nazirite,  Num.  6,  but 
this  does  not  require  a  sojourn  in  the  sanctuary).  —  oiyin  t3n]  ve/xuv  ras 
fifiiSfous  (S  is  restored  by  Lagarde  (BJV.  p.  45,  note)  as  Dn-iyn  '^lix,  and  as 
ION  is  not  used  of  a  chief,  the  latter  (which  is  the  more  difficult  reading) 
should  probably  be  adopted.  Graetz  suggests  a^sin  -\>3n  (Gesch.  der  fuden, 
I.  183),  adopted  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.  —  9.  r>D-v>  pNi]  The  form  pN  occurs 
nowhere  else.  The  punctuators  wished  to  distinguish  it  from  j\x  and  perhaps 
to  identify  it  with  on.  (3  has  IfSe  d  (ffriv  ivravda,  which  We.  supposes  to  indi- 
cate n2  t:"n  nsi,  though  he  finds  the  interchange  of  n  and  :  unusual.  As  the 
two  letters  are  not  unlike  in  the  old  alphabet  we  need  not  deny  the  possibility 
of  one  being  mistaken  for  the  other.  But  if  the  original  were  dn  we  may 
suppose  (3  to  have  avoided  the  aposiopesis  by  inserting  IfSs.  I  had  already 
suspected  the  original  to  be  no  C"  ini,  and  where  is  there,  before  I  saw  Klos- 
termann's  conjecture  to  the  same  effect.  It  is  to  this  question  that  Ahimelech 
replies.  —  Tin:]  a  supposed  passive  participle  from  yn.  Kl.  conjectures 
V^nj,  decisive,  strict,  Dan.  9^^.  More  probable  is  yw:  (from  y^t<),  or  nnj. 
— 10.  The  Valley  of  Elah  is  a  reference  to  \'f  or  to  the  original  account 
from  which   that   has   been    expanded.  —  nai*^]   is  the  passive    participle. — 


XXI.  II-I6  20I 

nra]  is  pointed  in  many  editions  nn  but  this  is  incorrect.     At  the  end  of  the 
verse  add  nal  eSaiKev  ainrjv  ainip  @. 

11-16.  David  at  the  court  of  Achish.  —  David  escapes  to  the 
court  of  Achish  king  of  Gath.  There  he  becomes  an  object  of 
suspicion,  and  feigns  madness,  whereby  he  preserves  his  Hfe,  and 
is  allowed  to  go. 

The  paragraph  is  fitted  into  the  narrative  so  that  it  seems  to 
follow  naturally  on  the  preceding.  On  closer  inspection  we  see 
that  it  does  not.  The  opening  verse  indicates  that  David's  flight 
was  directly  from  the  presence  of  Saul.  In  the  presence  of  the 
Gittites,  moreover,  it  would  be  an  insane  thing  to  carry  the  sword 
of  Goliath.  The  linguistic  marks  of  so  short  a  piece  are  scarcely 
sufficient  to  identify  it.  It  may  be  conjectured  however  that  it 
originally  followed  the  account  of  David's  sojourn  at  Ramah 
(19^^). 

11.  Achish  king  of  Gath  is  the  same  who  was  David's  overlord 
in  his  later  career.  The  present  account  seems  to  be  an  attempt 
to  explain  away  the  facts  of  history.  — 12.  The  servants  (that  is, 
officers)  of  Achish  arouse  his  suspicions :  Is  fiot  this  David,  the 
king  of  the  land?'\  the  conception  of  the  author  who  could  put 
the  question  into  the  mouth  of  the  Philistines  at  this  date  is 
naively  unhistorical.  Was  it  not  to  this  man  that  they  sang  in 
dances  saying:  Said  has  stain  his  thousands  and  David  his  ten 
thousands  ?  It  is  curious  however  that  Goliath's  fellow-citizens 
should  not  adduce  the  death  of  their  hero  as  a  part  of  the  charge 
against  David.  — 13,  14.  As  David  reflected  on  these  words  he 
feared,  and  disguised  his  understanding,  and  raved  in  their  hands, 
and  drujnmed  on  the  doors,  and  let  his  spittle  run  down  upon  his 
beard'\  all  signs  of  a  maniac.  Ewald  cites  the  similar  behaviour 
of  Ulysses,  and  of  Arabic  and  Persian  heroes ;  Schm.  mentions 
Brutus  and  Solon.  — 15,  16.  The  king  has  no  relish  for  this  sort 
of  company  :  You  see  a  madman,  but  ivhy  should  you  bring  him  to 
me  ?  Am  I  in  lack  of  madmen  that  you  should  bring  this  to  rave 
at  me  ?  Shall  this  come  into  my  house  ?  From  the  implied 
assertion  that  Achish  already  had  madmen  enough,  some  have 
imagined  that  the  members  of  his  household  were  thus  afflicted 
(Schm.  p.  719,  who  cites  no  authorities). 


202  I   SAMUEL 

11-16.  The  opening  verse  :  David  rose  and  fled  that  day  from  the  presence 
of  Saul,  points  to  something  earlier  than  the  interview  with  Ahimelech.  This 
verse,  if  originally  following  that  interview,  should  read :  And  David  7vent 
thence.  That  the  general  style  of  this  section  is  similar  to  that  of  19I8-24  is 
indicated  by  Bu.,  who  prints  the  two  in  the  same  colour.  I  venture  to  think 
the  point  of  view  the  same.  In  both,  David  is  delivered  without  the  aid  of 
his  prowess.  Providence  is  his  guide  in  both,  and  his  escape,  really  miracu- 
lous in  one  case,  is  little  short  of  that  in  the  other.  And  if  that  account 
shows  resemblance  to  16I-"  by  the  position  it  gives  Samuel,  this  betrays  a  sim- 
ilar connexion  by  calling  David  king  of  the  land.  — II.  t:'o.N]  'A7xot;s  @. 
—  12.  ifl'?N3  and  13312  are  written  as  in  18''.  — 14.  ur^i]  the  form  has 
perhaps  preserved  the  original  third  radical.  Else,  it  is  a  clerical  error  for 
njiTM  or  x-"^  (Stade,  493  «;  Ges.^e,  60  d,  75  bb).  The  verb  is  used  of  chang- 
ing one's  clothes,  2  K.  2529,  and  in  the  Hithpael,  of  disguising  one's  self, 
I  K.  14-.  Dj?t3  is  the  taste  or  flavour  of  a  thing,  applied  figuratively  to  the 
character  of  a  nation  (Moab),  Jer.  48",  and  to  the  understanding  of  a  person, 
1  S.  2533.  The  difficulty  with  the  phrase  here  used  (and  in  the  form  inuso 
iaro"ni<  Ps.  34I  dependent  on  this  passage)  is  that  one  does  not  change  his 
understanding  as  he  does  his  clothes.  This  is  felt  by  &  which  renders  koI 
7]KKolaj(Tev  rh  -irpSamirov  avTov.  It  is  impossible  to  prefer  this  to  the  more 
difficult  reading  of  pj,  but  there  is  reason  to  suppose  the  obscurity  due  to 
early  corruption  of  the  text.  The  exegetical  feeling  of  Schmidt  (who  adheres, 
of  course,  to  the  Massoretic  text)  leads  him  to  see  that  the  change  of  one's 
understanding  is  attributable  to  God  alone.  In  fact,  it  is  possible  that  God 
(or  Yahweh)  was  the  original  subject  here,  so  that  the  parallel  with  the  deliv- 
erance at  Ramah  was  once  more  striking  than  it  now  is.  —  SSnnn]  either 
feigned  himself  mad,  or  raved  under  the  influence  of  fear,  Jer.  25I6.  The 
next  clause  has  a  double  translation  in  (g.  —  ipm]  vnn  Qre,  is  supposed  to 
mean  fnahe  maris,  as  we  say  scribble.  But  &  Ka\  fTVfji.wdvt(ev  renders  e\r^^\  as 
was  pointed  out  by  Cappellus,  Critica  Sacra,  p.  261.  Possibly  inii  is  only 
a  phonetic  spelling  of  in-'i,  Ew.  GVI^.  III.  p.  116,  E.Tr.  III.  p.  83.  — 16.  r^i7^'] 
one  is  tempted  to  restore  ]n  —  ?/you  see  a  madman,  why  should  you  bring 
him  to  me?  —  pnco  v^iC\  cannot  be  the  man  is  mad  (AV.,  cf.  RV.),  but  the 
words  must  be  the  object  of  the  verb.  — 16.  iDn]  probably  originally  iDnn 
(Kl.).  —  nrnx]  used  in  contempt  as  lo^".  —  'hf\  implies  that  the  experience 
was  burdensome  to  him. 


XXII.  1-XXVI.  25.  David  as  an  outlaw.  — The  various  locali- 
ties in  which  he  hid  himself  are  mentioned,  and  the  failure  of  Saul 
to  seize  him  is  shown.  We  have  duplicate  accounts  of  David's 
sparing  Saul  when  he  had  him  in  his  power.  There  are  also  other 
indications  of  compilation.  But  the  separation  of  the  documents 
is  difficult,  owing  to  the  nature  of  the  material.     In  any  case,  the 


XXII.  1-4  "  203 

narrative  consists  of  a  string  of  adventures,  each  of  which  forms  a 
unit  of  itself. 

XXII.  1-5.  David  collects  a  troop  of  followers,  and  brings  his 
father  and  mother  into  a  place  of  safety.  —  1.  The  opening  words 
would  connect  fairly  well  with  21^  21  ^°  or  21^^.  From  the  general 
tone  of  the  narrative,  they  agree  better  with  21^  than  with  the 
others.  After  the  signal  given  by  Jonathan,  therefore,  David  went, 
as  was  most  natural,  to  his  own  clan,  where  he  found  safety  in  the 
stronghold  of  Adullam'\  the  cave,  which  has  become  traditional, 
originated  in  the  error  of  a  scribe.  Adullam  is  one  of  the 
Canaanite  towns  whose  kings  are  said  to  have  been  conquered 
by  Joshua,  Jos.  12^^  It  is  mentioned  in  the  Shephela,  between 
Jarmuth  and  Shocoh,  Jos.  15^;  in  2  Chr.  11"  it  comes  in  immedi- 
ate connexion  with  Shocoh,  and  in  Neh.  ii^*^  it  is  one  of  the 
towns  of  Judah.  These  indications  point  to  a  location  on  the 
western  edge  of  Judah  and  favour  the  identification  with  the  pres- 
ent Aid-el- Ma  i^ Id-el- Mije,  Buhl),  twelve  miles  west  by  south  from 
Bethlehem.  The  Judahite  warrior  probably  already  had  friends 
there,  and  he  was  joined  by  his  own  clan.  With  David  outlawed 
they  would  not  be  safe.  —  2.  In  possession  of  a  stronghold,  he 
soon  became  head  of  a  band  of  soldiers  or  bandits  :  There  gath- 
ered to  him  all  the  oppressed~\  those  rendered  desperate  by  the 
demands  of  their  masters,  and  every  one  zuho  had  a  creditor^  a 
brutal  exactor  of  debts  who  would  not  hesitate  to  sell  the  debtor's 
family  into  slavery,  2  K.  4^ ;  and  every  embittered  man'\  according 
to  30^  men  who  were  angry  because  of  some  grievance.  The  case 
of  David  is  similar  to  that  of  Jephthah  (Jd.  11^).  The  energetic 
man  who  is  outlawed  easily  gathers  such  a  force.  They  numbered, 
in  David's  case,  four  hundred  men  ;  at  a  later  stage  of  the  history 
we  find  six  hundred,  30^.  —  3,  4.  The  verses  are  an  interpolation, 
or  at  least  from  a  different  source.  They  tell  how  David  entrusted 
his  father  and  his  mother  to  the  king  of  Moab.  The  account  has 
been  found  plausible  on  the  ground  that  Ruth  the  Moabitess  was 
an  ancestress  of  David.  But  the  fact  that  a  young  woman  had 
married  into  the  tribe  of  Judah,  renouncing  her  own  gods  and 
leaving  her  father's  house,  would  constitute  a  precarious  title  for 
her  great-grandson  in  claiming  protection.     The  Mizpeh  of  Moab 


204  «   SAMUEL 

here  mentioned  is  not  named  again  and  cannot  be  identified.  On 
the  reading  of  David's  request  —  Let  my  father  and  my  mother 
dwell  with  thee  —  see  the  critical  note.  —  5.  The  unexpected 
introduction  of  Gad  the  prophet  shows  that  the  verse  is  by  a 
dilTerent  hand  from  the  one  that  wrote  ^-  ^,  and  from  the  one  that 
wrote  ^-  *.  The  purpose  for  which  he  comes  is  to  warn  David  not 
to  remain  in  Mizpeh,  which  being  foreign  ground  is  unclean,  but 
to  co7iie  to  the  land  of  Judah.  In  consequence  of  this  advice 
David  catne  to  the  Wood  of  Hereth.     The  location  is  unknown. 

1.  0*7-13;  m>'3]  is  also  found  2  S.  2313  (and  i  Chr.  ii^s,  which  is  dependent 
upon  it).  In  both  cases,  the  word  is  followed  by  a  reference  not  to  a  myn 
but  to  a  mi-3  (cf.  v.^).  On  this  account  We.'s  correction  to  mi'c  here  and  in 
2  S.  2313  is  now  generally  accepted,  cf.  23".  A  cave  might  also  be  fortified 
as  a  stronghold,  as  were  the  caves  in  Galilee  in  the  time  of  Herod.  The 
tradition  which  identifies  the  cave  of  Adullam  with  the  immense  cavern  of 
Khareitun  is  traced  to  the  twelfth  century  of  our  era  only  (Baedeker,  Pales- 
tine^, p.  133).  On  the  name  Adullam  cf.  Lagarde,  BN.  p.  54  (from  'adula,  to 
turn  aside).  — 2.  pise]  of  the  straits  of  the  inhabitants  of  a  besieged  city, 
Dt.  28^3  jer_  199.— 3,  4.  Of  the  two  theories  concerning  the  relation  of  the 
verses  to  the  Book  of  Ruth,  it  seems  to  me  more  likely  that  these  are  the 
original  than  the  reverse  (cf.  Nestle,  Marg.  p.  14  and  reff.).  The  Rabbinical 
conceit  that  David's  father,  mother,  and  brothers  were  slain  by  the  Moabites 
after  being  entrusted  to  them  (Schm.  p.  743)  has  no  foundation  in  the  Biblical 
text.  —  Ni-']  does  not  suit  the  following  dshn.  We  should  probably  restore 
3:"  as  is  read  by  S> :  maneat  IL  might  be  adduced  as  having  the  same  force, 
but  it  probably  goes  back  to  yiviadwaav  @  which  We.  would  adopt  (appar- 
ently reading  ^n^).  (Th.  prefers  either  vr\y  or  rz'^  to  the  reading  of  ^.)  Kl.'s 
attempt  to  retain  H-i\  changing  ddhn  to  ddiSn,  is  opposed  by  the  following  '^y. 

—  dddn]  irapa  aoi  (Bi^,  fitTo,  aov  (5^  have  the  singular,  which  is  to  be  preferred. 

—  iS-nB>jj^-nD]  probably  in  the  sense  what  God  will  do  on  my  behalf,  cf.  14^ 
2530. — onj>i]  pointed  by  the  Massorites  as  though  from  nnj,  read  by  ®  as 
though  from  onj,  is  really  intended  for  on^n,  from  mj  (We.  confirmed  by. 
Dr.,  who  cites  S>  and  ®:  in  favour  of  the  reading).  —  misDa]  favours  the  read- 
ing mii-a  above.  Sb  however  has  nssca  here  and  in  the  following  verse. — 
5.  Gad  the  prophet  is  so  called  in  only  one  other  passage,  2  S.  24!^,  and  there 
the  title  seems  to  be  a  late  insertion.    Elsewhere  he  is  David's  Seer,  2  S.  24II 

( and  the  parallel  i  Chr.  2i9),  2  Chr.  2925.  He  belongs  in  the  later  history  but 
not  here.  We  should  at  least  be  told  how  he  came  to  be  with  David.  The 
object  of  his  introduction  is  to  get  David  by  divine  command  from  some  place 
outside  Judah  back  into  his  own  country.  Abiathar  had  not  yet  come  down 
with  the  ephod;  the  oracle  is  therefore  imported  by  a  prophet.  As  Adullam 
was  reckoned  to  Judah  it  is  probable  that  for  miXD3   here  we  should  read 


XXII.  4-8  205 

nsscj  (Bu.  following  Kl.).  —  iV']  a  rough  region  covered  with  thickets.  (S 
reads  here  "\'>.  —  mnj  possibly  an  Aramaizing  form  of  utin,  23**  (We.  follow- 
ing a  conjecture  of  Ewald,  GVI"^.  III.  p.  123).     (@  reads  aapfU  or  aapix- 

6-23.  The  vengeance  of  Saul  upon  the  priests.  —  Saul  learns 
that  Ahimelech  has  aided  David.  The  priest  is  therefore  sum- 
moned and  questioned.  He  admits  the  act,  but  denies  evil 
intent.  But  Saul  is  not  satisfied  and,  at  his  command,  the  whole 
priestly  clan  is  hewn  down  in  cold  blood.  Only  one  —  Ahime- 
lech's  son  —  escapes,  perhaps  because  he  was  left  behind  in  the 
journey  to  Gibeah.  He  flees  to  David  with  the  ephod.  David 
receives  him  and  promises  him  protection. 

6-23.  As  the  section  is  plainly  the  sequel  of  21--^'*,  there  is  no  objection  to 
supposing  it  originally  continuous  with  that.  We  must  however  suppose  that 
v.^  has  been  fitted  to  the  present  connexion.  In  fact  the  first  half  of  the  verse 
is  irrelevant.  The  fact  that  David  and  his  men  were  known  has  nothing  to 
do  with  Saul's  vengeance  on  the  priests.  The  paragraph  would  be  sufficiently 
introduced  by  ^'°.  The  object  of  the  author  is  evidently  to  show  how  the 
priestly  oracle  came  to  be  with  David  instead  of  with  Saul. 

6.  And  Saul  heard  that  David  and  his  men  were  known']  the 
author  does  not  tell  us  how  they  were  made  known,  and  Saul  in 
his  speech  betrays  no  knowledge  of  David's  whereabouts.  What 
moves  his  wrath  is  that  none  of  his  officers  has  told  him  of  Jona- 
than's friendship  for  David,  not  that  David  has  recruited  a  force 
of  men.  These  considerations  justify  us  in  making  this  clause  a 
redactional  insertion.  —  Saul  was  sitting  in  Gibeah  under  the 
Tamarisk']  perhaps  a  well-known  tree  like  the  Palm  under  which 
Deborah  sat  to  administer  justice,  Jd.  4^.  The  locality  is  further 
described  as  on  the  Bamah  (according  to  (§)  or  sanctuary.  Here 
he  sat  in  state  with  his  spear  in  his  hand]  in  place  of  a  sceptre. 
So  the  Argive  kings  and  others  (Sanctius  cited  by  Schm.). — 
7,  8.  Saul  appeals  to  his  courtiers  :  Hear,  O  Benjaniites  /  TJie 
son  of  Jesse  also  will  give  you  fields  and  vineyards,  and  will  make 
you  captains  of  thousands  and  captains  of  hund?-eds  !  an  ironical 
exclamation.  '  It  appears  that  you  expect  to  gain  as  much  from 
David  who  is  of  Judah,  as  you  have  already  received  from  me  who 
am  of  your  own  clan  ! '  The  absurdity  of  such  an  expectation  is 
manifest.     Yet  it  is  only  on  this  ground  that  their  behaviour  can 


206  I  SAMUEL 

be  explained  :  For  all  of  you  have  conspired  against  me,  and  no 
one  tells  me  when  my  son  enters  into  a  bond  with  the  son  of  Jesse, 
and  none  of  you  has  pity  upon  me  and  tells  me  that  my  son  has 
abetted  my  servant  against  me  as  an  enemy,  as  you  see  to  be  the 
case']  a  good  statement  of  Saul's  theory,  only  it  is  really  an  accu- 
sation against  Jonathan  rather  than  against  David,  —  9.  The  part 
of  informer  is  taken  by  Doeg  the  Edomite  who  was  standing  by 
the  officers  of  Saul,  though  he  was  not  one  of  the  regular  attend- 
ants at  court.  — 10.  After  telling  that  he  saw  David  come  to  Nob 
he  adds  that  Ahimelech  asked  Yahweh  for  hinf]  as  to  the  pros- 
perity of  his  journey.  The  preceding  narrative  says  nothing  of 
this,  but  the  truth  of  the  charge  seems  to  be  admitted  by  Ahime- 
lech. He  tells  also  of  the  provision  given  David,  as  well  as  of 
the  sword  of  Goliath,  though  the  latter  is  thought  to  be  a  later 
insertion, 

6.  a'C'jxi]  should  be  corrected  to  D''S'jNni  on  account  of  the  following  lifN 
(Kl.,  Bu.).  —  S;:'>sn]  evidently  a  tree  of  some  kind.  But  as  the  word  occurs 
only  three  times,  the  species  is  uncertain.  That  this  was  a  sacred  tree  is  not 
improbable.  Kl.  conjectures  that  the  enigmatical  &povpa  of  (g  represents  an 
intentional  substitution  of  n-ns  the  cursed  for  the  original  name.  —  nma] 
might  be  on  the  height.  But  @  has  eV  ^ajid,  which  is  the  word  for  the  village 
sanctuary  or  high  place,  cf.  9I-.  —  7.  "J^D"  ^ja]  the  plural  of  >j>a^  p  as  in  Jd. 
19I6.  —  aj]  Num  etiam  dabit  quern  admodum  ego  feci?  (Schm.)  The  second 
Qd'i'jS  must  be  an  error.  Read  D3'?3i  with  (gB.  —  8_  gaul  says  substantiallv 
the  same  thing  twice  over,  unless  we  suppose  the  two  counts  to  state  progres- 
sive degrees  of  guilt :  Jonathan  frst  enters  into  a  close  agreement  with 
David,  and  then  stirs  him  up  to  enmity  against  Saul.  —  nSn]  no  one  is  sick  for 
me  sounds  strangely,  and  we  shall  doubtless  read  Sen,  cf.  2321 ;  the  emenda- 
tion, suggested  by  Graetz,*  is  now  generally  adopted.  —  D^"7n]  is  generally  used 
of  Yahweh's  raising  up  either  helpers  or  enemies,  cf.  i  K.  ii23.  —  3-inS]  jg 
rendered  by  @  both  here  and  v.^^  as  though  it  were  a^xS,  which  is  probably 
to  be  restored.  3-ix  would  imply  that  David  was  lying  in  wait  for  Saul,  which 
even  Saul's  fancy  could  hardly  find  probable.  —  nrn  oio]  implies  that  the 
actual  state  of  things  was  known  to  the  courtiers.  —  9.  •'Dixn]  d  'S.vpos  (§B.  — 
Sj?  as:]  is  to  be  interpreted  like  the  similar  phrase  in  v.''.  Doeg,  in  any  case, 
could  not  be  said  to  be  placed  over  the  servants  of  Saul  for  these  D^^3;•  were 
the  high  officials.  @  reads  here  6  Kadea-TrjKws  (6  KaQecninivos')  eVt  ras  riixi6vovs. 
The  question  comes  whether  we  should  have  an  explanation  of  Doeg's  office 
or  of  his  presence  at  court.  The  latter  seems  to  be  more  probable.  The 
author  informs  us  that  Doeg  whose  office  would  not  naturally  bring  him  to  the 


*  According  to  Bu.  Books  of  Samuel  {SBOT.),  but  he  gives  no  reference. 


XXTT.  8-17  207 

council  of  state  was  standing  by  the  officers  of  Saul.  This  makes  it  probable 
that  his  office  had  been  described  before,  and  favours  the  originality  of  21*. 
^;  3SJ,  it  may  be  remarked,  is  nearly  always  used  of  literal  slanding. — 
10.  nin'3  iS'^^n'-J'm]  by  means  of  the  sacred  oracle.  That  the  consultation  of 
the  oracle  was  lawful  to  the  king  alone,  is  a  conceit  of  the  Jewish  expositors. 
—  iS  jnj  'H  'J  3-in  PNi]  is  suspicious  from  the  repetition  of  the  words  iS  ]Pi. 
It  is  therefore  marked  as  secondary  by  Bu.  in  his  text,  and  Co.  agrees  with  him. 
The  verse  is  very  short  however  without  this  clause,  and  the  reference  to  the 
sword  in  v.^^  protects  at  least  so  much  here.  Not  impossibly  the  original  had 
only  iS  jnj  annt  mixi. 

11.  Saul  summoned  Ahimelech  and  all  his  clan,  the  priests  who 
were  in  Nob,  and  they  came.  — 12,  13.  At  Saul's  address,  Ahime- 
lech answers  obediently  :  Here  am  I,  my  Lord !  Saul  then  makes 
his  accusation  :  Why  have  you  conspired  against  me,  thou  and  the 
son  of  Jesse,  in  that  thou  gavest  him  bread  and  a  sword  and  didst 
ask  God  for  him,  that  he  might  stand  against  me  as  an  enemy  as 
is  now  the  case  ?  If  Saul  knew  that  it  was  the  sword  of  Goliath, 
he  would  pretty  certainly  put  the  statement  into  the  accusation. 
— 14.  Ahimelech's  answer  is  a  defence  of  David :  And  who 
among  all  thy  servants  is  like  David,  trusted,  and  the  king^s  son- 
in-law,  and  chief  over  thy  subjects,  and  honoured  in  thy  household? 
The  panegyric  would  be  little  calculated  to  quiet  Saul's  anger,  but 
it  shows  Ahimelech's  honesty  of  intention.  — 15,  Precedent  more- 
over is  on  Ahimelech's  side  :  Is  this  the  first  time  I  have  asked 
God  for  him  ?  The  fact  is  not  denied,  but  the  intention  of  con- 
spiracy— far  be  it  from  me  !  In  his  consciousness  of  innocence, 
he  prays  that  no  guilt  may  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  himself  or  his 
father's  house.  That  these  were  under  suspicion  is  manifest  from 
their  being  summoned  before  the  king.  — 16.  To  Ahimelech's 
protestation  of  ignorance  and  innocence  Saul  replies  only  with  a 
sentence  of  death  on  him  and  his  whole  clan.  '  De  innocentia  tua 
tecum  nolo  disputare,  volo  autem  ut  morte  moriaris ;  haec  mea 
voluntas  est  pro  ratione  '  (Schm.).  — 17.  Saul  commands  the  rim- 
ners  standing  about  him']  the  body  guard  of  the  king  ran  before 
his  chariot.  They  also  acted  as  executioners.  —  Turn  about  and 
slay  the  priests  of  Yahweh]  we  may  picture  the  runners  standing 
near  the  king,  the  body  of  priests  a  little  further  back.  In  giving 
the  reason  for  his  command,  Saul  accuses  the  priests  of  complicity 
with  David,  giying  no  credence  to  the  protest  of  Ahimelech  :  For 


208  1  SAMUEL 

their  hand  also  was  with  David~\  indicates  that  he  has  others  in 
mind  as  well  as  they  —  perhaps  Jonathan  only.  The  soldiers 
refuse  to  carry  out  the  command,  owing  to  the  sacred  character 
of  the  accused.  —  18.  Doeg  was  less  scrupulous,  and  at  the  king's 
command  he  turned  and  slew  the  priests^  Jd.  8^'  15'^  2  S.  i'^  The 
victims  were  eighty-five  men  who  wore  the  linen  ephod~\  the  char- 
acteristic garment  of  the  priest  2'^  — 19,  The  verse  tells  that 
Saul  put  the  city  of  the  priests  to  the  sword  in  language  closely 
similar  to  the  ban  pronounced  upon  Amalek,  15^.  For  this  reason 
it  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  an  interpolation,  and  in  fact  it  could 
easily  be  spared  from  the  narrative.  We  have  no  further  informa- 
tion concerning  the  fate  of  Nob ;  and  there  is  no  parallel  to  the 
wiping  out  of  an  Israelite  city  by  Israelites,  except  in  the  very 
late  account  of  the  destruction  of  Benjamin,  Jd.  20  and  21. 

13.  iSn]  vSs  Qre  is  doubtless  correct.  —  SiNtri]  the  infinitive  absolute 
continuing  a  finite  verb,  cf.  Dav.  Syntax,  88  a.  —  iSn]  another  instance  of 
the  confusion  of  Sn  and  V;;.  The  latter  alone  is  in  place  with  Dip  in  the  hos- 
tile sense.  —  an^S]  must  correspond  with  the  word  adopted  in  v.^;  read  there- 
fore a\sS.  A  lier-in-wait  does  not  stand  against  any  one;  he  lurks  for  him, 
— 14.  )n;?Dtt'D  Sn  nDi]  andivho  tur?is  aside  to  thine  obedience  makes  no  sense 
in  this  connection.  ID  is  only  another  spelling  for  iir  as  is  indicated  by  &pxi^v 
(S;  nycrD  is  the  abstract  for  the  concrete  —  the  subjects  of  the  king,  Is,  11^* 
2  S.  23^^  (where  however  the  text  is  doubtful).  — 15.  inSnn  Dvn]  is  somewhat 
difficult.  It  is  necessary  to  read  as  a  question,  and  the  interrogative  has  prob- 
ably dropped  off  before  n,  unless  we  can  suppose  Dvnn  to  become  Dvn  for 
euphony.  But  what  does  the  priest  mean  by  asking :  Did  I  begin  to-day  to 
ask  ?  The  only  plausible  explanation  seems  to  be  that  he  means :  /  have  been 
accustomed  to  consult  the  oracle  for  David  on  his  other  expeditions,  with  your 
knowledge  and  consent ;  therefore  you  cannot  charge  tne  with  it  as  a  crime  in 
this  instance.  —  Ssj]  read  Sjai,  (5S.  — 17,  DJ]  is  lacking  in  ®. — i:in]  ijrN 
Qre  is  doubtless  correct.  — 18.  The  name  of  the  Edomite  is  here  written  jm 
instead  of  jni.  In  pronunciation  the  two  were  probably  alike.  —  id  niON  Ktrj] 
must  mean  wearing  a  linen  ephod.  @  omits  ^1*  — 19.  The  similarity  of  the 
language  to  15'  is  evident.  Editorial  insertions  of  this  kind  are  not  uncom- 
mon, so  that  Bu.  and  Co.  are  probably  right  in  making  the  verse  to  be  of 
that  class.  —  Din  ''ii'?]  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  lacking  in  @  and  superfluous, 

*  In  addition  to  what  was  said  above  (on  2I8)  about  linen  as  the  material  of 
priestly  garments  in  Egypt,  it  may  be  noted  that  in  Babylon  also  the  priests  and 
scribes  wore  linen  clothing.  This  is  pointed  out  by  Gunkel,  Archiv  ftir  Religions- 
■missenschaft,  I.  p.  297.  ^ 


XXII.  I7-XXIII.  209 

20,  21.  One  son  of  Ahimelech  escaped,  whose  name  was  Abia- 
thar.  His  only  refuge  was  with  David,  and  to  him  he  went,  and 
lold  him  that  Saul  had  slain  the  priests  of  Yahweh']  the  commen- 
tators suppose  that  Abiathar  was  left  in  charge  of  the  Oracle,  while 
the  other  priests  answered  Saul's  summons.  There  is  nothing  of 
this  in  the  text  however,  and  it  is  rather  surprising  that  the  Oracle 
is  not  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Abiathar  here,  and  first  comes 
into  view  in  23^.  —  22.  David  is  not  surprised  at  the  news:  / 
Iknew  that  day,  because  Doeg  was  there,  that  he  would  certainly 
tell  Saul.  He  therefore  accuses  himself  as  accessory  :  J  atn  guilty 
of  the  lives  of  thy  clan.  —  23.  He  encourages  Abiathar  to  stay  with 
him  and  not  fear  ;  for  whoever  seeks  thy  life  must  also  seek  my  life'\ 
restoring  the  probable  order  of  the  words.  —  For  thou  art  a  deposit 
with  me"]  the  article  deposited  with  one  for  safekeeping  was  sacred, 
and,  as  we  know  from  an  Arabic  story,  it  was  defended  to  the  last 
by  the  one  to  whom  it  was  entrusted. 

20,  21.  Th*"  evident  point  of  this  narrative  is  to  show  how  the  priest  came 
to  be  with  David  instead  of  with  Saul.  But  to  the  older  view  the  priest  was 
nothing  without  the  Ephod.  There  is  reason  to  suspect  therefore  that  the 
original  account  of  the  slaughter  of  the  priests  inserted  here  the  words :  and 
brought  the  Ephod  with  him.  The  scruples  of  the  later  writer  omitted  the  ref- 
erence to  the  Ephod,  whereupon  it  was  inserted  in  23^.  — nnON]  on  the  name 
cf.  BDB.  and  reff.  —  22.  The  somewhat  awkward  sentence  must  be  rendered 
as  above.  Omitting  or  with  (B^^,  we  might  also  omit  the  second  o  and  get 
simply  nui  i;n  j>n  'd  which  would  be  smoother.  —  ^pjd]  must  be  corrected 
to  Tian  with  (QSk  Th.  and  most  recent  scholars  (cf.  Dr.  Azotes).  —  rflj"^33]  ©^ 
omits  S3,  whereas  (B)^  inserts  it  before  ni3.  — ■  23.  tdj  and  T^'a:  have  become 
transposed  in  J§.  What  David  should  say  for  the  encouragement  of  Abiathar 
is  not :  he  who  seeks  my  life  is  also  seeking  yours,  but :  whoever  seeks  your  life 
must  fr  St  take  mine. 

XXIII.  1-29.  Saul  seeks  David.  —  David  delivers  Keilah  from 
the  Philistines.  Saul  purposes  to  besiege  him  there.  David, 
warned  by  the  Oracle,  leaves  the  city  and  dwells  in  the  wilder- 
ness. The  natives  inform  Saul,  who  makes  another  effort  to  capt- 
ure him.  At  the  critical  moment  however  Saul  is  called  away  by 
a  PhiHstine  invasion.  Between  the  two  attempts,  Jonathan  visits 
David  and  encourages  him,  and  the  two  make  a  bond  of  friendship. 

The  original  thread  of  the  narrative  has  been  disturbed  by  the 


210  I  SAMUEL 

intrusion  of  the  scene  with  Jonathan,  and  there  are  some  minor 
fragments  which  seem  to  be  interpolated. 

1.  The  verse  seems  to  connect  well  with  22^  There  David 
was  in  the  stronghold  of  Adullam  with  four  hundred  men.  Here 
he  begins  to  use  his  power  for  the  relief  of  his  own  people  when 
oppressed  by  the  Philistines.  David  is  told :  the  Philistines  are 
fighting  against  Keilah']  a  town  which  is  reckoned  to  Judah, 
Jos.  15**,  though  David's  men  had  a  different  notion.  If  the 
identification  with  the  present  Ki!a  be  correct,  the  place  lay  only 
three  miles  south  of  Adullam.  —  And  they  are  plundering  the  thresh- 
ing-floors'^ a  favourite  act  of  robbery  in  a  freebooting  society.  The 
treasure  of  the  fellahin  is  easiest  carried  off  at  the  time  of  thresh- 
ing.    Later  it  is  apt  to  be  hid  in  pits  or  stored  in  the  strongholds. 

—  2.  David  asked  of  the  Oracle :  Shall  I  go  and  smite  these 
Philistines  ?  The  author  does  not  deem  it  necessary  here  to 
explain  how  the  Oracle  came  to  be  with  David,  and  this  is  an 
argument  against  the  originality  of  v.^,  at  least  in  the  place  in 
which  it  now  stands.  The  answer  to  the  question  is  an  affirma- 
tive.—  3.  David's  men  however  object.  In  other  cases  we  find 
them  not  easy  to  control.  —  Behold  we  are  afraid  here  in  JudaK\ 
the  distinction  between  Judah  and  the  territory  of  Keilah  is  per- 
plexing. Possibly  Keilah  was  tributary  to  the  Philistines,  so  that 
David's  men  thought  of  it  as  Philistine  territory.  On  the  other 
hand  Keilah,  like  Carmel,  may  have  been  reckoned  to  Caleb  or 
one  of  the  other  clans  not  yet  absorbed  in  Judah.  How  tnuch 
more  if  we  go  to  Keilah  against  the  army  of  the  Philistines  !  The 
argument  is  a  fortiori.  —  4.  David  therefore  repeats  his  inquiry 
of  the  Oracle  and  receives  a  direct  command  and  a  promise : 
Rise,  go  down  to  Keilah,  for  I  give  the  Philistines  ifito  thy  hand. 

—  5.  In  accordance  with  the  command,  David  and  his  men  went 
to  Keilah  and  fought  against  the  Philis titles,  afid  drove  away  their 
cattle']  which  they  had  brought  in  order  to  carry  off  the  plundered 
grain.  (§°  inserts  they  fled  before  hitn  before  the  last  clause.  In 
any  case,  he  delivered  the  inhabitants  of  Keilah. 

6.  The  verse  is  obviously  displaced.  Designed  as  it  is,  to  show 
how  David  could  consult  Yahweh,  it  ought  to  come  earlier.  Or, 
if  the  author  supposed  the  former  response  to  have  been  given  in 


XXIII.  1-12  211 

some  other  way  than  by  the  Ephod,  then  the  proper  place  for  this 
verse  is  later,  after  v.''.  The  text  has  suffered  in  transmission,  but 
may  be  plausibly  restored  so  as  to  give  the  following  meaning  : 
A?id  when  Abiaihar  son  of  Ahimclcch  fled  to  David,  he  came  down 
to  Keilah  with  the  Ephod  in  his  hand"]  Keilah  was  the  place  to 
which  he  came  down  and  he  brought  the  Ephod,  —  these  are  data 
supplementary  to  the  account  of  the  slaughter  of  the  priests. 

1.  nS"'>'p]  cf.  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  193,  who  refers  to  the  Tell-el-Amarna  letters, 
ZDPV.  XIII.  142;  Guenn,  fudee,  III.  341  ff;  GAS.,  Geog.  p.  230.  —2.  nSxn] 
the  direct  question  is  put  to  the  Oracle  as  in  the  cases  already  noted. — 

3.  'siT\  r3-\>'a"'7x]  is  perhaps  an  expansion.  The  original  form  of  @  seems  to 
have  read  simply  io  Keilah  of  the  Philistines  (pointed  out  by  We.).  The  fact 
that  manyD  does  not  correctly  describe  a  plundering  expedition  need  not 
weigh  very  heavily.     David's  men  would  naturally  state  the  case  strongly. — 

4.  jrj]  the  participle  is  used  of  the  immediate  future,  as  frequently.  —  5.  vt^'jNi 
Qre,  is  to  be  preferred.  <§^  makes  the  order  this :  he  fought,  they  fled,  he 
slew,  and  drove  ofl'  the  cattle.  —  6.  The  commentators  all  remark  on  the  im- 
possibility of  ni3  Ti"'  nsN.  The  simplest  explanation  of  it  seems  to  be  that 
the  first  two  words  have  been  transposed.  By  inserting  a  1  we  get  a  fairly 
good  sense :  11^3  iiflNi  tii  nSvp.  This  is  the  actual  text  of  (S^  and  it  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  place  at  which  Abiathar  found  David  was 
Keilah,  and  that  the  Ephod  which  is  commanded  a  little  later  is  the  one  from 
Nob. 

7.  Saul  on  hearing  of  David's  place  of  sojourn  said  to  himself: 
God  has  sold  him  into  my  hatid,  for  he  has  entrapped  himse/f  in 
coining  into  a  city  of  doors  and  bars']  the  king  with  a  superior 
force  would  shut  him  in  his  cage  as  Sennacherib  boasted  after- 
wards that  he  had  done  to  Hezekiah.  —  8.  The  royal  summons 
was  sent  out  and  the  whole  people  mustered  to  besiege  David  and 
his  men.  —  9.  David  on  hearing  of  the  muster  of  the  militia  knew 
that  it  was  against  hint]  and  not  the  Philistines  as  was  ostensibly 
given  forth  (we  may  suppose)  that  Saul  was  carving  out  an  evil] 
and  he  therefore  prepares  to  consult  God.  — 10.  David  recites 
the  occasion  of  his  anxiety.  — 11.  The  text  of  |^  is  evidently  in 
disorder.  The  question  at  the  opening  of  the  verse  receives  no 
answer  and  is  repeated  later.  Omitting  it,  we  get :  Will  Saul 
come  down  as  thy  servant  has  heard?  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel,  tell 
thy  servant .'  To  this  question  an  affirmative  answer  is  given. — 
12.   The  second  question  —  Will  the  burghers  of  Keilah  give  me 


212  I  SAMUEL 

and  my  men  into  the  hand  of  Saul?  —  also  receives  an  affirmative. 
—  13.  David  and  his  men  left  Kcilah,  and  wandered  hither  and 
thither']  in  consequence  of  which  Saul  abandoned  his  expedition. 
The  ingratitude  of  the  men  of  Keilah  is  the  subject  of  animad- 
version by  Schm.,  but  the  better  part  of  valour  is  discretion,  and 
the  town  may  not  have  been  able  to  stand  a  siege.  Whether  it 
owed  allegiance  to  Saul  however  may  well  be  doubted.  — 14.  The 
verse  reads  like  a  summing  up  of  the  history,  so  far  as  relates  to 
this  part  of  David's  life.  It  may  have  concluded  the  account  of 
his  wanderings  in  one  of  the  documents  :  So  David  dwelt  ifi  the 
IVilderness']  the  Wilderness  of  Judah  is  meant,  overhanging  the 
western  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  —  Atid  Saul  sought  him  continu- 
ally, but  Yahweh  did  not  give  him  i?ito  his  hand.  The  allusion  to 
the  Wilderness  of  Ziph  is  an  intrusion. 

7.  13J]  gives  no  meaning  proper  to  this  context :  Dens  abalienavit  men- 
tern  ab  eo  (Schm.,  p.  773)  is  without  parallel.  ^TIL  and  the  Jewish  expositors 
make  the  word  mean  to  deliver  over,  but  without  support.  (5  has  itiirpaKtv, 
evidently  reading  13-,  a  verb  often  used  of  God's  handing  over  his  own  into 
the  power  of  their  enemies,  Dt.  32^'^  Jd.  2^*  3^18.1 2^.  It  is  safer  to  restore 
this  word,  for  which  we  have  direct  evidence,  than  to  conjecture  something 
else.  For  njp  Bu.  adduces  the  following  iJDj,  which  however,  as  Dr.  points 
out,  argues  the  other  way.  If  iDO  were  a  good  Hebrew  word  it  would 
exactly  fit  the  place.  —  nnai  o^nSi]  the  two  gates  locked  by  one  great  bar 
across  them.  Probably  small  towns  had  but  one  entrance.  —  8.  jJDti'n]  cf. 
15''.  —  nis^?]  a  few  MSS.  have  ^1i•S.  But  nis  is  the  proper  word  for  besieging 
a  fortress.  —  9.  tt'nnD]  the  verb  occurs  in  the  Qal,  Prov.  3^9  6>*,  in  the  sense 
of  planning,  as  here.  Saul  was  brewing  evil  is  an  English  equivalent.  Still 
it  is  possible  that  the  text  is  not  sound.  — 10.  T';?'?]  for  the  direct  object.  Dr. 
cites  a  few  instances,  but  possibly  T'yn  should  be  read.  — 11.  ni2  'p'2  ijT'JD^n] 
is  in  place  in  v.^-  where  we  find  it  repeated.  A  part  of  it  is  lacking  in  (5  so 
that  the  conjecture  of  We.  is  probable  —  that  the  whole  was  lacking  in  (5,  but 
that  owing  to  another  error  of  that  text  ijuD^n  was  inserted  later.  S  omits 
all  but  the  one  question  :  Will  the  Burghers  of  Keilah  deliver  me  and  my  men 
into  the  hand  of  Saul?  The  reading  of  We.  is  adopted  by  Bu.,  who  however 
inserts  nnyi  from  (g,  A  scribe  got  the  second  question  in  the  wrong  place, 
and  left  it  there  without  erasure.  From  ini  at  the  end  of  the  verse  ©^  omits 
to  the  last  word  of  v.i-;  a  clear  case  of  homeoteleuton;  the  eye  of  the  scribe 
fell  upon  the  second  nin>  idnm  instead  of  the  first.  ®^  has  inserted  the  miss- 
ing words  though  retaining  the  wrong  reply  to  the  first  question.  — 13.  ~Z'Z'3 
nixc]  where  (@  has  about  four  hundred.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between 
them.  @  may  have  been  conformed  to  the  statement  in  22^.  —  it:'N3  isSnn^i 
isSnpi]    a  genuine  Semitic  expression,  cf.  Koran  53^^:   "Then  covered  the 


XXIII.  12-19  213 

Sidra  tree  that  which  covered  it."  — 14.  fTi"T3"ia3  nna  aim]  is  superfluous, 
and  in  fact  contradicts  the  immediately  preceding  clause.  Without  this,  the 
verse  concludes  an  account  of  David's  wandering.  The  clause  originally  stood 
at  the  opening  of  the  next  adventure,  v.^^. 

15-18.  Jonathan's  visit.  The  verses  are  a  distinct  insertion. — 
15.  David  feared  because  Saul  had  come  out  to  seek  hi/ft]  the 
sentence  can  refer  only  to  some  particular  expedition  of  Saul,  and 
therefore  does  not  fit  the  immediately  preceding  statement  which 
affirms  Saul's  continuous  persecution.  No  more  does  it  belong 
after  v.'*,  which  tells  that  David  escaped.  —  And  David  was  then 
in  the  luilderness  of  Ziph']  the  name  still  survives  in  Tell  Ziph 
(GAS.  Geog.  p.  306;  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  163),  south  from  Hebron. 
Whether  the  Horesha  of  this  passage  is  identical  with  Khoreisa, 
as  suggested  by  Conder,  is  not  certain.  — 16.  Jonathan  came  to 
Horesha  and  encouraged  David  in  God~\  by  assurances  of  the 
divine  protection.  — 17.  Not  only  should  David  be  protected 
from  Saul,  but  he  should  also  attain  the  kingdom,  Jonathan  con- 
tenting himself  with  the  second  place.  — 18.  The  covenant  made 
is  parallel  to  the  two  already  spoken  of,  18^  20**. 

15.  The  verse  seems  based  on  26''.  The  author  of  the  secondary  account 
took  a  hint  from  the  second  clause  of  that  verse,  and  built  upon  it  a  further 
instance  of  Jonathan's  fidelity.  —  N'^^i]  is  intended  (Ew.,  GVI^.  III.  p.  127, 
E.  Tr.  III.  p.  92).  David's  fear  is  the  proper  introduction  to  Jonathan's  con- 
solation. —  n^ins]  other  cases  of  the  preposition  with  the  He  locale  are  cited 
by  Dr.  In  the  following  verse  however  n^-in  seems  quite  clearly  to  be  a 
proper  name  (so  Kl.,  Bu.,  Ki.).  Wooded  heights  do  not  exist  in  the  Wilderness 
of  Judah  and  probably  never  did  exist  there.  The  identification  with  Khoreim 
seems  to  be  adopted  by  GASmith  and  Buhl.  Kl.  supposes  it  to  be  the  same 
with  the  mn  -»;••',  22^.  — 16.  n^'PN  ptn^]  cf.  Jer.  23^*  Ezek.  1322  Job  4^.  — 
17.    nj;'r;S]  cf.  2  Chr.  28^  Esth.  lo^. 

19-29.  A  narrow  escape.  — The  Ziphites  offer  to  conduct  Saul 
to  David.  Saul  therefore  comes  with  a  large  force  and  has  David 
and  his  men  within  his  grasp.  But  at  the  critical  moment  he  is 
called  away  by  an  invasion  of  the  Philistines.  The  story  is  a  local 
legend  designed  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  name  given  to  one 
of  the  rocks  in  the  region. 

19.  The  verse  continues  "'  in  its  original  form.  The  second 
half,  however,   is  superfluous,   and  restoring   the   connexion  we 


214  »  SAMUEL 

should  read  :  David  dwelt  in  strongholds  in  the  Wilderness  of 
Ziph,  and  the  Ziphites  came  to  Saul  and  said :  Is  not  David  hid- 
ing himself  in  our  region  in  strongholds  ?  Had  they  given  the 
exact  location,  as  now  defined  in  the  rest  of  the  verse,  it  would 
have  been  unnecessary  for  Saul  to  urge  them  to  discover  David's 
hiding-place.  —  20.  And  now  according  to  thy  heart's  desire  to 
come  down,  O  king,  come  do7vn  ;  and  it  shall  be  our  part  to  deliver 
hitn  into  the  hand  of  the  king\  possibly  David's  presence  was  bur- 
densome, as  it  was  felt  to  be  by  Nabal.  —  21.  Saul  expresses  his 
gratitude  because  they  have  taken  compassion  on  him.  —  22.  He 
exhorts  them  :  Give  atfe?itio?i  still,  and  know  the  place  where  his 
foot  rests .'  The  text  cannot  be  called  certain.  According  to  |^, 
a  reason  is  added  :  For  I  am  told  he  is  very  cunning.  —  23.  The 
exhortation  of  the  preceding  verse  is  repeated  in  substance  and 
Saul  concludes  :  Then  I  will  go  with  you,  and  if  he  be  in  the  land, 
I  will  search  him  out  among  all  the  thousands  ofjudah.  —  24.  The 
Ziphites  went  in  advance  of  Saul  at  a  time  when  David  and  his 
men  were  in  the  Wilderness  of  Maon']  the  place  is  mentioned 
along  with  Carmel  and  Ziph  in  Jos.  15^^,  and  still  bears  the  name 
Ma'in.  As  the  next  verse  tells  that  David  on  hearing  of  Saul's 
incursion  went  and  dwelt  in  the  Wilderness  of  Maon,  there  is 
reason  to  suspect  the  integrity  of  the  text.  — In  the  Arabah  to  the 
south  of  Jeshimon'\  is  in  fact  sufficiently  explicit.  —  25.  David 
went  down  to  the  crag  tahich  is  in  the  Wilderness  of  Afaon.  The 
idea  seems  to  be  that  he  fled  down  the  mountain  side  without 
attempting  a  defence.  —  26.  Saul  was  in  hot  pursuit  —  David  was 
going  in  hasty  flight  fro  fn  Saul,  and  Saul  and  his  fnen  were  about 
to  fly  upon  David  and  his  men,  to  seize  hold  of  theni]  the  providen- 
tial interference  came  just  at  the  right  moment.  —  27,  28.  Saul  is 
called  off  by  the  news  of  a  Philistine  invasion,  and  the  place 
receives  the  name:  Rock  of  Divisions.  —  29.  The  verse  forms 
the  transition  to  the  following.  Engedi  is  a  well-known  oasis  in 
the  wilderness  of  Judah,  on  the  west  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

19.  As  the  verse  stands  it  gives  David's  location  tautologically :  in  strong- 
holds, in  Horesha,  in  the  Hill  of  Hachila\  but  the  indefinite  strongholds  is  the 
only  word  which  fits  the  situation,  and  it,  as  well  as  Saul's  reply,  is  contradicted 
by  the  more  exact  locations  whi^h  follow.  These  also  seem  inconsistent  with 
each  other  unless  we  suppose  Horesha  to  be  located  on  the  Hill  of  Hachila, 


XXIII.  19-29  215 

which  is  unnatural.  We  are  obliged  therefore  to  strike  out  as  later  insertion 
all  that  follows  nnxD3.  The  last  clause  was  put  in  under  the  influence  of  26^ 
and  n;nn  was  inserted  to  reconcile  this  with  the  preceding.  The  location  of 
the  Hill  of  Hachila  here  however  is  given  as  south  of  the  desert,  whereas  in 
26I  it  is  apparently  east  of  it;  cf.  v.^*  (We.).  —  nSijnn]  occurs  only  here  and 
in  26^-3  (Glaser  restores  it  by  conjecture  in  15'^  for  nSiin);  some  copies  have 
nSon.  —  fD'i'^n]  is  used  of  the  Desert  of  Judah  here  and  26''3,  cf.  Num.  zi^o. 
For  a  description  cf.  GAS.,  Geog.  p.  313;  also  Robinson,  BR^.  I.  p.  500  f. — 
20.  niN~'?3S]  elsewhere  mx  '?3a.  Here  we  should  expect  '^jd.  For  u'^i  @  seems 
to  have  read  u^Sn  connecting  it  with  what  precedes.  ijiS;ji  would  be  the  regu- 
lar form  to  express  what  we  need  in  this  context.  —  21.  anScn]  confirms  the 
emendation  made  in  22^. — 22.  iJ''3n]  supply  aV,  i  Chr.  12I*.  The  ellipsis  does 
not  occur  elsewhere  however,  and  perhaps  we  should  read  ijian,  De  Rossi, 
with  6  MSS.  Some  editions  prefix  1.  —  1N-11  lyii]  one  of  the  two  words  is 
superfluous,  and  ©^  has  only  i;7ii.  The  words  Dtt"  inxn  ia  are  inappropriate; 
Saul  is  not  concerned  with  the  particular  man  who  shall  discover  David  but 
with  the  discovery  only.  Besides,  we  should  at  least  emend  ••□  to  ^di.  @  has 
iv  raxft  ^ku,  on  the  ground  of  which  Th.  following  a  hint  of  Ew.  reads  mnon 
—  'where  his yf^^/z;/^  foot  may  be.'  But  the  adjective  is  uncalled  for.  Ki. 
reads  r\-\7^v  as  an  adverb :  kno7v  quickly,  but  the  order  of  the  words  renders 
this  impossible.  What  the  sense  requires  is  a  participle  defining  the  condition 
of  the  subject  —  where  his  foot  is  staying.  The  original  may  have  been  nyunr, 
cf.  Is.  34^*,  or  pi'^nc,  Ps.  91  ^  But  there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  the  corrup- 
tion is  deeper,  and  that  Saul  really  said :  spy  out  (iSji)  his  resting-place  cun- 
ningly, because  he  is  very  sly.  Something  like  this  seems  required  by  the 
concluding  part  of  the  verse.  —  idn  o]  for  one  says  is  perfectly  good  Hebrew. 
But  it  is  surprising  that  Saul  should  give  David's  character  by  hearsay,  so  that 
this  part  of  the  verse  also  seems  to  have  suffered  in  transmission.  (§  reads 
ov  (Xirert  (etnarf)  connecting  with  what  precedes:  haste?t  where  you  say 
(he  is),  adding  lest  he  play  you  a  trick.  —  23.  The  verse  is  so  nearly  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  preceding,  that  Kl.  takes  it  to  be  an  insertion  from  a  different 
document.  More  probably  it  has  been  expanded  by  a  scribe.  (S^  omits 
|13J"Sn  .  ,  .  Ssc,  and  what  remains  gives  a  satisfactory  sense. -^J13J"'7X]  prob- 
ably we  should  read  Sj;  (as  so  often).  They  were  to  return  resting  on  a  cer- 
tainty.—  tvn]  identified  by  Robinson.  The  village  lies  not  far  south  of 
Carmel.  In  this  place  O^  has  rri  fTt7)K6tf  and  Houbigant  *  conjectures  there- 
fore ppeu'.  But  as  the  Ziphites  were  active  in  the  matter,  the  Wilderness  of 
Maon  is  appropriate  enough. — naipa]  must  mean  in  the  valley  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  As  the  Jordan  valley  is  called  the  Arabah,  and  the  same  valley  extends 
south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  this  makes  no  difficulty.  On  Jeshimon  cf.  Num.  2i20 
2328  and  Dillmann's  note.— 25.  tt-pa*?]  read  m-paS  with  (gH^T  (Th.).  — 3^^] 
is  inappropriate.  (S5  had  itt'S  which  is  evidently  original  (Th.). — 26.  Sinb'] 
add  ITJN1  with  @.  —  ;Dnj]  cf.  2  K.  7^^  A7.     David  was  putting  himself  into  a 

*  Cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  VI.  280  (^Niese,  II.  p.  54),  iv  rfj  2i>wvo9  ipvi^v 


2l6  1  SAMUEL 

panic  in  getting  away. — 3"tj;']  whicii  is  used  o(  protecting,  Ps.  5^',  seems 
inappropriate  here,  so  that  the  conjecture  of  Kl.  who  reads  a'BjJ  is  acceptable. 
—  28.  n-i-^D]  on  the  Daghesh  (Baer  and  Ginsb.)  cf.  Ges.^e  22  s.  —  npSncn  >-^d] 
the  expositors  are  divided  between  the  interpretations  Rock  of  Divisions  and 
Kock  of  Escape.  The  latter  would  be  more  appropriate  if  p'?n  could  mean 
to  escape ;  but  this  seems  not  to  be  the  case.  —  29.  The  division  of  chapters 
and  verses  differs  in  the  different  editions,  and  Baer  begins  the  next  chapter 
with  this  verse  —  as  do  the  majority  of  editions  in  circulation.  Engedi  still 
bears  the  name  Ain  fidi,  Robinson,  BR'^.  I.  p.  504,  GAS.  Geog.  p.  269.  For 
the  older  authorities,  Reland,  Palaestina,  p.  763. 

XXIV.  1-22.  David's  magnanimity.  —  Saul  comes  into  David's 
power,  but  is  spared  and  recognizes  the  generosity  of  his  enemy. 
The  incident  is  similar  to  the  one  narrated  in  26.  In  both  cases 
Saul  is  at  the  mercy  of  David,  and  in  danger  of  being  slain  except 
for  David's  restraint  of  his  men.  In  both,  David's  motive  is  rev- 
erence for  the  Anointed  of  Yahweh.  In  the  second  of  the  two 
accounts,  David  makes  no  allusion  to  having  spared  Saul  before, 
and  Saul  is  equally  silent.  We  have  reason  to  think,  therefore, 
that  we  have  two  versions  of  the  same  story.  It  is  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  one  belongs  with  each  of  the  two  documents  which 
make  up  the  bulk  of  the  narrative  already  considered.  Almost  the 
only  clue  to  the  relation  of  one  of  these  stories  to  the  other  is 
that  in  this  chapter  Saul  is  brought  into  David's  power,  whereas  in 
26  David  takes  upon  himself  the  danger  of  going  into  the  enemy's 
camp.  The  slight  preponderance  of  probability  seems  to  me  to 
be  on  the  side  of  the  latter  representation  (chapter  26)  as  more 
original. 

1.  As  remarked  above,  the  editions  vary  in  the  division  of  chap- 
ters. The  only  ones  which  agree  with  Ginsburg  in  making  the 
dividing  line  the  space  which  indicates  a  Parasha,  are  the  very  cor- 
rect edition  printed  at  Mantua  1742,  and  those  printed  by  Plantin. 
I  have  followed  this  notation  with  the  idea  that  Ginsburg's  edition 
is  likely  to  be  widely  current.  —  2.  The  force  of  three  thousand 
men  which  Saul  took  with  him  reminds  us  of  the  standing  army 
which  he  recruited  at  the  beginning  of  his  career,  1 3I  The  Wild- 
goafs  Crags,  on  the  face  of  which  he  sought  David,  are  not  yet 
identified,  but  the  ibex  {bed?i)  is  still  found  in  the  region. — 
3.  The  sheep  folds  to  which  Saul  came  were  possibly  caves  with  a 
rough  stone  wall  about  the  entrance,  such  as  are  still  found  in  the 


XXIV.  1-7  •  21/ 

Wilderness  of  Judah.  Into  one  of  these  caves  Saul  went  to  relieve 
himself,  cf.  Jd.  3-*,  where  the  same  euphemism  is  used  as  here. 
This  cave,  however,  was  the  one  in  which  David  and  his  men  had 
taken  refuge.  They  would  naturally  be  unseen  by  Saul  as  he  came 
in  from  the  daylight.  We  need  not  insist  that  the  whole  of  David's 
force  was  in  the  one  cave.  —  4-7.  The  narrative  does  not  follow 
the  natural  order,  and  is  perhaps  interpolated.  —  4.  David's  men 
remind  him  of  a  promise  of  God  :  This  is  the  day  of  which  Yah- 
weh  said:  Behold  I  give  thine  enemy  into  thy  hand,  and  thou  shall 
do  to  him  as  thou  pleasest.  No  such  promise  is  recorded  in  the 
preceding  narrative.  The  author  probably  had  in  mind  later  pro- 
phetic declarations.  According  to  the  present  text,  David,  without 
replying  to  his  men,  secretly  approached  the  king,  and  cut  off  the 
skirt  of  his  mantle.  —  5.  The  feeling  that  his  action  was  an  indig- 
nity gave  him  a  twinge  of  conscience.  —  6.  The  verse  continues 
the  conversation  between  David  and  his  men  with  no  reference  to 
the  skirt.  —  7.  So  David  restrained  his  men'\  the  exact  verb 
intended  is  doubtful,  see  the  critical  note. 

2.  a^S'^n]  cf.  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  97  note.  ^^  has  r^s  e^pa.^  ruv  4\d(pwi', 
which  possibly  points  to  DiV^Jin  iis.  —  3.  "iDnS]  Ginsb.  gives  yon^  as  the 
reading  of  the  Massora.  The  phrase  here  used  is  found  in  only  one  other 
passage,  but  the  meaning  seems  clear.  A  call  of  nature  is  the  only  adequate 
reason  for  the  King's  going  alone  and  unattended  into  a  cave.  (5  also 
speaks  euphemistically,  but  Aq.  rendered  airoKfvucrat  (Theod.  Questiones),  and 
Josephus  describes  Saul  as  iireiy6iJ.€i'os  vnh  ruv  Kara  <pvaiv,  with  which  com- 
pare ut purgaret  ventrem  IL,  and  nijiix  najJoS  ST.  Only  ^  (which  makes  Saul 
sleepy  breaks  the  consensus  of  the  ancient  authorities.  —  tjio]  indicates 
a  cave  with  branching  recesses.  —  0''3C"]  describes  the  position  in  which 
David's  men  were  at  Saul's  entrance  —  they  were  sitting  down  in  the  recesses 
of  the  cave  (Dr.). — 4-7.  According  to  the  received  text  the  order  is  as  fol- 
lows: (i)  David's  men  point  out  his  opportunity;  (2)  David  rises  and  cuts 
off  Saul's  skirt;  (3)  he  repents  of  it;  (4)  he  then  repHes  to  his  men;  (5)  he 
restrains  them  from  bloodshed.  This  is  obviously  an  unnatural  order,  and  Co. 
and  Bu.  rearrange  the  clauses  in  the  order  ^  ^-  '«•  ^b.  5. 7b_  fhg  narrative  then 
reads  smoothly  enough.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  dislocation  took 
place.  It  cannot  be  intentional,  for  there  is  no  motive  for  it;  the  accidents 
of  transmission  do  not  generally  work  in  this  way.  It  seems  simpler  to  sup- 
pose that  the  corruption  has  come  in  as  so  often  by  interpolation.  The  earlier 
account  made  no  mention  of  David's  cutting  off  Saul's  skirt.  The  fact  that 
Saul  had  been  in  David's  power  was  sufficiently  evident  by  their  having  been 
in  the  cave  together.     A  later  writer  wanted  more  tangible  evidence  and  su 


2l8  I  SAMUEL 

introduced  the  incident  of  the  skirt.  Verse  '  joins  directly  to  ^*,  and  what 
is  between  has  been  inserted.  Verse  ^^  is  inserted  by  the  same  hand  and  is 
as  readily  spared  as  *^-^. — 4.  ^;;'N  orn]  it  would  be  grammatically  correct  to 
translate :  //its  is  the  day  when  Yahweh  says,  in  which  case  Yahweh  speaks 
by  his  providential  delivery  of  Saul  into  David's  hand,  and  there  is  no  refer- 
ence to  a  prediction  made  at  an  earlier  time.  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  de- 
scribe Yahweh  as  speaking  by  such  a  providence,  and  the  following  words 
jnj  '3JN  njn  are  in  the  regular  prophetic  form.  I  have  therefore  supposed 
such  a  reference  here.  The  other  view  is  defended  by  Dr.,  /Votes,  i^^x  Qre, 
is  correct.  —  5.  iodTin]  should  have  the  article  or  be  defined  by  a  genitive. 
Th.  proposes  to  insert  '^^ycn.  @  however  reads  ttjs  SittAoi'Sos  avrov  instead 
of  SiNB''?  ic'.v,  and  the  latter  is  suspicious  from  its  conformity  to  v.*.  Restore 
therefore  i':"'>~  1^3  tn.  —  6.  mn>D  i'?  nSi*?,-!]  so  in  26"  i  K.  21'.  —  7.  vom] 
the  verb  means  to  rend  or  tear,  Jd.  14^.  Even  if  we  suppose  a  figure  of 
speech,  the  action  described  by  such  a  figure  is  too  violent  for  the  situation. 
(5  Kal  fneKrev  may  point  to  >5;"i  as  conjectured  by  Cappellus  (Critiea  Sacra, 
P-  3i°) ;  it  might  also  represent  •apz'•'^  which  would  be  appropriate  here.  Bu. 
proposes  >'J3''%  citing  25-*'-  ^  which  are  not  strictly  parallel. 

8.  The  verse  division  should  be  made  to  include  the  last  clause 
of  the  preceding  :  And  when  Saul  rose  from  the  cave  and  went 
on  the  road,  David  arose  after  him  and  ivent  out.  As  Saul  turned 
at  his  call,  David  did  the  customary  obeisance  by  prostration.  — 

9.  David's  expostulation  assumes  that  Saul  is  under  the  influence 
of  evil  advisers  who  slanderously  say :   David  seeks  thy  hurt,  — 

10.  In  contrast  to  this  is  the  present  experience  :  To-day  thine 
eyes  see  that  Yahweh  gave  thee  into  my  hand  in  the  cave,  but  I 
refused  to  kill  thee']  and  the  refusal  is  motived  by  his  relation  to 
Saul  as  his  lord  and  as  the  Anointed  of  Yahweh.  — 11.  David 
calls  attention  to  the  skirt  as  evidence  ;  I  have  not  sinned  against 
thee  though  thou  art  aiming  at  my  life,  to  take  it]  repayment  of 
evil  with  good.  As  already  shown  the  verse  must  stand  or  fall 
with  *'^.  — 12.  He  leaves  his  cause  in  the  hands  of  God,  reiter- 
ating his  refusal  to  lay  his  hand  upon  Saul.  — 13.  The  introduction 
of  such  a  proverb  as  we  here  find  is  particularly  infelicitous,  for  it 
intimates  that  the  wickedness  of  Saul  would  be  his  destruction. 
There  is  good  ground  therefore  for  suspecting  the  verse  to  be  an 
interpolation.  — 14.  The  unworthiness  of  Saul's  effort  is  seen  in 
the  insignificance  of  the  object.  David  compares  himself  to 
a  dead  dog,  cf.  2  S.  9*,  or  to  a  flea.  — 15.  A  prayer  for  vindication 
at  the  hands  of  Yahweh. 


XXIV.  8-21  219 

8.  p"nn«3  should  apparently  be  mns  as  read  by  IS^^,  and  we  should 
possibly  omit  n>m  with  <S^.  The  reading  of  (3^  is  considerably  shorter  than 
either  of  the  others  —  wal  i^rjKde  AauiS  sk  tov  <nnr]\aiov  oniffoi  2aoi)A  Kiywu 
omitting  from  one  ott'ktw  to  the  other.  — 10.  yyy  ini]  Saul's  eyes  had  not 
seen  anything  in  the  cave,  but  the  appearance  of  David  made  clear  vi'hat  his 
situation  had  been.  We  should  retain  the  text  therefore,  instead  of  changing 
to  yy;^  nsn  with  &.  —  ■'.rNi]  is  irregular  as  pointed  out  by  Th.,  We.,  Dr. 
The  emendation  to  jncni  suggested  by  We.  on  the  ground  of  koX  ovk  rj^ouK-fjOrii/ 
commends  itself.  Ki.  adheres  to  |^  translating  »ian  sprach  mir  zu,  but  the 
tense  is  wrong.  IL  reads  ncNi  =  and  I  thought  to  kill  thee  ;  but  it  is  scarcely 
possible  that  David  would  confess  an  intention  of  this  kind.  —  DMni]  evidently 
requires  ^y)  to  be  expressed  as  is  actually  done  by  3L.  On  the  ground  of  (5 
however  we  may  restore  DnNi  (We.) ;  the  similarity  of  n  and  n  in  the  old- 
Hebrew  alphabet  is  remarked  upon  by  Ginsburg,  Introd.  p.  291.  — 11.  ijni] 
is  curiously  connected  by  (5^  with  the  preceding :  he  is  the  Anointed  of 
Yahweh  and  77iy  father.  (@s  reads  simply  koX  tSou  t^  -mipv-^iov.  The  diffuse- 
ness  of  this  verse  is  an  argument  for  its  later  insertion.  What  David  wished 
to  impress  was  sufficiently  evident  without  so  many  words.  —  ms]  only  here 
and  Ex.  21^^.  It  there  means  to  intend  a  thing.  — 13.  The  proverb  of  the 
ancients  here  introduced  seems  to  mean  that  the  destruction  of  the  wicked  will 
come  from  themselves  —  'his  violence  shall  come  down  upon  his  own  head.' 
A  reader  might  find  this  appropriate  to  Saul  and  insert  it  in  the  margin, 
whence  it  came  into  the  text.  We  can  hardly  suppose  the  original  author, 
who  makes  David  show  such  deep  respect  for  Saul,  to  put  such  an  intimation 
into  David's  mouth.  —  ■■jD-ipn]  should  probably  be  plural  —  the  following  word 
begins  with  c.  —  i^]  should  be  n  which  form  alone  is  appropriate  to  the 
proverb.  — 14.  The  exaggerated  humility  with  which  David  here  speaks 
seems  to  me  secondary,  as  compared  with  the  vigorous  language  of  26^''. 
— 15.  •'jass'^ij  in  the  meaning  of  freeing  from  one's  enemies,  as  was  done 
by  the  liberators  of  Israel  in  the  Book  of  Judges. 

16.  Saul,  overcome  with  emotion,  wept  aloud  in  oriental  fash- 
ion.— 17.  Saul  confesses  that  David  is  more  righteous,  in  that  he 
has  repaid  good  for  evil.  — 18.  The  present  example  is  conspicu- 
ous proof :  To-day  thou  hast  done  great  good  to  me  in  that  Yah- 
weh shut  me  up  into  thy  hand  and  thou  didst  not  kill  me']  all 
David's  acts  towards  Saul  had  been  good,  but  this  was  the  greatest. 
— 19.  Such  an  act  is  almost  unheard  of — what  ffian  will  find 
his  enemy  and  send  hi?n  on  a  good  path  ?  Saul  therefore  predicts  : 
Yahweh  will  reward  thee  good  for  the  good  deed  which  thou  hast 
done  to  me.  —  20.  Saul  confesses  his  conviction  that  David  is  to 
come  to  the  kingdom.  —  21.  He  therefore  adjures  David  not  to 
cut  off  his  seed  after  him  ;  and  that  thou  -.vilt  not  destroy  my  name 


220  I  SAMUEL 

from  my  clan'\  the  blotting  out  of  one's  name  by  the  destruction 
of  his  children  was  the  gravest  calamity,  2  S.  14^  —  22.  With 
David's  compliance  the  interview  ended  ;  Saul  went  to  his  house 
and  David  and  his  jnen  went  up  to  the  strotighold. 

16.  in  .  .  .  idnm]  is  suspected  by  Bu.  and  is  in  fact  doubtful.  The  same 
words  occur  in  26^''  where  they  are  in  place  and  are  followed  by  David's 
answer.  — 18.  HNi  A7.]  hhni  Qre.  —  mjni]  the  conjectural  emendation  of 
Kl.  to  nStjm  is  accepted  by  Bu.,  Ki.,  and  gives  a  much  better  sense :  To-day 
thou  hast  done  the  greatest  thing  which  thou  hast  done  to  me  in  the  7vay  of  good, 
namely  (tj'n  tn)  :  Yahiveh  delivered  me  into  thy  hand,  etc. —  19.  in'?e'^]  is 
usually  assumed  to  be  a  question  and  Dr.  compares  Ezek.  15"'.  It  seems  easier 
however  to  emend  with  Kl.,  reading  in  instead  of  ■'di  (cf.  3L  quis  enim), 
striking  out  t:"N.  Otherwise  we  must  assume  an  anacoluthon :  IVhen  a  man 
finds  his  e/iemy  and  sends  him  on  a  good  path  —  Yahweh  -will  reward  thee. 
The  author  in  this  case  intended  to  say :  Yah'uieh  will  reward  him,  but 
changed  the  construction.  —  hth  orn  nnn]  is  possible,  but  the  following  clause 
is  difficult.  We  should  probably  read  ntn  aion  nnn  with  Kl.  —  20,  21.  These 
verses  with  the  first  three  words  of  ^2  are  coloured  by  Bu.  as  a  very  late  inser- 
tion (cf.  JiS.  p.  229).  The  idea  of  this  author  however  that  David  was  to 
come  to  the  kingdom  might  readily  express  itself  by  the  mouth  of  Saul  in 
this  way. 

XXV.  1.  This  notice  of  the  death  of  Samuel  has  no  connexion 
with  what  precedes  or  with  what  follows,  but  is  duplicated  in  28^. 
It  may  have  followed  immediately  on  19^^^''  in  a  life  of  Samuel. 
The  history  as  thus  reconstructed  told  of  David's  preservation  by 
the  Spirit  of  Prophecy  which  fell  upon  Saul,  and  added  that  soon 
after  that  experience  Samuel  died,  so  that  David  took  refuge  in 
the  Wilderness.  Samuel  was  buried  in  his  hotise,  cf.  i  K.  2'^* 
(perhaps  also  2  K.  21^*  originally).  Though  other  specific  state- 
ments to  this  effect  are  not  found,  it  is  possible  that  burial  in  one's 
house  was  not  uncommon.  The  fact  that  the  sepulchres  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  were  in  the  palace  (Ezek.  43'^"^)  would  favour  this 
view.  There  is  a  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  alleged  '-'>nes 
of  Samuel  were  transferred  to  Constanti'iople,  a.d.  406.  —  The 
wilderness  of  Faran  to  which  David  io  said  to  have  gone  is  the 
extreme  southern  end  of  the  Arabah.  The  historical  improbability 
of  David's  going  so  far  into  the  wilderness  is  not  a  sufficient  reason 
for  changing  the  text. 

1.  Schmid  cites  Serarius  and  Sanctius  concerning  the  translation  of  Sam- 
uel's bones  to  Constantinopli.'.      lie  himself  of  course  rejects  that  which  the 


XXIV.  2I-XXV.  3  221 

credulous  and  superstitious  accept.  —  psc  laicj  known  as  the  seat  of  Ish- 
mael,  Gen.  21-1  and  one  of  the  stations  of  the  Wandering,  Nu.  lo^^  j2i«. 
On  the  ground  of  Madv  @^  most  editors  are  disposed  to  emend  to  pya  here. 
But  the  change  to  this  from  the  other  on  the  ground  of  the  next  verse  is 
more  probable  than  the  reverse. 

XXV.  2-44.  David  and  Nabal.  —  David  takes  the  occasion  of 
a  festival,  to  ask  a  contribution  from  a  vi^ealthy  Calebite  named 
Nabal.  His  messengers  are  churlishly  sent  away  empty,  and  David 
in  his  wrath  vows  to  destroy  the  man  and  his  family.  Nabal's  wife 
Abigail,  on  being  informed  of  the  way  in  which  the  messengers 
have  been  treated,  suspects  that  mischief  is  brewing.  Hastily  tak- 
ing a  generous  present  she  rides  to  meet  David  whom  she  pacifies. 
A  few  days  later  Nabal  dies  and  David  makes  Abigail  his  wife. 

The  story  presents  a  vivid  picture  of  Ufe  in  the  land  of  Judah. 
It  seems  to  be  drawn  from  the  source  from  which  in  subsequent 
chapters  we  have  David's  family  history.  The  interest  of  the 
author  is  not  in  David's  method  with  the  wealthy  sheep  owners, 
but  in  the  way  he  got  a  wife,  and  in  the  kind  of  wife  he  got.  The 
connexion  with  what  goes  before  is  not  plain,  but  as  there  is  no 
trace  in  it  of  the  persecution  by  Saul,  we  may  suppose  that  it 
once  followed  directly  on  23",  where  the  author  disposes  of  Saul 
(so  far  as  his  history  is  concerned)  by  remarking  that  he  sought 
David  continually  but  that  God  did  not  deliver  him  into  his  hand. 
The  close  of  the  narrative  joins  directly  to  2  7^ 

2-13.  The  provocation. —The  situation  is  described:  T/iera 
was  a  man  in  Maon'\  a  locality  already  mentioned  23^* ;  whose 
business  was  in  Carmel'\  the  only  business  which  can  be  carried 
on  in  the  region  is  that  of  the  shepherd.  Carmel,  still  bearing 
the  name  Kunmil,  is  directly  south  of  Ziph.  Nabal  was  wealthy 
in  flocks,  and  at  this  particular  time  he  was  engaged  in  shearing 
his  flocks  at  Car/nel']  the  sheep  shearing  was  a  festival,  like  the 
harvest  and  the  vintage.  At  such  a  time  a  large  hospitality  was 
customary ;  the  Sheikhs  of  the  Bedawin  still  count  on  the  gener- 
osity of  the  sheep  masters  (Robinson,  BR'^.  I.  p.  498).  —  3.  The 
characters  of  the  man  and  his  wife  are  contrasted  :  The  woman 
was  sensible  and  comely,  but  the  man  was  rough  and  ill  behaved'\ 
as  is  borne  out  by  the  story.     l',y  race  he  was  a  Calebite,  of  the 


222  1  SAMUEL 

clan  which  possessed  Hebron  and  the  surrounding  country.  Ap- 
parently the  clan  still  counted  itself  independent  of  Judah. — 
4,  5.   David  heard  in  the  wilderness  —  perhaps  in  Horesha,  23^* 

—  and  sent  ten  men  with  a  demand  for  protection  money.  The 
demand  was  entirely  correct  in  form,  bearing  David's  greeting 

—  ask  him  of  his  welfare  in  my  name.  —  6.  The  greeting  is  set 
forth   at   large,   though   the   introductory  words  are  obscure. — 

7.  The  basis  of  a  claim  is  found  in  David's  behaviour.  He 
had  refused  to  exercise  the  right  of  the  strongest :  Thy  shep- 
herds were  with  tis,  and  tve  did  not  jeer  at  theni\  that  the  soldiers 
in  such  circumstances  should  refrain  from  provoking  a  conflict 
by  biting  words  was  an  extraordinary  instance  of  self-control.  — 
And  nothing  of  theirs  was  missing^   scarcely  less  remarkable.  — 

8.  David's  messengers  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Nabal's  own 
men,  and  to  the  fact  that  they  have  come  on  a  feast  day,  and 
ask  a  present y^r  thy  soti  David.  —  9.  The  messengers  deliver  the 
message  in  the  name  of  David.  — 10.  Nabal's  reply  is  an  insult- 
ing one  :  Who  is  David?  And  who  is  the  Son  of  Jesse?  Many 
are  the  slaves  /«  these  days  ivho  break  away,  each  from  his  master'] 
the  justice  of  the  taunt  in  relation  to  many  of  David's  followers 
gave  it  its  sting.  — 11.  Sarcastic  reply  to  the  request:  And  1 
must  take  niy  bread  and  my  wine  and  my  flesh,  which  I  have  slain 
for  my  shearers,  and  give  it  to  men  of  whom  I  do  not  know  whence 
they  are!  The  answer  is  sufficiently  plain.  — 12,  13.  David's 
messengers  bring  their  report,  and  David  prepares  to  avenge  the 
insult.  Four  hundred  men  are  to  go  with  him  and  tivo  hundred 
remained  with  the  baggage]  an  arrangement  made  also  at  a  later 
time,  30^°. 

2.  C'\si]  we  expect  Z'^h  inM,  and  a  case  analogous  to  the  text  is  difficult  to 
discover.  rtz'jUi  is  used  of  the  flocks  and  herds,  the  shepherd's  work,  as  it  is 
used  of  the  crops  —  the  worJi  of  the  farmer,  Ex.  231^.  Similarly  rh-;D  of  the 
shepherd's  flock,  Is.  40^'^.  —  Vms]  on  the  site,  Robinson,  B/?^.  I.  p.  495  f.,  GAS., 
Geo^.  p.  306,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  163.  —  ':'nj]  of  great  wealth,  like  Barzillai  2  S.  19^^. 

—  3.  Vjj]  the  word  is  not  quite  such  a  nickname  as  we  think  from  the  transla- 
tion yoo/.  It  means  reckless  (cf.  Is.  32'^),  and  might  be  accepted  as  a  compliment 
by  a  man  like  Nabal.  — ^^ij^ax]  ©  tries  to  make  the  word  more  euphonious  by 
softening  it  to  Abigaia.  —  r\vf\  Is.  19*  2  S.  3^^  13S3  Kt. :  la'rj  QrL  The 
former  is  possibly  an  attempt  to  be  witty — he  was  like  or  the  name  was  like 
(Kl.)  his  heart ;  with  an  allusion  to  the  well-known  proverb  '  as  he  thinketh  in 


XXV.  3-i8  223 

his  heart.'  The  ^^^  is  doubtless  right.  (3  ^uBpunos  k  w  i  x  S  s .  On  the  clan 
t^aleb  cf.  Moore, /w^w,  p.  30.  —  6.  'nS]  is  unintelligible.  The  punctuators 
intend  it  to  represent  'nx'? :  io  my  brethren.  But  Nabal  alone  is  addressed,  so 
that  we  should  at  least  make  it  a  singular,  io  my  brother.  Even  then  the  sen- 
tence is  awkward  and  there  is  reason  to  suspect  corruption,  especially  as  the 
following  1  is  superfluous.  The  versions  seem  to  have  had  no  different  read- 
ing. I  suspect  that  hd  is  a  corruption  of  i"?  (or  ns)  and  that  in  •■n^  we  have 
the  'n  or  clan,  to  which  I  would  join  the  i  from  the  next  word,  making  nmnNi 
rnSi  iS :  and  you  shall  say  io  him  and  to  his  clan.  The  whole  sept  would  be 
gathered  for  the  shearing.  Houbigant  suggests :  hpn  ■'HN  iV  ns  DmcNi.  "  R. 
Sal.  et  R.  Levi:  sic  fiat  tibi  post  annitfn  incolumi.  D.  Kimchi :  sic  fiat  tibi 
per  omnem  vitam.  Et  pro  se  citat  Chaldaetiin.  Magis  placet  Tremellius,  qui 
vertit  post  Luther :  Et  dicite  ei,  si  incohvnis  est.  Forte  sic  :  Et  dicetis  sic  : 
Vivo  (h.  e.  Deo  vivo  vitae  nostrae  Domino  te  commendo)  :  ut  tu  sit  salvus." 
Schm.  p.  827.  The  embarrassment  of  the  commentators  is  evident.  —  7.  nS] 
read  n'^i  with  (SSTS.  The  1  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  word  is  the  occasion 
of  the  error.  —  auaSon]  on  the  pointing  cf.  Ges.^s  53/.  —  8.  3ia  or]  else- 
where of  a  festival,  Esth.  8^'  and  also  in  post-Biblical  Hebrew.  Cf.  also 
3'3ia  Dn;-ir,  Zech.  8^^.  —  ij3]  with  loss  of  the  x,  Ges.^^,  72^7.  —  iJ^Si  inaj?^] 
<S  has  only  t<S  vl(f  aov,  which  seems  most  appropriate.  —  9.  iniri]  most 
naturally  means  and  rested  from  their  weariness.  Undoubtedly  a  considerable 
journey  in  the  desert  is  presupposed,  so  that  we  may  retain  the  reading.  @ 
reads  cpM  and  connects  with  the  following,  (5^'  giving  the  right  order :  Ka\ 
a.vfw^5r]<Tf  l^aBaX  Kal  aniKpiOr].  From  the  character  given  to  Nabal  we  might 
expect  some  manifestation  of  anger,  cf.  20^*,  so  that  much  may  be  said  for  this 
reading.  — 10.  Dii3>']  the  article  is  necessary  and  is  found  in  (3-  —  csidpch] 
perhaps,  as  Kl.  suggests,  tvho  play  the  robber.  — 11.  ic::]  is  scarcely  possible. 
Water  was  indeed  a  scarce  commodity  in  the  desert.  But  David  hardly  ex- 
pected his  men  to  bring  it  to  him  from  Nabal.  Read  with  @  'j>\  Abigail 
did  in  fact  take  wine  as  part  of  her  present. 

14-19.  Abigail's  prompt  action. — She  was  informed  by  one 
of  the  shepherd  lads:  David  sent  messengers  f7-om  the  Wilderness 
to  greet  our  master  and  he  flew  at  them'\  with  insulting  words.  — 
15,  16.  The  claim  of  David  as  to  his  forbearance  towards  Nabal 
and  his  protection  of  the  flocks  is  verified.  His  men  had  been 
a  7vall  to  the  flocks  against  marauders. — 17.  The  situation  is 
critical,  for  evil  is  determined  upon  our  master~\  cf.  20^  All  de- 
pends upon  Abigail,  for  it  is  impossible  to  approach  Nabal :  he  is 
such  a  son  of  Belial  that  one  cannot  speak  to  him'\  the  evil  temper 
of  the  man  makes  him  a  terror  to  his  household.  — 18.  The  hint 
was  sufficient  and  the  prudent  woman  took  from  the  abundant 
stores  provided  for  the  shearers  a  substantial  present  for  David, 


224  »  SAMUEL 

Besides  bread  and  wine,  there  were  five  roasted  sheep\  Gen.  18^  ^, 
five  measures  of  parched  grain'\  \'f ,  a  hutidred  bunches  of  raisins 
and  tu'o  hundred  cakes  of  figs']  that  the  bunches  of  raisins  were 
counted  is  evident  from  2  S.  16'.  — 19.  The  present  was  sent  on 
before,  as  in  the  case  of  Jacob's  meeting  with  Esau,  to  make  a 
favourable  impression. 

14.  I'jn]  had  told  while  the  messengers  were  returning  to  David.  —  "lyj 
anjjjnn  inx]  is  redundant.  ®  omits  ^;•J.  (@L  has  a  double  translation 
of  anj/'jnc).  The  conjecture  of  Kl.  adopted  by  Bu.  is  attractive  (reading 
S'>"\nr).  —  cn3  a;"M]  means  he  few  upon  ihem  as  the  bird  of  prey  swoops 
upon  its  victim.  \Yhether  this  fits  the  context  is  doubtful,  for  the  anger  of 
Nabal  could  scarcely  be  compared  to  the  eagerness  of  a  rapacious  bird.  All 
endeavours  to  correct  the  text  are  however  unsatisfactory;  koI  f^eKXivev  air' 
aiiTwu  (&  implies  cn:;  tTM.  But  Nabal  had  used  insulting  words  as  well  as 
turned  from  them.  S^  seem  to  render  cnj  tsp^i,  cf.  Ps.  (j'^'^  ■=.  and  he  was 
disgusted  at  them.  But  it  was  Nabal's  expression  of  his  feeling  (not  the  feeling 
itself)  that  gave  offence.  Of  the  conjectures,  perhaps  the  best  is  ona  Bi'aM 
=  and  he  kicked  at  them,  cf.  2"^  Dt.  321*  (Tanch.  cited  by  Th.).  — 15.  UPvnj 
nT;'2]  (5  prefixes  /cai  and  joins  to  the  next  verse.  But  the  close  of  that  verse 
again  gives  a  time  determination,  so  that  we  must  retain  the  reading  of  |§.  — 
17.  irjis"'?N]  the  preposition  should  evidently  be  '—;.  —  nai:;]  the  p  of  com- 
parison :  he  is  more  wicked  than  that  one  can  speak  to  him  ;  too  wicked  to  speak 
to.  — 18.  S^J12N  and  niirj*  may  show  only  the  ease  with  which  1  and  ^  are  inter- 
changed, but  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  both  are  remains  of  forms  once 
current,  cf.  Ges."^^  24  b  75  v.  —  B'ND]  according  to  Benzinger  (^Archaeol.  p.  183  f.) 
the  seah  was  about  twelve  litres.  The  name  still  survives  among  the  Bedawin 
though  the  size  of  the  measure  has  shrunk,  Doughty,  II.  p.  113.  @  seems  to 
have  read  ^/.^aj  here.  —  nN:;i]  koX  y6ixop  eV  (S.  We  might  expect  raisins  to 
be  measured  rather  than  counted,  but  the  reading  of  |§  is  protected  by  2  S.  16^. 
We.  conjectures  that  the  translators  read  nbti  here  and  rendered  koX  y6ixov 
which  is  found  in  one  codex  (HP  236). — 19.  Saj]  lacking  in  &^,  should 
probably  be  stricken  out. 

20.  There  was  no  time  to  spare  :  She  was  riding  on  the  ass, 
and  coming  down  the  side  of  a  hill  7vhile  David  and  his  men  were 
comitig  down  towards  her,  and  she  tnet  theni]  came  upon  them 
unexpectedly  is  the  natural  interpretation.  —  21.  Before  the  meet- 
ing David  had  said  :  0?ilyfor  nought  did  I  guard  all  that  belongs 
to  this  fellow  in  the  Wilderness,  so  that  nothing  of  his  was  missing. 
—  22.  As  the  text  stands  we  read :  God  do  so  to  the  efiemies  of 
David  and  more  also  !  But,  as  was  already  seen  by  Kimchi,  it 
should  be   God  do  so  to  David!     A  scribe  could  not  think  of 


XXV.  1 8-29  225 

David  as  forswearing  himself,  and  so  inserted  a  word  which  makes 
the  imprecation  mean  just  the  opposite  of  what  the  original  narra- 
tor said.  A  Lapide  thinks  that  David  used  the  language  more 
vulgi,  as  if  most  men  hesitate  to  utter  imprecations  on  themselves. 
This  however  is  not  the  case,  and  the  parallel  which  he  urges 
(Dan.  4^*^)  does  not  hold.  The  oath  was  to  the  effect  that  David 
would  not  leave  alive  of  Nabal's  household  a  siftgle  male  —  the 
not  very  refined  description  is  used  also  in  i  K.  14'"  16^^  21^* 
2  K.  9**.  —  23.  At  the  meeting,  Abigail  alighted  hastily  in  order 
to  show  respect,  cf.  Jd.  i",  and  fell  upon  her  face  before  David'] 
the  customary  obeisance  to  a  superior.  —  24.  And  she  fell  at  Jiis 
feet  and  said:  Upon  me  be  the  guilt]  2  S.  14^  In  dissuading 
David  from  carrying  out  his  oath,  she  would  take  the  responsi- 
biUty.  So  Rebecca  assumes  the  curse  which  Jacob  anticipates, 
Gen.  2  7'^.  —  Let  thy  maid  speak  in  thine  ears]  her  humility  is  in 
strong  contrast  with  the  arrogance  of  Nabal.  —  25.  Let  not  my 
Lord  give  a?iy  attetition  to  that  good-for-nothing  man!  The  reason 
is  that  his  depravity  has,  in  a  sense,  deprived  him  of  judgment : 
His  name  is  Reckless,  and  recklessness  dwells  with  him]  as  his  con- 
stant companion.  We  might  paraphrase  :  "  His  name  is  Brutus 
and  he  is  a  brute."  This  is  all  that  can  be  said  —  for  herself 
she  can  plead  ignorance  of  David's  embassy.  —  26.  If  the  verse 
belongs  here  it  is  a  prediction  that  David's  enemies  shall  become 
like  Nabal  —  equally  foolhardy  we  may  suppose  —  and  so  run  into 
destruction.  —  27.  She  prays  that  her  present  may  be  given  to 
the  young  men  who  accompany  David.  —  28.  She  asks  David's 
indulgence,  on  the  ground  that  his  future  success  is  assured,  since 
he  fights  the  wars  of  Yahweh.  The  argument  is  that  the  suc- 
cessful man  can  afford  to  be  magnanimous.  The  secure  house 
promised  to  David  is  his  dynasty.  —  29.  And  should  a  man  rise 
up  to  pursue  thee  and  to  seek  thy  life,  then  shall  the  life  of  my 
Lord  be  botmd  iti  the  bundle  of  the  living,  in  the  care  of  Yahweh 
thy  God]  the  precious  things  are  not  left  loose  to  be  lost  or 
destroyed,  but  are  carefully  wrapped  up  and  kept  together,  usu- 
ally in  the  inner  compartment,  under  the  eye  of  the  careful 
housewife.  The  reader  will  recall  the  ten  pieces  of  silver  of 
the  Gospel  parable.  The  idea  is  the  same  expressed  later  in 
the  declaration  that  the  righteous  are  written  in  the  book  of  the 
Q 


226  1  SAMUEL 

living,  that  is  among  those  destined  by  God  to  long  life.  The 
exact  contrast  is  in  the  second  half-verse  :  But  the  life  of  thine 
enemies  he  shall  cast  away  with  a  sling~\  a  modern  Jewish  im- 
precation is  :  may  his  life  be  bound  in  a  bag  full  of  holes,  and 
thus  quickly  lost.  The  older  commentators  found  in  the  two 
expressions  allusions  to  the  future  state  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked.  But  it  is  misleading  to  translate  tiephesh  by  the  word 
soul  with  our  definition  of  that  word,  Abigail's  view  evidently 
does  not  reach  beyond  the  present  life.  —  30,  31.  The  declara- 
tion which  follows  is  to  the  effect  that  David  will  be  happier  in 
future  days,  if  he  now  restrains  himself  from  taking  vengeance  on 
Nabal :  When  Yahweh  shall  have  done  what  he  has  promised .  .  . 
then  thou  wilt  not  have  this  as  a  qualm  and  as  a  reproach  of  heart, 
that  thou  hast  shed  blood  for  nought,  and  that  thine  own  hand  has 
deliver-ed  thee']  instead  of  waiting  for  the  deliverance  promised  by 
God.  When  that  time  comes,  he  will  remem.ber  Abigail  with 
gratitude  for  her  present  action.  —  32-34.  David's  reply  is  a  full 
recognition  of  the  providential  nature  of  her  mission,  as  well  as  a 
tribute  to  her  discretion.  By  her  action  she  has  kept  him  back 
from  walking  into  blood-guiltiness.  Had  she  not  acted,  the 
extermination  of  Nabal's  house  would  have  been  complete. 

20.  n>ni]  has  arisen  erroneously  from  the  following  N'n.  The  tense  is 
wrong  as  well  as  the  gender.  Read  simply  N^ni  (Bu.).  —  irDj]  in  the  shade 
of  the  mountain  does  not  seem  satisfactory.  IKID^  2C  gives  a  good  meaning  — 
on  the  side  —  but  we  have  no  other  trace  of  a  Hebrew  word  tro  in  this  sense. 
IL  has  ad  radices  mantis.  —  21.  tn]  in  the  restrictive  sense:  only  to  be  de- 
ceived have  I  done  this.  —  htS]  is  used  contemptuously  as  elsewhere.  — 
22.  in  ■'^■'n':']  makes  the  whole  imprecation  nonsense.  Kimchi  says  it  is 
a  euphemism  for  in'^.  Clericus,  following  Abarbanel,  makes  the  meaning  to 
be  :  may  God  give  David'' s  enemies  the  wealth  of  Nabal,  but  this  is  quite  con- 
trary to  the  uniform  sense  of  D'hSn  t\v}^  nj.  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that 
the  alteration  was  made  to  save  David  from  false  swearing,  or  possibly  to 
save  the  reader  from  imprecating  a  saint. — I'pa  |\'^w'::]  has  been  much  dis- 
cussed. The  question  is  whether  David  means  that  he  will  not  leave  alive 
a  single  male,  or  that  he  will  not  leave  alive  even  a  dog.  The  latter  is  favoured 
by  Isaaki,  Kimchi,  and  A  Lapide,  as  it  was  earlier  by  Procopius  of  Gaza,  and 
it  is  adopted  by  Schm.  But  it  would  hardly  occur  to  an  oriental  to  extermi- 
nate the  dogs  about  his  enemy's  village,  however  natural  it  may  be  for  a 
Roman  emperor  to  threaten  the  dogs  of  a  besieged  city  (as  was  done  by 
Aurelian  in  a  case  cited  by  Clericus  from  Bochart).     The  other  interpretation 


XXV.  29-34  227 

which  makes  the  words  describe  every  male  of  the  threatened  family  seems  to 
agree  with  the  passages  where  the  phrase  occurs,  in  all  which  it  is  accom- 
panied by  words  which  apply  to  men  and  not  to  animals.  Objections  which 
have  been  based  upon  oriental  customs  seem  not  to  have  a  basis  in  fact.  The 
Targum  in  translating  jnn  pTi  seems  to  understand  all  who  have  reached  years 
of  discretion,  while  some  expositors  have  taken  the  phrase  in  the  opposite 
sense  oiyouftg  boys,  others  interpreting  of  the  lowest  slaves.  The  question  is 
discussed  at  length  by  Bochart,  Hierozoicon,  I.  II.  55.  —  23.  n^je-^y  in  ■'DnS] 
the  phrase  has  been  confused  by  a  scribe;  restore  n>0N"Sy  "i  'JdS  (We.). — 
24.  '^fin]  is  lacking  in  ©^  which  makes  the  clause  begin  with  the  preceding 
1^^n^•m :  and  she  prostrated  herself  on  the  ground  at  his  feet.  Repeated  pros- 
trations are  in  order  however,  and  I  have  retained  J^  (Kl.,  Bu.  read  with  @ : 
r'?jn  ^'i  vnx  innii'm).  —  •'jn"'>2]  emphatic  repetition  of  the  pronoun,  Davidson, 
Syntax,  §  i.  —  V''i''^'\  at  the  first  blush  it  seems  as  if  Abigail  means  to  assume 
Nabal's  guilt.  But  the  parallels,  2  S.  14^  Gen.  27!^,  show  that  the  blame 
which  might  fall  upon  the  person  addressed  is  assumed  by  the  speaker,  as 
the  Arab  still  says :  may  I  be  thy  ransom  !  —  naini]  the  conjunction  is  omit- 
ted by  (@<S1L,  and  the  construction  is  quite  as  good  without  it.  S  omits  the 
last  three  words  of  this  verse  and  the  opening  v/ords  of  the  next,  reading 
only :  let  thy  viaid  speak  in  thine  ears  concerning  this  man  Nabal.  As  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  a  translator  should  thus  shorten  the  text,  it  is  possible  that 
we  have  here  the  earlier  form  of  the  sentence.  —  25.  ^ySan]  lacking  in  S. — 
'';"'?3n  t;'\vi]  2  S.  i6^  cf.  20^.  —  Sjj-Sy]  lacking  in  (@s,  is  more  likely  to  be 
inserted  than  to  be  omitted  by  a  scribe. — 26.  The  verse  does  not  fit  in  the 
context  and  is  not  clear  in  itself.  It  contains  an  oath  of  Abigail's,  but  to  what 
does  she  swear?  The  most  natural  connexion  would  be  with  what  precedes: 
Thy  servant  did  not  know  .  .  .  by  the  life  of  Yahweh  !  The  strong  assurance 
that  Yahweh  had  kept  David  back  from  bloodshed  might  perhaps  be  in  place, 
though  the  same  theme  is  treated  again  in  v.^i  where  it  is  more  appropriate. 
But  even  then  the  concluding  part  of  the  verse  is  enigmatic.  Nabal  was  not 
yet  dead  or  stricken  in  any  way.  The  wish  that  David's  enemies  should 
become  like  Nabal  is  entirely  premature.  Besides  this,  the  use  of  •\z<h  instead 
of  •>3  is  awkward  and  probably  points  to  interpolation.  I  suspect  the  original 
form  of  the  sentence  to  have  been :  SajD  vr\i  .  .  .  a^D"i2  Nnn  "ijjjo  ^l^'^<  nin>  ^n 
iji  T'3''N.  This  was  inserted  in  the  text  by  a  scribe  who  did  not  find  Abigail's 
language  vigorous  enough,  and  was  itself  interpolated  by  the  insertion  of  the 
current  -\Z'Si  •■m  which  required  the  second  nin\  — 27.  ^313  in  the  same  sense 
Gen.  33II  Jd.  i'^  i  S.  30^6.  —  N^^n]  read  ns^an.  —  28.  The  expressions  put 
into  Abigail's  mouth  are  the  evident  sentiments  of  one  who  knew  David's 
later  career.  It  is  not  improbable  that  this  extended  speech  is  expanded  from 
a  simpler  form.  — JCNJ  no]  2^^  2  S.  7IS  i  K.  ii^^  (all  late  passages).  —  Picn'^D 
nin>]  1 81^.  —  -i^D'C]  cf.  1  K.  i**  Job  27^.-29.  dpm]  read  cpi  —  hypothetical 
(cf.  Dr.  Notes).  —  nin'>  pn]  the  bundle  is  thought  of  as  containing  the  pre- 
cious things  which  the  master  of  the  house  keeps  in  his  immediate  care  — 
with  him. — jj'^pn  f\:s  Hina]  we  should  expect  the  d  of  comparison  and  then  jd. 


228  1  SAMUEL 

Still  it  is  possible  that  tlie  sling  is  thought  of  as  the  means  of  casting  away  — 
cast  away  using  the  holder  of  the  sling,  or  sling  away  with  a  sling.  —  30.  -\\i\ 
•y^it'^  13I*.  —  31.  npiij'?]  the  general  intent  of  the  passage  is  clear,  though 
this  word  occurs  only  here.  Either  ^S  or  •'Jin'?  is  superfluous,  and  one  must 
be  stricken  out.  —  70^*^1]  read  "ids'S  with  @  and  five  Heb.  MSS. — ^•'^rMn'^i] 
add  n^  with  (5.  That  one's  mvn  hand  should  save  him,  is  a  standing  phrase, 
Jd.  7^.  —  34.  \'iN3.'ii]  a  mongrel  form,  having  both  the  preformative  of  the 
imperfect,  and  the  ending  of  the  perfect,  cf.  Ges.26  "jbh,  Nestle  in  ZATIV. 
XIV.  p.  319.  The  latter  author  supposes  the  form  intended  to  give  the  reader 
his  choice  of  two  forms;  Dr.  suggests  that  it  has  been  influenced  by  the 
following  v^Nip*^,  which  seems  to  me  more  probable.  —  35.  yis  NrNi]  the 
phrase  is  used  in  a  bad  sense,  to  describe  the  perversion  of  justice  by  favourit- 
ism. It  seems  to  mean  to  give  any  one  pleasure  by  granting  his  request,  and 
so  to  make  the  downcast  face  look  up. 

36-44.  The  outcome.  —  Not  long  after  this,  Nabal  is  smitten  by 
an  act  of  God,  and  Abigail  becomes  David's  wife.  —  36.  Abigail 
comes  home  and  finds  her  husband  in  no  condition  to  receive  an 
important  communication  —  He  had  a  banquet  like  a  king's  and 
NabaVs  heart  was  merry  within  him,  and  he  was  excessively 
drunken']  the  effect  is  heightened  by  the  contrast  between  his 
hilarity  and  the  danger  from  which  he  had  just  escaped,  and  also 
by  the  contrast  between  the  present  revelling  and  the  coming  blow. 

—  37.  In  the  morning,  when  he  had  somewhat  recovered  from 
his  debauch,  the  news  was  told  him.  —  At  the  shock  his  heart  died 
within  him  and  he  becatne  stone]  a  stroke  of  paralysis  is  the  natural 
explanation.  —  38.  Ten  days  later,  Yahtueh  stnote  Nabal  with,  a 
second  stroke  which  was  fatal.  —  39.  David  recognizes  that  God 
has  intervened  :  Blessed  is  Yahweh  who  has  pleaded  the  case  of 
my  insult  received  at  the  hand  0/ Nabal]  a  quarrel  between  men 
of  the  same  blood  should  be  referred  to  an  arbitrator.  One  ele- 
ment of  David's  rejoicing  is  that  Yahweh  has  so  promptly  assumed 
this  office,  the  other  is  that  he  has  kept  back  his  servant  from  evil] 
that  is,  from  violating  customary  law  by  shedding  Israelitic  blood. 

—  40.  David  woos  Abigail.  Marriage  of  a  widowed  person  soon 
after  bereavement  is  still  common  in  the  East.  —  41.  She  is  will- 
ing to  be  the  lowliest  of  his  servants  —  a  maid  to  wash  the  feet  of 
his  slaves.  —  43.  The  account  of  Abigail  is  finished,  but  the 
author  adds  further  information  concerning  David's  family.  First, 
David  took  Ahinoam  of  Jezreel,  not  the  northern  city  of  the  name, 


XXV.  36-XXVI.  229 

but  one  in  Judah.  —  44.  In  the  second  place,  Michal,  his  first 
wife,  had  been  given  to  Palti  ben  Laish,  of  Gallim.  Saul  re- 
garded David's  flight  as  a  desertion  of  his  wife,  which  brought  her 
back  under  her  father's  power. 

37.  Instead  of  saying  when  the  wine  had  gone  from  Nabal,  (5  renders 
when  Nabal  had  recovered  from  the  wine.  —  38.  D''D^n]  should  perhaps  be 
a^c',  though  the  writer  may  have  in  mind  the  ten  days  (which  actually  elapsed 
in  this  case)  as  a  known  period.  —  39.  Saj  Tia]  is  connected  with  ai  by 
Driver.  The  other  construction  S^j  t^d  inoin  (preferred  by  Dr.  Weir)  seems 
to  me  more  vigorous.  —  itr'Nia  nin>  aTn]  as  in  the  case  of  Abimelech,  Jd.  9^. 
—  '?''j"'3N3  ^3^'l]  seems  to  be  parallel  to  Cant.  8*.  In  the  latter  however  it 
evidently  means  to  speak  to  a  maiden's  guardian  for  her  hand.  Abigail 
seems  to  have  had  the  disposal  of  her  own  person.  —  42.  noVnn]  the  first  n 
has  arisen  by  erroneous  duplication.  She  and  the  ten  maids  who  followed  her 
did  not  ride  —  she  rode  and  they  walked  by  her  side.  —  43.  Ahinoam  was 
also  the  name  of  Saul's  wife,  14^'. — SNyir'c]  a  Jezreel  in  Judah  is  men- 
tioned Jos.  15^8  in  the  same  group  with  Maon,  Carmel,  and  Ziph. — 44.  There 
is  no  intimation  that  Saul  was  guilty  of  aggression  in  resuming  the  right  to 
give  his  daughter  to  another  husband.  —  loVe]  is  hn'^dr'H  in  2  S.  3^^  —  v^l 
in  2  S.  vh,  is  rendered  "A^ei's  in  (5^  and  Iccas  in  (@^. — d'''?jc]  the  only  Gal- 
lim mentioned  elsewhere,  Is.  lo^'',  is  evidently  in  Benjamin.  @^  has  'Poyu^ua 
and  ®^  ToXiad. 

XXVI.  Saul  in  David's  power.  —  Saul,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Ziphites,  again  seeks  David.  When  he  is  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood, David  goes  into  the  camp  at  night.  The  whole  army  is 
overcome  by  deep  sleep,  but  he  refuses  to  allow  his  companion, 
Abishai,  to  slay  Saul.  To  show  what  the  situation  has  been,  he 
carries  away  the  king's  spear  and  cruse  of  water.  Arrived  safely 
at  a  distance  from  the  camp,  he  calls  to  Abner  and  reproaches 
him  with  neglect  of  duty.  Saul  recognizes  David's  voice  and  at 
David's  expostulation  confesses  his  wrong,  after  which  each  goes 
his  way. 

The  section  is  obviously  parallel  to  24.  And  as  there  is  here  no 
reference  to  David's  repeated  acts  of  magnanimity,  there  is  reason 
to  think  that  both  accounts  go  back  to  the  same  original.  With 
this  agrees  the  fact  that  the  Ziphites  are  active  in  both.  We  have 
no  hesitation,  therefore,  in  assuming  that  one  of  them  stood  in 
one  of  the  two  histories  of  the  period,  the  other  in  the  other. 
Budde  assigns  this  to  E,  the  other  (chap.  24)  to  J.     Of  the  two, 


230  1  SAMUEL 

the  present  one  seems  to  me  to  be  nearer  the  event,  and  therefore 
to  belong  to  the  older  of  the  two  documents.  The  nearest  his- 
torical parallel  is  Gideon's  visit  to  the  camp  of  the  Midianites, 
Jd.  7^^^  which  is  assigned  by  competent  authorities  to  J. 

XXVI.  The  identification  of  the  narrative  with  E  seems  in  this  instance 
especially  precarious.  Budde  (JiS.  228)  gives  only  the  following  marks: 
o^'^j-o  which  he  does  not  allow  to  be  a  mark  of  E  in  2  S.  i^^°;  '^Ji'D  which 
occurs  in  this  sense  only  once —  if^;  niirssio  19^*  but  also  i  K.  19^,  which 
can  hardly  be  attributed  to  E;  David's  standing  on  the  top  of  the  tnountain 
like  Jotham,  Jd.  9^,  in  a  section  whose  authorship  is  doubtful  —  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  fact  that  so  commonplace  a  phrase  can  hardly  weigh  much  in  an 
argument;  nnnx  d^h'-n,  which  is  also  common  in  D;  ''^  >'nn  which  occurs  in 
J,  Gen.  43^  Ex.  5-^-;  and,  finally,  Saul's  confession,  which  can  scarcely  be  called 
characteristic.  The  combined  force  of  these  indicia  cannot  be  very  great. 
They  would  probably  be  outweighed  by  the  single  word  hst^p  which  is  char- 
acteristic of  J,  Gen.  2^^  1 5^2.  Cf.  also  P13  'jj  v.^^  found  in  20^1  2  S.  12^  neither 
one  of  which  is  E. 

1.  The  Ziphites  bnng  Saul  knowledge  of  David's  whereabouts  : 
Is  not  David  hiding  himself  on  the  hill  of  Hachilah  on  the  face  of 
the  Desert'^  the  eastern  front  of  the  Desert,  where  it  breaks  down 
towards  the  Dead  Sea  is  probably  intended.  The  same  locality  is 
mentioned  23*^  in  our  present  text.  —  2.  Saul's  force  here  con- 
sists of  three  thousand  7nen  as  in  24^.  —  3,  4.  On  discovering  that 
an  invasion  was  on  foot,  David  sent  out  spies,  and  knew  that 
Saul  had  come  to'\  some  particular  spot  whose  name  is  now  lost. 
—  5.  He  was  able  to  make  out  the  place  where  Saul  was  lying 
with  the  people  cam.ping  about  him. — 6.  David  asks  his  two 
companions  :  WJio  will  go  down  with  me  to  Saul,  to  the  camp .?] 
Abishai  his  nephew  volunteers.  —  7.  When  they  came  into  the 
camp,  Saul  was  lying  asleep  in  the  .  .  .  and  his  spear  was  struck 
into  the  earth  at  his  head.  The  lance  standing  upright  is  still  the 
sign  of  the  Sheikh's  quarters  among  the  Arabs.  Doughty,  I.  p.  221. 
WRSmith,  Kinship,  p.  271.  —  8.  Abishai  wishes  to  avail  himself 
of  the  opportunity :  Let  me  smite  him  with  his  spear  into  the 
earth']  meaning  to  strike  the  spear  through  him  into  the  earth. 
There  may  be  a  designed  reminiscence  of  Saul's  purpose  to  pin 
David  to  the  wall,  18"  19^^  One  blow  would  be  all  that  was 
needed.  —  9.  David  forbids  him:  For  who  can  lay  his  hand  on 
the  Anointed  of  Yahiveh  and  be  innocent?]  the  reverence  for  the 


XXVT.  I-I2  231 

king  is  the  same  as  in  24*^;  there  more  pronounced  if  anything. 
— 10.  David's  intention  is  to  leave  Saul  in  the  hand  of  God  — 
eitJter  Yahweh  shall  smite  him']  by  a  direct  stroke,  as  in  the  case 
of  Nabai,  or  his  day  shall  come  and  he  shall  die]  in  accordance 
with  a  decree  already  fixed,  or  he  shall  go  down  into  battle  and 
meet  his-  end.  In  any  case,  David  refuses  to  take  the  matter  into 
his  own  hand.  — 11.  Repeating  his  refusal,  he  directs  Abishai  to 
take  the  spear  and  the  jug  of  water.  — 12.  With  these  trophies, 
David  and  his  lieutenant  went  their  way,  and  no  one  saw,  and  no 
one  knew,  and  no  one  awoke,  for  all  of  them  were  asleep,  for  a 
deep  sleep  frofn  Yahweh  had  fallen  upon  them]  like  Adam's  uncon- 
sciousness, Gen.  2-^ 

1.  On  reviewing  23^^  and  its  relation  to  the  present  verse  it  seems  to  me 
not  unlikely  that  the  two  were  originally  identical.  That  is :  this  account  was 
originally  in  direct  sequence  to  23^^,  and  has  now  been  displaced  by  the 
fuller  (double)  story  contained  in  231^-24^3.  —  n';'on]  a  number  of  Heb.  MSS. 
have  n^on,  and  S  seems  to  have  read  nS'^in.  —  4.  jidj-'^n]  the  name  of  a 
place  is  expected,  as  was  already  evident  to  Schm.  who  translates  ad  certum 
{locum).  <S^B  has  t'/c  KeeiXo,  (5^  ds  1iKe\dy,  neither  of  which  will  do.  Pos- 
sibly we  should  read  insj  Vn  —  to  the  point  j list  171  front  of  him. — 5.  (5^^ 
omits  the  clause  '?in,;'  .  .  .  ni^i  by  homeoteleuton.  —  Sjyc]  occurs  also  172", 
but  what  is  meant  is  unknown.  (5  has  here  Kafxn^vr],  a  covered  chariot.  It  is 
perhaps  no  objection  to  this  that  it  would  not  fit  ly^'.  But  the  fact  that 
Abishai  wants  to  pin  the  king  to  the  ground  shows  that  he  was  not  sleeping 
in  a  chariot  or  on  a  couch.  ir^^i^D  Kt. :  vr3''3D  Qr^  both  here  and  in  v.'^. 
—  6.  \T\\  David  aw J7wrj  his  own  thought.  —  "iSd-'Pn]  one  of  the  numerous 
foreigners  who  joined  David's  force  —  a  Hiitiie  like  Uriah.  On  the  Hittites 
cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  3^.  —  ■'•>:"3n]  from  the  analogy  of  other  proper  names,  the 
second  member  of  the  word  should  be  the  name  of  a  god.  —  nins]  the  sister 
of  David,  according  to  i  Chr.  o^K  If  this  be  correct,  we  can  account  for  the 
designation  of  her  sons  by  her  name  (rather  than  that  of  their  father)  only  by 
supposing  that  their  father  was  a  foreigner,  and  the  marriage  was  one  of  those 
in  which  the  wife  remained  in  her  own  clan  and  the  children  were  counted  to 
that  clan,  cf.  2  S.  ly^s. — 8.  I3'x  Qre  is  to  be  preferred.  —  Tisoi  n''jn3]  as 
pointed  out  by  Krenkel  {ZATW.  II.  p.  310)  we  should  read  7-1x2  i-^^jna  for 
the  fact  that  Saul's  own  spear  was  to  be  used  is  important.  The  conjunction 
is  not  read  by  (511,  while  S>  renders  f-iNi  -\z-^  nin  n'^jn.  —  9.  rhv  id]  should  be 
followed  by  the  reverse  tense,  not  by  npji  as  here.  A  ■>  seems  to  have  fallen 
out  after  •'3  (cf.  Dr.,  Notes)  —  this  is  favoured  by  @.  —  10.  cn  ■'d]  cannot  be 
the  adversative  particle,  nor  can  it  introduce  the  substance  of  the  oath  after 
nini  in  for  it  would  give  a  meaning  the  reverse  of  what  David  intends.  The 
'3  therefore  must  introduce  the  substance  of  the  oath,  which  is  stated  in  three 


232  1  SAMUEL 

possibilities,  of  which  cn  indicates  the  first,  the  others  following  with  in. — 
12.  'PCNic]  as  suggested  by  We.,  a  c  has  probably  fallen  out  before  this 
word,  the  preceding  word  ending  with  the  same  letter.  The  unusual  termi- 
nation is  probably  a  corruption  of  the  suffix  —  read  irrsnrc  striking  out  '^iSw-. 
The  received  text  seems  to  be  defended  in  Ges.-^  87  s. 

13.  David  wgnf  across  and  stood  upon  the  top  of  a  mountain 
far  away\  the  power  of  the  orientals  to  make  their  voices  heard 
at  a  long  distance  has  often  been  remarked  by  travellers. — 
14.  David  calls  Abner,  making  the  greater  impression  upon  Saul 
by  not  directly  addressing  him.  The  reading  of  (§^  for  Abner's 
answer  is,  therefore,  to  be  preferred  :  Who  art  thou  that  callcst  ? 
David  had  not  called  the  king  at  all.  — 15.  Having  got  Abner's 
attention,  David  reads  him  a  lesson  :  Art  not  thou  a  ma7i  ?  And 
who  is  like  thee  in  Israel  ?  Why  then  hast  thou  not  kept  guard 
over  thy  Lord  the  king?  For  there  came  one  of  the  people  to 
destroy  the  king,  thy  Lord  /  The  sarcastic  questions  put  the  state 
of  the  case  with  startling  vividness.  — 16.  Pronouncing  them 
deserving  of  death  for  their  neglect,  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  king's  spear  and  water  vessel  are  missing.  This  is  evi- 
dence enough  of  the  truth  of  what  he  is  saying.  — 17.  Saul  recog- 
nizes David's  voice,  and  the  recollections  called  up  by  the  sound 
are  expressed  in  his  words  :  Is  this  thy  voice,  my  son  David ? 
Evidently  the  old  affection  has  been  touched.  — 18.  Having  got 
a  hearing,  David  expostulates  freely :  IVJiy  is  it  that  my  Lord  is 
pursuing  his  servatit?  The  further  questions  are  in  reality  asser- 
tions of  his  innocence.  — 19.  Discussion  of  the  cause  of  the  king's 
enmity  follows.  David  can  account  for  it  only  on  the  theory  that 
external  influences  have  wrought  upon  the  mind  of  the  king. 
These  may  be  human  or  superhuman.  On  the  one  hand  :  If 
Yahweh  has  instigated  thee  against  me']  as  he  afterwards  instigated 
David  against  Israel,  2  S.  24^  The  wrath  of  Yahweh  against 
David  is  conceived  of  as  the  cause  of  Saul's  action.  The  theolo- 
gians are  compelled  to  explain  Yahweh's  causation  as  permissive, 
Satan  being  the  real  instigator,  as  in  i  Chr.  21^  Let  him  inhale 
an  offering]  the  sacrifice  ascending  in  smoke  was  appropriated  by 
the  deity  through  the  sense  of  smell.  Thus  when  angry  he  was 
placated,  as  in  the  time  of  Noah,  Gen.  8-'  (J.).  But  if  they  bt 
men,  <:ursed  be  they  before  Yahweh]  the  imprecation  will  fall  upon 


XXVI.  13-25  233 

them  and  punish  them.  For  they  have  now  driven  ?ne  from  union 
with  the  inheritance  of  Yahweh,  sayi?tg :  Go  serve  other  gods ! 
The  inheritance  of  Yahweh  is  the  territory  of  Israel.  Yahweh  can 
be  served  only  in  his  own  land.  The  exile  is  compelled  to  serve 
the  gods  of  the  land  in  which  he  sojourns,  Jer.  5'^  —  20.  David 
prays  that  his  blood  may  not  be  shed  away  from  the  presence  of 
Yahweh~\  where  it  would  not  be  avenged,  for  Yahweh  is  the 
avenger  of  wrong  done  to  his  servants.  The  reason  for  the 
prayer  is  that  he  is  helpless  against  the  superior  might  of  Saul : 
For  the  king  of  Israel  is  come  out  to  seek  my  life,  as  the  eagle  hunts 
the  partridge  on  the  mountains\  This  emended  reading  gives  a 
sense  more  in  accord  with  the  context  than  the  traditional  f^.  — 
21.  Saul  confesses  his  wrong  and  invites  David  to  return.  I  have 
done  foolishly  and  have  erred  exceedingly.  — 22.  David  does  not 
notice  the  invitation,  but  only  says:  Behold  the  spear,  O  king! 
Let  one  of  the  yomig  men  come  over  and  take  it.  —  23,  24.  Final 
repetition  of  the  prayer  :  May  Yahweh  reward  each  one's  right- 
eousness and  fidelity']  in  such  a  way  that  David's  life  may  be 
treated  as  generously  as  he  had  treated  Saul's  life. — 25.  Saul 
prophesies  David's  success  in  general  terms.  There  is  no  distinct 
allusion  to  the  kingdom  like  the  one  in  24^^ 

13.    ^7\7^']  the  particular  mountain  which  was  adapted  for  his  purpose. — 

14.  iScn"'7,s  ^N^p]  6  Ka\a>v  (§^:  6  /caAii' jue  ;  ris  el,  av;  @^.  The  shorter 
form  is  to  be  preferred.  It  was  supplemented  by  a  scribe  who  realized  that 
the  calling  to  Abner  would  affect  Saul :  qui  clamas  et  inquieias  regem  IL.  — 

15.  '?N  nnci;']  we  should  read  V;'  as  in  the  next  verse.  — 16.  niD~'>j3]  cf.  20^1 
2  S.  12^  —  rinaxTiNi]  is  corrected  by  Bu.  to  nnox  "'Ni.  But  it  seems  not  un- 
likely that  the  governing  force  of  the  first  'n  was  in  the  writer's  mind  so  that 
he  could  use  the  accusative  particle,  Davidson,  Syntax,  72,  Rem.  4.  — 
17.  ^'?v]  5oC\({j  <Jo\j  @^^.  "The  more  courtly  is  less  original"  (We.). 
— 19.  nsronc]  the  verb  is  rare,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning,  cf.  the  Niphal  in  Is.  14I.  —  20.  ins  c;jid]  is  the  same  phrase  used 
in  24'^.  There  it  is  in  place  after  the  question  after  whoni,  etc.  But  here  the 
thought  is  not  the  insignificance  of  David,  but  his  helplessness.  O'^B  reads 
^'.I'd:,  which  is  also  favoured  by  pn,  which  is  ungrammatical  in  the  present  text. 
—  ■\a'X3]  the  conjecture  of  Kl.  who  reads  iB'ja  has  everything  in  its  favour. 
Only  thus  is  the  comparison  fully  expressed.  —  Nipn]  the  partridge  is  named 
from  its  loud  clear  note.*  —  22.    nijnn  A7.]  the  Qre  demands  n^jn,  making 

*  Readers  of  Ginsburg's  text  will  be  puzzled  by  the  word  icnS  near  the  opening 
of  v.*".     It  is  a  purely  clerical  error,  the  copyist  having  duplicated  the  word  just 


234  '  SAMUEL 

^SD^  the  genitive.     But  the  Ktib  may  be  retained,  making  I'^an  the  vocative. 
—  23.   io]  is  doubtless  to  be  corrected  to  no  with  the  versions. 

1  Samuel  XXVII.-2  Samuel  I.  David  as  Vassal  of  the  Phil- 
istines. 

XXVII.  l.-XXVIII.  2.  David  enters  the  service  of  Achish, 
King  of  Gath.  —  Despairing  of  safety  in  the  way  in  which  he  has 
been  Hving,  David  resorts  to  Achish  and  is  received  by  him. 
Finding  life  in  the  capital  not  to  his  taste,  he  begs  a  town  for 
himself,  which  he  may  hold  as  an  outpost  of  the  kingdom.  He 
receives  Ziklag,  and  when  settled  there  carries  on  constant  warfare 
with  the  Bedawin.  By  representing  that  his  raids  are  carried  on 
against  the  Judahite  clans,  he  gives  his  chief  the  impression  that 
he  has  entirely  estranged  himself  from  his  people.  The  confi- 
dence of  the  king  is  thereby  so  strengthened  that  when  the  Philis- 
tines muster  their  forces  for  an  invasion  of  Israel,  Achish  summons 
David  to  follow  and  makes  him  the  guardian  of  his  person. 

The  paragraph  evidently  knows  nothing  of  David's  having  once 
attempted  to  join  the  court  of  Gath,  2i"'^^  It  is  remarkable  for 
its  silence  concerning  the  oracle  and  the  warning  given  to  David 
to  remain  in  the  land  of  Judah,  22^.  It  presupposes  the  marriage 
with  Abigail,  unless  the  mention  of  her  in  v.'  be  an  interpolation. 
It  does  not  seem  directly  to  continue  26,  for  David's  experience 
there  related  was  calculated  to  encourage  rather  than  to  discourage 
him.  The  only  part  of  the  preceding  narrative  which  would  natu- 
rally lead  up  to  this  is  23'^-^,  where  David  is  nearly  captured  by 
Saul  and  escapes  only  because  Saul  is  called  away  by  an  invasion 
of  the  PhiHstines. 

1.  David  said  to  hifnself:  Now  I  shall  be  destroyed  some  day 
by  the  hand  of  Saul ;  the  otily  good  thing  is  that  I  should  escape  to 
the  land  of  the  Philistines.  There,  of  course,  he  would  be  out  of 
his  enemy's  reach ;  Saul  would  therefore  despair  of  him  and  not 
seek  him  further.  Schm.  finds  this  move  of  David's  a  result  of 
carnal  lack  of  faith.  —  2.    He  therefore  went  with  his  band   to 


above  in  the  next  line,  instead  of  giving  ni-\N  which  belongs  here.  The  new  and 
ostensibly  most  correct  edition  of  the  text  ha?  thus  added  a  serious  blunder  to  the 
list  already  known  to  us  —  and  this  in  spite  of  the  modern  advantages  of  proof- 
reading. 


XXVII.  1-7  235 

Achish  ben  Maoch,  king  of  Gath']  the  accession  of  such  a  band 
would  be  welcome  to  a  ruler  whose  territory  was  open  to  inroads 
from  the  Bedawin.  We  may  readily  suppose  that  David  did  not 
take  this  step  without  previous  negotiations.  —  3.  At  first  they 
resided  in  Gath  itself,  each  with  his  house']  the  band  was  already 
becoming  a  clan.  The  number  of  people  thus  brought  to  Gath 
might  be  inconvenient  to  the  king.  —  5.  David  represents  to 
Achish  the  desirability  of  his  having  another  residence  in  one  of  the 
towns  of  the  open  country]  he  might  readily  plead  the  advantage 
of  such  a  situation  in  guarding  the  frontier.  His  own  interest  was, 
no  doubt,  to  prevent  amalgamation  of  his  men  with  the  Philis- 
tines. His  language  conveys  the  impression  that  it  was  too  high 
an  honour  to  dwell  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  king. — 6.  Zik- 
lag  is  mentioned  among  the  towns  of  Judah,  Jos.  \^^^,  and  again 
in  the  list  of  Simeon,  Jos.  19^.  The  indications  are  not  sufficiently 
definite  to  enable  us  to  identify  the  site.  The  second  half  of  the 
verse  tells  us  that  Ziklag  has  belonged  to  the  kings  of  Judah  until 
this  day.  As  we  have  no  other  instance  of  the  phrase  kitigs  of 
Judah  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  we  may  regard  this  sentence  as  an 
interpolation.  It  implies  that  Ziklag  would  naturally  belong  to 
the  northern  kingdom  (as  Beersheba  did),  but  was  kept  by  the 
family  of  David,  whose  title  dated  from  the  donation  of  Achish. 
—  7.  The  time  of  David's  sojourn  is  four  months  according  to 
(§,  a  year  and  four  months  according  to  f^.  Both  seem  too 
short  according  to  Achish's  own  statement,  29^. 

The  section  ^^^  (according  to  We.  ^'^-)  is  in  contradiction  with 
the  preceding,  in  that  Gath  is  its  scene.  It  is  therefore  thought 
by  some  to  be  an  interpolation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  verses  ^^ 
may  be  the  interpolation.  Their  excision  leaves  the  narrative 
free  from  difficulty.  But  they  are  the  necessary  preparation  for 
30,  so  that  we  must  suppose  them  a  part  of  the  document  from 
which  that  chapter  is  taken. 

1.  ncDs]  cf.  26^".  —  inN"av]  seems  not  to  be  used  in  this  sense  elsewhere, 
but  is  confirmed  by  (5.  —  ■•3]  we  expect  dn  "3,  and  on  the  ground  of  ©  we  may 
assume  that  the  original  was  c^rrs  dn  o  in  which  the  loss  of  dk  is  easily  ac- 
counted for.  —  •'jcc]  is  not  represented  in  <S^^  and  can  well  be  spared. — 
2.  piND'S'tt'i]  TfTpaK(i(noi  @^.  —  3.  n^S73i3n]  better  read  the  masculine  form 
to  agree  with  '^aj  ((5).  —  4.    iDv]    read  rjoi  with  the  Qre.  —  6.    J^ps]    the 


2^6  I   SAMUEL 

identification  proposed  by  Conder  (cited  by  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  185)  seems  to  have 
no  suflicient  ground.  —  7.  The  verse  is  said  by  Bu.  (^KS.  p.  231)  to  be  mis- 
placed. It  is  possibly  an  interpolation  like  the  most  of  such  data.  ©1L  read 
four  months,  and  the  c^3^  may  have  arisen  by  duplication  of  the  two  letters 
preceding.  (S-^  renders  'n  njans  >d%  which  shows  how  the  reading  might  arise. 
That  four  months  is  too  short  a  time  for  the  actual  duration  of  David's  sojourn 
is  evident,  but  so  is  a  year  and  four  months.  —  3'C']  for  a  year,  Jd.  17^''  2  S.  14^. 
Objection  to  the  coherence  of  *"^  with  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  raised  by 
Stade,  GVI.  I.  p.  252  and  by  We.,  TBS.  p.  140  (who  includes  v."),  cf.  Conip. 
p.  253.  The  defence  of  the  verses  is  undertaken  by  Kamphausen,  ZATIV. 
VI.  p.  85  f.,  and  he  is  supported  by  Kittel.  The  two  parts  of  the  chapter  cer- 
tainly do  not  fit  well  together,  though  both  seem  historically  probable.  The 
natural  supposition  is  that  we  have  two  sources  combined. 

8.  When  settled  in  his  new  quarters,  David  made  raids  upon 
the  Gizrites  and  the  Afnalekites'\  the  Geshurites  seem  to  have  come 
into  the  received  text  by  mistake.  The  Gizrites,  being  Canaan- 
ites,  and  the  Amalekites,  being  Bedawin,  were  legitimate  prey  for 
both  Philistine  and  Israel.  But,  owing  to  the  location  of  Gezer, 
it  seems  better  to  substitute  the  Perizzites  for  the  Gizrites  in 
the  text.  —  For  these  tribes  dwell  in  the  land  which  stretches  from 
Telam  in  the  direction  of  Shur  to  the  land  of  £gypt~\  for  justifica- 
tion of  the  reading,  see  the  critical  note.  —  9.  And  David  would 
smite  the  land~\  habitually  is  implied  in  the  form  of  the  verb ; 
and  not  leave  alive  ?nan  or  womat{\  the  method  is  too  well 
known  to  excite  surprise.  That  he  returned  to  Achish  seems 
to  make  Gath  the  starting  point  of  the  raids.  — 10.  To  the  ques- 
tion of  Achish  :  Where  have  you  raided  to-day  ?  David  would 
return  a  misleading  answer :  Against  the  Negeb  of  Judah,  or 
against  the  Negeb  of  the  Jerachmeelite,  or  against  the  Negeb  of  the 
Kenite'\  the  Negeb  is  the  southern  district  of  Palestine,  bordering 
on  the  desert.  David  names  Judah  and  two  related  clans  —  his 
friendly  relations  with  them  are  indicated  by  his  gifts,  30^^^. 
Jerachmeel  is,  in  fact,  reckoned  as  one  of  the  clans  of  Judah  in 
I  Chr.  2^^-.  — 11.  The  first  part  of  the  verse  is  really  a  paren- 
thetical remark,  explaining  how  David  was  not  detected.  The 
main  narrative  is  taken  up  in  the  concluding  portion  :  Thus  did 
David,  and  such  was  his  custom  all  the  days  which  he  dwelt  in  the 
country  of  the  Philistines.  — 12.  The  result  was  that  Achish  trusted 
David,  xhmkmg  that  he  had  broken  finally  with  Israel  and  would 


XXVII.  8-XXVIII.  2  237 

be  his  perpetual  vassal.  —  XXVIII.  1.  The  previous  narrative 
evidently  leads  up  to  the  expression  of  confidence  given  by  Achish 
when  he  commands  David  :  Be  sure  that  thou  shalt  go  out  with 
me  to  the  camp,  thou  and  thy  men.  That  the  occasion  was  em- 
barrassing to  David  we  may  well  beheve.  —  2.  His  reply  is 
designedly  ambiguous.  The  author,  who  makes  him  so  careful 
to  spare  Israel  in  his  raids,  certainly  did  not  suppose  that  he 
would  take  part  in  the  battle  on  the  PhiUstine  side.  Achish 
understands  David  to  promise  great  deeds,  and  says  :  Therefore 
[in  case  the  promise  is  kept]  /  will  make  thee  keeper  of  my  head 
forever]  that  is,  captain  of  the  bodyguard. 

8.  mjni  >^itt'jn]  the  Geshuriies  certainly  do  not  belong  here,  and  the 
second  word  is  unheard  of  elsewhere.  The  Qre  substitutes  ntjm  which 
would  perhaps  do,  as  Gezer  was  Canaanitish  down  to  the  time  of  Solomon, 
I  K.  9!^  But  I  suspect  man  (Dt.  3^)  to  be  original  —  notice  the  resem- 
blance of  J  and  £j  in  the  older  alphabet.  (5^  has  only  one  of  the  two  names. 
Against  Gezer  is  to  be  urged  its  location,  too  far  north  for  David's  forays 
(cf.  yiooxQ,  Judges,  p.  48). — njn]  must  refer  to  the  tribes  just  mentioned. 
The  feminine  plural  in  such  cases  is  unusual  but  not  unintelligible. —  oSiyn] 
does  not  fit  in  this  context.  We.,  Dr.,  correct  to  a'^ao  following  a  hint 
given  by  ten  MSS.  of  @  (HP.).  Telam,  as  shown  above  (on  15*),  was  a 
place  on  the  southern  border  of  Judah.  —  9.  rt^^'s]  the  tense  indicates  repeated 
or  habitual  action,  whereas  acM  calls  attention  to  what  took  place  in  each 
single  instance.  — 10.  Vn]  should  apparently  be  ]X  which  is  found  in  some 
MSS.  of  ?§  and  sustained  by  S2C,  whereas  ®!L  seem  to  render  •'D  '?>«  or  •'D  Sy.  — 
11.  nrjr  no  inNS]  it  is  highly  unnatural  to  make  in  nr;?  no  the  speech  of  the 
supposed  fugitive  and  what  follows  the  statement  of  the  narrator.  This  idn'^ 
should  be  stricken  out,  and  the  whole  half  verse  made  the  narrator's  state- 
ment. This  is  supported  by  %.  Kl.  supposes  the  first  half  of  the  verse  to  be 
a  gloss,  and  this  is  not  improbable.  — 12.  i:"N2n]  Gen.  348°  Ex.  521.  —  Snico] 
some  MSS.  and  editions  have  Sxit:".  —  XXVIII.  2.  p*?]  lacking  in  %,  should 
perhaps  be  emended  to  px,  though  David's  thought  may  be  :  because  of  this 
expression  of  confidence.  For  nrivX  read  nny  with  @1L.  —  •'tt'Ni'?  -ictr]  the 
equivalent  in  @,  dpx'<^'^M"To0i^A.o|,  is  the  title  of  the  chief  of  the  bodyguard 
at  the  court  of  the  Ptolemies,  cf.  Deissmann,  Bibelstudien  (1895),  ?•  93- 

XXVIII.  3-25.  Saul's  fate  pronounced,  —  Saul  in  fear  of  the 
Philistines  seeks  divine  guidance,  but  receives  none  by  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  grace.  In  his  despair  he  seeks  out  a  necro- 
mancer, though  he  had  formerly  exterminated  such  from  Israel,  so 
far  as  was  in  his  power.     Informed  of  one,  he  visits  her,  and  she 


238  I  SAMUEL 

calls  up  the  shade  of  Samuel.  But  the  spirit  only  denounces  the 
punishment  in  store  for  Saul.  Overcome  by  the  sentence,  Saul 
falls  prostrate  to  the  earth,  but  is  roused  and  induced  to  break  his 
fast  by  the  woman  whose  guest  he  is. 

The  section  breaks  the  connexion  of  the  narrative  and  is  un- 
doubtedly from  another  document.  What  that  document  is  can 
scarcely  be  doubtful  from  the  position  given  to  Samuel.  Although 
dead,  he  appears  as  the  same  instrument  of  Yahweh's  will  who 
appointed  and  dethroned  Saul.  The  last  scene  in  Saul's  life  is  the 
last  appearance  of  Samuel.  There  is  no  need  therefore  to  suppose 
vv.'^•^^  which  allude  directly  to  Saul's  disobedience,  to  be  later 
interpolation.  In  a  sense,  the  picture  presented  by  chapter  15  is 
not  complete  without  this  sequel. 

3-25.  The  position  of  Samuel  in  this  document  is  sufficient  to  identify  it  as 
a  part  of  the  history  from  which  chapter  15  is  taken.  The  secondary  nature 
of  v.i^f-  is  indicated  by  Bu.  in  his  edition  of  the  text,  but  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained when  the  connexion  with  15  is  seen.  It  is  also  unfortunate  that  Bu. 
should  displace  the  section,  ranging  it  between  30  and  31.  As  part  of  a  dif- 
ferent document  it  must  break  the  connexion  wherever  it  is  placed,  and  we 
have  no  evidence  that  as  a  part  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  it  ever  occupied  any 
but  its  Massoretic  position.  The  reason  urged  is  that  the  geographical  situa- 
tion is  more  advanced  here  than  in  chapter  29.  But  this  ignores  the  fact  that 
this  account  was  written  with  the  scene  of  Saul's  death  in  mind,  and  that  it 
intended  to  ignore  the  history  in  which  it  is  now  imbedded.  On  the  critical 
questions  cf.  Stade's  review  of  Bu.  (  ThLZ.  1896,  col.  8).  We.  calls  attention 
to  the  resemblance  to  15  {Comp.  p.  254). 

3.  The  verse  prepares  for  the  following  narrative  by  telling, 
first,  that  Samuel  was  dead  —  and  so  could  not  be  consulted  by 
Saul  except  by  calling  up  his  shade.  The  \2ingn3.gQ  —  Samuel 
had  died  and  all  Israel  had  mourned  for  him  and  had  buried  him 
in  Ramah  his  city  —  is  in  substance  a  repetition  of  25'.  The  next 
statement  explains  the  difficulty  Saul  had  in  finding  the  means 
of  communicating  with  the  shades  —  he  had  removed  the  talismans 
and  necrofnantic  charms  from  the  land.  This  was  in  accordance 
with  the  Deuteronomic  law,  Dt.  18".  That  the  magical  or  idola- 
trous apparatus  is  intended,  rather  than  the  persons  who  made  use 
of  them,  will  be  evident  on  considering  the  passages  in  point. 
That  the  persons  also  were  not  spared  is  probably  true. 


XXVIII.  3  239 

3.  ni>'3ij  is  superHuous;  n>jj3  is  read  by  (SIL  and  4  MSS.  of  J^.  The 
word  seems  to  represent  liTiaa  of  25I,  for  which  it  was  substituted  in  the  trans- 
fer, to  avoid  scandal.  —  m3Nn]  the  word  has  generally  been  understood  of 
the  familiar  spirits  who  are  (as  alleged)  subservient  to  the  soothsayers;  the 
derived  meaning  is  supposed  to  be  the  necromancers  who  make  use  of  such 
spirits.  The  Hebrew  Lexicon  of  BDB.  makes  3  in  always  mean  either  necro- 
mancer or  necromancy.  Neither  definition  seems  to  fit  all  the  cases.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  difficulty  in  supposing  the  same  word  to  designate  both  the  spirit 
and  the  medium,  or  both  the  necromancer  and  his  art,  I  would  urge,  first,  the 
feminine  form  of  the  word,  which  makes  it  doubtful  whether  it  can  be  referred 
to  necromancers.  It  can  hardly  be  claimed  that  these  were  so  uniformly 
women  that  the  gender  of  the  word  represents  that  fact.  More  significant  is 
the  fact  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  aiN  is  classed  not  with  persons,  but  with 
things  —  objects  of  idolatrous  or  superstitious  practices.  Thus  in  the  familiar 
passage  in  Isaiah  (8^^)  :  and  when  they  say :  Seek  the  maN  aiid  the  D''j;?1'  who 
chirp  and  mutter,  the  contrast  is  drawn  between  these  and  God,  and  the  most 
natural  interpretation  makes  them  some  sort  of  idol.  Again  we  are  told 
(Is.  19^)  that  Egypt  shall  seek  the  idols  (ai'?^'?N)  and  the  D-itaN  and  the  ni3N 
and  the  cj^t,  where  it  is  certainly  not  violent  to  interpret  all  the  words  as 
designating  objects  of  the  same  class.  The  author  of  Kings  (2  K.  23^*)  tells 
us  that  Josiah  destroyed  the  nus  and  the  d^j;?ti  and  the  Teraphim  and  the 
idols  and  the  abominations  —  the  last  three  are  certainly  objects  of  devotion, 
and  the  verb  used  (i;73)  is  more  appropriate  to  the  destruction  of  these  than 
to  the  slaying  of  men.  More  significant  is  the  assertion  (2  K.  21^)  that 
Manasseh  made  (ntt'>')  an  31N  and  a  ^JVi>  which  could  be  said  only  of  a  talis- 
man or  fetish.  There  seems  to  be  no  passage  which  is  inconsistent  with  this. 
Dt.  i8'*"'-  commands:  There  shall  not  be  in  thee  .  .  .  a  diviner,  a  soothsayer 
or  an  enchanter  or  a  sorcerer  or  one  who  binds  spells,  or  one  that  asks  31n  or 
■"JPT,  or  one  that  inquires  of  the  dead,  where  the  31N  Snb'  (not  the  3iN  itself) 
is  parallel  with  the  soothsayers  and  enchanters.  Should  it  be  objected  that 
a  fetish  cannot  speak,  we  may  reply  that  the  Teraphim  are  declared  to  speak 
falsehood  (Zech.  lO^)^  a  case  which  clearly  refutes  the  objection.  Many  idols 
and  fetishes  are  supposed  to  give  revelations  to  their  devotees.  The  prohi- 
bition to  go  a  whoring  ^iizx  the  nnx  and  the  D'jyi^  (Lev.  20'')  is  entirely  in 
accord  with  my  supposition,  and  so  is  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  man  or 
woman  with  ivhom  is  an  3in  (Lev.  20^'').  Not  much  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
Jewish  tradition  in  this  matter,  but  it  is  significant  that  the  Talmud  makes  a 
31N  '7>'3  one  who  asks  the  skull  of  a  dead  man  (the  citation  is  given  by  Levy, 
NHWB.  s.v.  3in),  and  in  another  place  the  Teraphim  of  Laban  are  said  to 
give  him  knowledge  of  the  future,  and  to  consist  of  a  human  head  (that  of 
Adam)  cut  off  and  preserved  by  means  of  spices  (the  citation  from  Elias  Levita 
in  Selden,  De  Diis  Syris,  Syntagma  I.  Cap.  II.).  In  the  same  connexion  may 
be  mentioned  the  jjit'  of  Rabbinical  tradition,  which  is  defined  to  be  an  ani- 
mal (or  bird)  whose  bones  the  soothsayer  took  in  his  mouth,  and  they  gave 
responses  of  themselves  (Levy,  sa'.").     ISeaiing  in  mind  the  widespread  use 


240  I  SAMUEL 

uf  parts  of  the  human  body  in  magical  rites,  it  does  not  seem  too  bold  to  con- 
jecture that  the  21N  was  a  human  skull  (the  root  possibly  means  to  be  hollow^ 
which  was  prepared  by  superstitious  rites  for  magical  use.  The  owner  of  such 
a  talisman  would  be  prepared  to  divine  by  it.  The  31K  nSya  of  this  chapter 
would  then  be  the  sister  of  the  b^dc'd  nVja  of  Nah.  3*;  the  figurative  use  of 
the  latter  phrase  does  not  interfere  with  the  parallel.  —  a'Ji"i\-i]  always  men- 
tioned in  connexion  with  jin,  are  something  of  the  same  nature.  The  reader 
may  consult  Driver  on  Dt.  18^^  with  his  references;  Noldeke  in  ZDAIG. 
XXVIII.  p.  667;  Stade,  GVI.  I.  pp.  425,  504;  Konig,  Offenbarungsbegriff dis 
Alien  Testamentes  (1882),  II.  p.  150, 

4.  The  Philistine  camp  was  at  Shiinem,  at  the  west  foot  of  the 
ridge  now  cdWed  /ebel  Dahi.  Saul  mustered  his  forces  on  Gilboa, 
a  ridge  running  southeast  from  the  eastern  end  of  the  great  plain. 
The  Philistines  easily  commanded  the  plain,  the  Israelites  rallied 
on  the  hills.  —  5,  6.  Saul,  terrified  at  the  sight  of  the  enemy's 
force,  asked  of  Yahweh,  but  Yahweh  did  not  answer  him,  either 
by  dreams,  or  by  Urim,  or  by  prophets']  all  three  are  recognized 
methods  of  divine  communication  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Chronicler  regards  Saul's  recourse  to  the  necromancer  as  a  refusal 
to  seek  Yahweh,  i  Chr.  10",  and  therefoie  a  part  of  the  sin  for 
which  he  is  slain.  But  this  is  not  the  mind  of  the  present  writer, 
to  whom  Saul  is  a  man  driven  to  desperation  by  the  failure  of 
every  attempt  to  ascertain  the  will  of  Yahweh.  —  7.  In  this  strait 
the  king  inquires  for  a  woman  who  possesses  a  talisman  of  sufficient 
power  to  summon  the  dead.  The  universality  of  the  belief  that 
the  shades  can  be  summoned  by  the  one  who  possesses  the  means 
needs  no  comment.  Endor  (the  fountain  of  Dor)  still  bears  its 
ancient  name  and  is  a  poor  village  on  the  slope  ol  Jebel  Dahi.  A 
description  of  the  locality  is  given  by  Stanley.*  —  8.  Saul,  for  very 
obvious  reasons,  disguised  himself,  cf  i  K.  22^.  Coming  to  the 
woman  he  makes  his  request :  Divine  for  me  by  the  talisman  and 
bring  up  for  tne  the  one  whom  I  shall  say~\  the  power  of  the 
woman  to  do  what  she  was  asked  seems  not  to  be  doubted  by  the 
narrator.  —  9,  10.  In  view  of  Saul's  treatment  of  the  necroman- 
cers, the  woman  suspects  that  her  guest  is  laying  a  snare  for  her 
life]  expecting  to  inform  against  her.  Saul  reassures  her  by  an 
oath  :  no  guilt  shall  come  upon  thee  for  this  thing.  — 11,  12.   Saul 

*  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  337. 


xxviii.  4-15  241 

demands  Samuel :  And  the  woman,  saw  Samuel  and  cried  out  with 
a  loud  voice'\  the  more  sober  Protestant  commentators  see  that  it 
is  unreasonable  to  suppose  the  souls  of  the  departed  subject  to 
such  calls,  and  therefore  suppose  the  Devil  to  assume  the  form  of 
the  one  invoked.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  assertion  that  the 
woman  saw  Samuel.  For  the  method  of  the  necromancer,  which 
the  narrator  probably  pictured  with  fidelity,  it  may  be  worth  while 
to  note  that  she  alone  saw  the  form,  while  Saul  heard  the  voice. 
The  first  effect  of  the  apparition  on  the  woman  was  to  reveal  the 
identity  of  her  guest :  Why  hast  thou  deceived  jne,  when  thou 
art  Saul?  The  connexion  of  Samuel  and  Saul  in  earlier  life  is 
assumed  to  be  known  to  her.  — 13.  To  Saul's  question  she 
replies  :  /  saw  a  god  coming  up  out  of  the  earth']  the  worship 
of  the  Manes  probably  survived  in  Israel  to  a  comparatively  late 
date,  so  that  her  words  must  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense. — 
14.  On  further  inquiry  she  describes  the  apparition  as  an  old  man 
coming  up  and  he  is  wrapped  in  a  cloa/i]  such  as  Samuel  wore  in 
his  lifetime.  Before  the  spirit,  unseen  by  him,  Saul  prostrates 
himself  in  reverence. 

4.  Shunem,  which  is  mentioned  also  Jos.  19^^  2  K.  4^  (cf.  also  the  Shu- 
nammite,  i  K.  I^),  still  bears  the  name  SuUm,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  217,  who  also 
mentions  Endor.  —  ^aiD|i]  on  the  form,  Ges.^®  46  e.  Methods  of  divination 
among  the  heathen  Arabs  are  described  by  We.,  Skizzen,  III.  pp.  126  ff.,  135  ff. 
—  9.  "jyTin]  the  plural  should  be  restored;  the  final  letter  has  been  lost  in 
the  following  r.  — 10.  'y^\''''\  the  Daghesh  is  intended  to  guard  the  pronun- 
ciation of  the  emphatic  letter,  Ges.^^  20/;.  — 13.  D-'S;;  •'H^ni  dvi'^n]  the  plural 
participle  would  seem  to  indicate  more  than  one  ghostly  figure.  But  only  one 
is  described  in  what  follows,  and  we  must  suppose  the  agreement  grammatical 
instead  of  logical.  Similar  instances  of  d\"i'^n  with  a  plural  adjective  are  found 
Jos.  24I9  (E)  Dt.  52*  I  S.  lySG-so^  etc.  — 14.  ipT]  opQiov  (3  seems  to  represent 
IPt  (We.).  To  this  reading  we  may  perhaps  trace  the  Rabbinical  conceit, 
referred  to  by  Schm.,  that  Samuel  appeared  standing  upright,  while  in  ordi- 
nary cases  the  shades  present  themselves  feet  upwards.  The  Greek  exposi- 
tors, to  judge  by  Nestle's  specimen  (3/arginaiien,  p.  15),  saw  in  the  word 
a  declaration  of  Samuel's  vigorous  appearance. 

15.  The  dialogue  is  begun  by  Samuel :  IVhy  hast  thou  disturbed 
me  in  bringing  me  up  ?  The  shades  are  at  rest  and  prefer  to 
remain  so.  Only  on  very  rare  occasions  does  Sheol  itself  rouse 
them,  Is.  14^     The  urgency  of  his  situation  is  Saul's  excuse  :   / 


242  I  SAMUEL 

am  in  great  straits,  and  the  Philistines  are  warring  against  me, 
and  God  has  turned  from  me  and  does  not  answer  me  more,  either 
by  prophets  or  by  dreams']  the  absence  of  Urim  here  is  perhaps  a 
sign  that  it  was  not  originally  in  v.*'.  —  So  I  have  called  thee,  to  tell 
fne  what  I  shall  do]  consultation  of  the  oracle  is  in  order  to  right 
action,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  both  Saul  and  David.  — 
16.  Samuel  refuses  to  answer  the  important  question  :  And  why 
dost  thou  ask  me,  when  Yahweh  has  turned  from  thee  arid  become 
thine  enemy  ?  Reason  enough  why  Samuel  should  refuse  to  help. 
— 17,  18.  The  guilt  of  Saul  in  the  matter  of  Amalek.  The 
account  of  Saul's  rejection  in  c.  15  would  not  be  complete  without 
this  sequel.  The  punishment  there  denounced  is  here  reaffirmed 
and  declared  to  be  close  at  hand.  — 19.  The  verse  seems  over- 
full. The  first  clause  may  be  omitted  with  advantage.  Correcting 
the  remainder  by  (§^  we  get :  And  to-morrow  thou  and  thy  sons 
with  thee  shall  fall,  and  Yahweh  7vill  give  the  camp  of  Israel  into 
the  hand  of  the  Philistines.  —  20.  The  message  was  heart-breaking 
enough;  and  Saul  was  overcome,  and  fell  at  full  length  upon  the 
earth.  The  fainting  fit  was  accounted  for  partly  by  physical 
exhaustion  —  he  had  not  eaten  bread  all  the  day  and  all  the 
night]  it  may  be  supposed  that  morning  was  now  approaching. 
—  21,  22.  The  woman,  coming  to  the  prostrate  Saul,  appreciates 
the  amount  of  his  mental  disturbance.  She  pleads  her  obedience 
to  his  request,  even  at  the  risk  of  her  life,  as  a  reason  why  he 
should  now  listen  to  her :  and  let  tne  set  before  thee  a  inorsel  of 
meat,  and  eat  thou  that  thou  fnayest  have  strength  atid  make  thy 
journey]  a  very  sensible  proposition.  —  23.  Saul  at  first  refused, 
but  his  servants,  as  well  as  the  woma?i,  urged  him.  At  length  he 
rose  from  the  earth  atid  sat  upon  the  couch]  one  of  the  four  articles 
of  furniture  in  the  ordinary  house.  — 24,  25.  The  woman  had  a 
fatted  calf  in  the  house]  and  she  also  baked  unleavened  cakes  for 
the  entertainment  of  her  guests.  The  similar  description  of  Abra- 
ham's hospitality  will  occur  to  every  one. 

15.  ns-^;^Ni]  the  pointing  is  anomalous  and  perhaps  designed  to  allow  the 
choice  between  N-<p.si  and  n-^pxi  (Nestle,  Alarginalien,  p.  15).  — 16.  Ti>] 
is  misspelled  for  "lis,  probably  by  a  scribe  to  whom  the  Aramaic  form  was  famil- 
iar, or  who  wished  to  disguise  the  unpleasant  thought  that  Yahweh  could  be 
one's  enemy;  ©  ^era  toC  irArjo-iov  aox)  points  to  "!;-\  0;'  which  is  adopted  by  Th. 


XXVIII.  I5-XXIX.  I  243 

and  others,  and  favoured  by  &.  But  Saul's  rival  is  mentioned  later;  here  we 
expect  an  allusion  to  Saul's  complaint  that  he  is  in  straits.  —  17.  i':']  may  be 
read  as  a  dative  of  advantage.  But  it  is  better  to  restore  iS  with  five  MSS. 
of  3§,  ®-*-B^  and  IL.  —  19.  Either  the  first  clause  or  the  last  is  superfluous.  As 
Samuel  would  more  naturally  conclude  what  he  has  to  say  of  Saul  before  pass- 
ing on  to  the  fate  of  Israel,  I  have  omitted  the  opening  clause  of  |^  (We., 
Dr.).  Stade,  on  the  other  hand,  retains  »  and  omits  «.  —  iny]  shall  be  with 
»?,» would  seem  to  require  the  verb;  <5'^^  found  d^Sdj  ■\ay  which  is  restored 
by  Th.  —  20.  inoM]  seems  to  be  the  wrong  verb.  Perhaps  by  pointing  nnp^i 
with  Kl,  we  can  retain  it.  Comparison  of  (§  here  and  in  v.^l  shows  that  it  has 
the  same  verb  in  both  places;  We.  therefore  restores  '^naii  here,  conforming 
it  to  the  other.  But  the  argument  seems  precarious.  —  23.  isidm]  the  con- 
text requires  nxDM.  —  Sn]  should  be  '?i?  with  some  MSS.  —  24.  13-id"Sjj;] 
a  calf  tied  up  in  the  house  like  the  lambs  which  are  stilled  "  crammed  "  by  the 
women  in  Syria.  —  inem]  for  inDNPi,  Ges.^^  68/;. 

XXIX.  1-XXX.  31.  David's  homeward  march,  the  capture  of 
Ziklag  by  the  Amalekites,  and  the  recovery  of  the  spoil. — 
When  the  Philistine  troops  are  mustered,  the  attention  of  the 
chiefs  is  drawn  to  David  and  his  band.  They  inquire  of  Achish 
why  he  is  there,  and  receive  assurances  of  his  fidehty.  But  they 
regard  his  presence  as  a  danger,  so  that  David,  in  spite  of  his 
protestation  of  fidelity,  is  sent  away.  Returning  home,  he  finds 
that  the  Amalekites  have  taken  revenge  for  his  former  incursions 
by  attacking  the  undefended  Ziklag  and  capturing  its  inhabi- 
tants, whom  they  have  carried  off  as  slaves.  The  spirit  of  mutiny 
shows  itself  among  David's  men,  but  he  promptly  finds  them 
occupation  in  the  pursuit  of  the  enemy.  His  success  is  com- 
plete ;  besides  recovering  what  has  been  carried  away  he  takes 
great  store  of  booty.  This  he  uses  to  secure  the  attachment  of 
the  Sheikhs  in  the  neighbouring  districts. 

The  piece  is  a  unit.  Its  interest  in  the  fortune  of  David  and  in 
his  legislative  decision  is  plain.  We  may  ascribe  it  without  hesita- 
tion to  the  source  which  later  gives  us  such  copious  details  of 
David's  life. 

1.  The  camp  of  the  Philistines  was  at  Aphek,  a  locality  uniden- 
tified, but  which  must  have  lain  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  The 
Philistines  probably  wished  to  secure  their  possession  of  the  Great 
Plain,  and  their  communication  with  the  Jordan  valley,  where  we 
find  them  later  in  possession  of  Beth-shean,  31^".  —  Israel  camped 


244  »  SAMUEL 

at  the  fountain  in  Jezreel'\  the  phraseology  implies  that  Jezreel  is 
not  the  town,  but  the  valley.  It  is  probable  however  that  Saul 
occupied  the  town,  which  lies  just  at  the  foot  of  Gilboa.  He 
would  thus  command  the  entrance  to  the  valley,  and  would  have 
the  high  ground  in  his  rear.  —  2.  The  Tyrants  of  the  Philistines'] 
each  with  his  army,  were  marching  by,  by  himdreds  and  by  thou- 
sands] referring  to  the  troops  in  their  different  companies.  There 
seems  to  have  been  a  review  by  the  generals,  in  which  David 
marched  in  the  rearguard  with  Achish.  —  3.  The  generals  ask 
what  are  these  Hebreivs  /]  discovering  their  characteristic  dress 
or  arms.  Achish  replies  in  two  particulars.  David  was  first  an 
escaped  servant  of  Saul,  who  would  not  want  to  return  to  his 
harsh  master.  Secondly,  he  was  a  tried  dependent  of  Achish : 
who  has  been  with  me  these  two  years  and  I  have  not  found  any 
fault  in  himfrotn  the  day  he  fell  to  my  lot  until  now.  The  double 
guarantee  would  seem  to  be  sufficient.  —  4.  The  suspicious  fears 
of  the  generals  break  out  in  an  angry  demand :  Send  back  the 
man  to  the  place  where  thou  hast  stationed  him]  as  thy  vassal ; 
lest  he  be  an  enemy  in  the  camp]  who  will  put  hindrances  in  the 
way  of  our  success,  and  plot  for  our  ruin.  On  a  former  occasion 
the  Hebrews  in  Philistine  service  had  gone  over  to  the  enemy, 
14-^  —  With  ivhat  should  this  fellow  make  himself  acceptable  to  his 
Master?  Is  it  not  with  the  heads  of  these  men  ?]  pointing  to  the 
Philistine  soldiers.  This  is  their  reply  to  the  plea  that  David  is  a 
runaway  slave.  —  5.  The  fact  of  David's  former  success  against 
the  Philistines  is  an  argument  against  his  fidelity  now.  The 
absence  of  any  allusion  to  Goliath  shows  that  the  exploit  of  Chap- 
ter 1 7  was  unknown  to  the  author  of  this  section. 

1.  On  the  locality  cf.  Miller,  Least  of  All  Lands,  cited  by  GAS.,  Geog.  p.  401. 
Aphek  is  apparently  the  last  station  of  the  Philistines  before  advancing  against 
Saul's  position  at  Jezreel,  v.^i.  This  would  naturally  be  somewhere  in  the 
great  plain  of  Esdraelon.  This  Aphek  cannot  therefore  be  Aphek  in  Sharon. 
—  2.  ''j-\d]  the  native  name  of  the  Philistine  rulers,  5^  of  whom  Achish  was 
one, — 3.  The  one  I  take  to  have  been  the  military  commanders  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  D^nD,  or  civil  rulers.  The  latter  indeed  marched  to  the  war 
and  led  their  troops.  But  there  must  have  been  some  sort  of  general  staff. — 
O'jtt'  ni"iN  D'D>  nr]  is  extremely  indefinite  —  some  days  or  some  years  would 
hardly  be  the  reply  of  a  man  who  knew  the  situation :  rjn^pas  tovto  Sivrtpoy 
(ros  ®-^^;   ^JStj  ^(vrepov  «tos  ai\n.tpou  ®^  agree  in  making  the  time  ttvo  years, 


XXIX.  i-ii  245 

which  would  be  simply  D^njtt'  ni  (adopted  by  Bu.).  —  iSbj]  add  i'?n  with 
&&^1L- — 4.  The  second  D\ncSs  n;:*  is  lacking  in  (SSIL.  —  nnnSna]  read 
njn23  with  ®.  The  change  was  made  under  the  influence  of  the  preceding 
ncnSoJ  (Kl.).  Nestle  {Marg.  p.  15)  calls  attention  to  the  contrast  between 
the  Satan  here  and  the  angel  of  God  a  little  later;  and  also  to  the  former 
experience  of  the  Philistines  with  the  Hebrews  in  their  camp. 

6.  Achish  breaks  the  news  to  David  :  By  the  life  of  Yahweh'] 
this  oath  is  not  unnatural  in  the  mouth  of  a  PhiHstine  when  he  is 
speaking  to  an  Israelite.  —  Thou  art  upright  and  it  is  right  in  my 
eyes  that  thou  shouldst  go  out  and  in  in  the  camp]  like  any  of  the 
officers,  i8'^  —  But  thou  art  not  approved  by  the  Tyrants']  the 
voice  of  the  majority  must  be  decisive.  —  7.  Achish  seems  to  fear 
David's  anger,  as  he  asks  him  7iot  to  do  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Tyrants.  —  8.  David  utters  a  suspicion  that  Achish  himself  finds 
fault  with  him  :  What  have  I  done  .  .  .  that  I  may  not  go  and  fight 
against  the  enemies  of  my  Lord  the  king  ?  What  David's  real  plan 
was  is  not  disclosed.  The  author  probably  did  not  suppose  he 
would  fight  against  Israel.  —  9.  He  receives  renewed  assurance 
that  he  is  blameless  as  an  angel  of  God  in  the  sight  of  Achish.  — 
10.  The  command  to  depart  at  dawn  the  next  day  is  repeated  in 
detail,  for  we  should  read  with  (§  :  Now  rise  early  in  the  }norning, 
thou  and  thy  men  who  came  7vith  thee  \_and  go  to  the  place  where 
I  have  stationed  thee,  and  put  no  evil  design  in  thy  heart,  for  thou 
art  good  in  my  sight]  but  rise  early  in  the  morning  and  you  shall 
have  light,  and  go]  the  clause  in  brackets  has  fallen  out  of  f^. 
It  is  assumed  by  Achish  that  the  high-spirited  warrior  will  feel 
insulted  and  be  tempted  to  take  revenge.  — 11.  David  therefore 
rose  early  to  return  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  but  the  Philistines 
went  up  to  Jezreel. 

6.  l-iNx]  ®  prefixes  koX,  meaning:  7tot  only  thou  but  also  thy  going  out.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  J^  would  be  smoother  if  it  read  ^n^<s  3it3i  npN  'j^;'3  •\Z'\ 
But  (§  does  not  seem  to  have  the  better  reading.  —  9.  >n;;i>]  probably  should 
be  npi\  —  0''nSN  ^N'?D3]  in  the  two  other  instances  of  the  comparison,  we  find 
D^nSsn  'DD  which  should  perhaps  be  restored  here,  2  S.  14^'  19^8.  The  words 
are  lacking  in  ©^  perhaps  because  they  were  thought  to  be  incongruous  with 
Achish's  nationality.  — 10.  The  Hebrew,  as  it  stands,  puts  two  exhortations  to 
rise  early  in  the  morning  in  immediate  succession.  The  clause  in  (S  which 
stands  between  them  relieves  the  awkwardness.  It  is  adopted  by  Th.,  We., 
Dr.,  Bu ,  Kl.,  Ki.     As  the  cause  of  its  loss,  we  can  only  conjecture  that  it  filled 


246  I  SAMUEL 

just  a  line  or  just  two  lines  in  the  archetype.  For  TJtN  >'^3j:i  which  does  not 
seem  natural  in  the  mouth  of  Achish,  I  restore  inyji  nnK  with  ®^.  The  same 
recension  reads  at  the  end  of  the  omitted  clause  ii  Ayyt\os  fl«ov,  which  is 
perhaps  original  (adopted  by  Kl.). 


XXX.  The  narrative  is  continuous  with  what  precedes,  follow- 
ing the  fortunes  of  David.  —  1.  When  he  and  his  men  got  home 
they  found  that  fhe  Amalekites  had  invaded  the  Negeb  and  had 
smitten  Ziklag  and  burnt  it  with  fire"]  the  Bedawin  had  watched 
the  departure  of  David  and  his  men.  — 2.  They  had  not  followed 
David's  method  of  warfare,  for  they  had  killed  no  one  but  had 
carried  captive  the  women  and  all  that  luere  in  it,  from  small  to 
great^  the  fighting  men  were  with  David.  The  captives  were  prob- 
ably destined  to  the  Egyptian  slave  market.  —  3,  4.  Finding  the 
city  burned,  and  their  families  carried  away,  David  and  his  men 
tve/>t  aloud  until  there  was  in  them  no  more  power  to  weep']  the 
fountain  of  tears  was  exhausted ;  consumptis  enim  lachrymis  in- 
fixus  tamen  pectori  haeret  dolor*  —  5.  As  it  stands,  the  verse  is 
a  supplementary  notice  that  should  have  come  in  at  the  end  of 
v.-.  Probably  it  is  a  gloss.  —  6.  David  was  in  great  straits'] 
Gen.  32^  Jd.  2^^ ;  for  the  people  proposed  to  stone  hifn]  popular 
indignation  easily  turns  against  the  ruler  in  case  of  calamity,  — 
For  the  soul  of  every  one  was  embittered]  2  K.  4^,  where  extreme 
grief  is  thus  described.  But  the  allied  phrase  bitter  of  soul  is 
used  also  oi  angry  men,  Jd.  18^  2  S.  17^  In  this  case,  the  grief 
turned  to  anger.  —  But  David  took  courage  in  reliance  on  Yahweh 
his  God]  as  is  shown  by  his  prompt  action.  —  7,  8.  Command- 
ing Abiathar  to  bring  the  Ephod,  he  asks  :  Shall  I  pursue  this 
band  ?  Shall  I  overtake  them  ?]  the  double  question  is  really  one  ; 
it  were  vain  to  pursue  unless  he  could  overtake.  The  answer  was 
affirmative  :  Pursue,  for  thou  shall  surely  overtake  and  shall  surely 
rescue. 

XXX.  1.  'p':'c;i]  cf.  v.^^  doubtless  to  be  read  pVoyi  with  @.  —  2.  ns— >ij'n] 
as  it  stands,  refers  to  the  women.  But  as  we  have  later  the  express  assertion 
that  they  had  not  killed  a  man,  we  should  probably  insert  here  with  (5  Sd'.-'KI 
(Th.)  which  would  include  the  old  men  and  boys.  —  3.  none'  rum]  the  same 
construction  in  v.^^.  —  5.   The  verse  is  supposed  to  be  a  gloss  by  Bu.,  and  can 

*  Cicero,  cited  by  Sanctius,  Schm.  p.  964. 


XXX.  I-I7  247 

in  fact  well  be  spared. — 6.  ixni]  Ges.^^  67/.  The  masculine  form  is  used 
elsewhere  except  in  Jd.  10*,  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  109.  —  ua]  read  rj3  with 
the  Qre,  cf.  v.22,  —  -ui  pinnii]  the  clause  reads  like  a  later  insertion;  it  is 
not  exactly  duplicated  anywhere  else.  —  7.  Abiathar  occurs  22-''  23^,  probably 
from  the  same  document.  —  8.  1"nN]  might  be  construed  as  the  hypothetical 
introduction  to  the  real  question:  if  I  pursue,  shall  I  overtake?  But  <S  reads 
interrogatively,  and  the  answer  ^i-n  favours  that  reading  —  restore  therefore 
l-nsn  (We.).  —  injn]  cf.  i  K.  Ii^*  2  K.  5^  6^^  and  elsewhere,  of  marauding 
banditti  as  here. 

9.  David  and  his  men  came  to  the  Wadi  Besor.  The  name 
occurs  only  in  this  passage,  and,  as  we  have  no  knowledge  of 
David's  objective  point,  it  is  impossible  now  to  identify  this  ravine. 
— 10.  And  there  remained  behind  two  hundred  men  who  were  too 
exhausted  to  cross  the  Wadi  Besor,  and  David  and  four  hundred 
men  pursued^  the  two  halves  of  the  verse  have  been  transposed 
by  mistake.  — 11.  The  party  found  an  Egyptian,  known  by  his 
dress  or  his  features,  whom  they  brought  to  David,  and  to  whom 
they  gave  food.  — 12.  After  giving  him  water,  they  gave  him  a 
cake  ofJigs~\  cf.  25^*.  For  a  starving  man  this  would  be  enough. 
—  His  spirit  returned  to  hif?i'\  he  had  been  in  appearance  lifeless 
from  his  long  fast.  — 13.  To  David's  question  concerning  himself 
he  replies  :  /  am  an  Egyptian  lad,  servant  to  an  Amalekite,  and 
my  master  abandoned  me,  because  I  fell  sick,  three  days  ago.  — 
14.  His  account  of  the  expedition  :  We  raided  the  Negeb  of  the 
Cherethite~\  a  clan  of  the  Phihstines,  Zeph.  2'.  — 15.  The  captive 
on  being  asked  to  act  as  guide,  consents  on  condition  that  David 
will  swear  not  to  kill  him,  or  to  deliver  him  to  his  master. — 
16.  Led  by  the  slave,  they  come  upon  the  enemy  spread  over  the 
face  of  the  country,  eating  and  dritiking  and  dancing']  very  possi- 
bly in  a  religious  feast  —  on  account  of  all  the  great  spoil  which 
they  had  taken.  — 17.  And  David  smote  them  from  twilight  to 
evening']  the  attack  was  sudden  and  soon  decided,  and  the  success 
was  complete  :  None  escaped  except  four  hundred  young  ?nen  who 
rode  upon  the  camels  and  fled. 

9.  ma'an]  conjecturally  identified  with  Wadi  Gazze  (by  Guerin,  Judee, 
II.  p.  213)  *  or  with  its  branch  Wadi  Sheri'a  (by  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  88).  —  annum 
nny]  can  only  mean  in  its  present  connexion  that  the  rest  (besides  the  six 
hundred)  stayed  behind  at  Ziklag.     But  it  is  a  constant  feature  of  the  tradi- 

*  I  owe  the  citation  to  BDB.  sub  voce. 


248  I  SAMUEL 

tion  that  David  had  only  six  hundred  men  with  hiui,  so  that  there  were  none 
to  stay  at  Ziklag.  We  must  treat  the  clause  as  an  intruder  (We.).  Ew. 
(GF/^.  III.  144,  E.Tr.  III.  p.  105)  proposes  to  insert  a  clause — /our  hundred 
passed  over,  and  the  rest  stayed.  But  the  next  verse  is  then  redundant.  — 
10.  The  order  is  perverse,  and  the  two  halves  of  the  verse  should  be  trans- 
posed (We.).  —  njo]  only  here  andv.-i.  The  context  indicates  the  meaning, 
of.  iJD  a  corpse  from  its  limpness.  — 11.  ''is2"S"n]  it  would  be  more  logical 
to  describe  him  here  as  faint  or  starving,  and  to  leave  his  race  to  be  discov- 
ered later  (Kl.).  —  on*?  i'?")jnM]  it  seems  superfluous  to  tell  us  here  that  they 
gave  him  food,  and  then  to  add  later  that  they  gave  him  figs.  However,  we 
may  account  for  the  clause  as  a  general  statement — they  brought  him  to 
David  and  gare  hi  in  food — to  be  followed  by  the  details.  — 12.  cpci"  ^j""i] 
lacking  in  i&^,  and  not  improbably  the  insertion  of  a  scribe.  It  would  not 
do  to  give  a  starving  man  much  food  at  one  time.  —  13.  nz'^^v  am]  3  MSS. 
of  |§  add  D'ci  which  seems  necessary,  cf.  9-". — -14.  3Ji]  the  verb  used  is 
followed  by  *?{<  in  v.^,  and  the  preposition  should  be  inserted  here  (We.). — 
V"  13.1]  the  people  so  named  are  dwellers  on  the  shore  according  to  Zephaniah, 
who  also  associates  them  with  the  land  of  the  Philistines  as  does  Ezekiel 
(25I8).  Elsewhere  they  are  mentioned  with  the  z^r'-'o  as  making  up  David's 
body  guard,  2  S.  8^*.  Cf.  E.  Meyer,  Gesch.  des  Alterth.  I.  p.  367.  (S^  has  x°PP'^ 
here,  reminding  us  of  a  similar  confusion  in  |t)  in  2  S.  2o28 .-  @B  ^oA.9e/.  — 
n-iin'':<  ->rN"^;"i]  the  difference  in  the  form  of  expression  indicates  that  the 
jihrase  was  inserted  by  a  scribe  who  was  surprised  that  Judah  should  not  be 
mentioned.  The  Negeb  of  the  Pelethite  and  the  Negeb  of  Caleb  would 
be  enough  territory  for  one  raid.  —  15.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  ^^S  agree  in 
adding :  and  he  sware  to  him.  — 16.  DUJn]  the  circuit  of  the  sanctuary  made 
at  the  feasts  was  undoubtedly  a  dance.  That  the  Bedawin  were  here  dancing 
before  their  gods,  is  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  scene.  Arabic 
parallels  are  given  by  We.  Skizzen,  III.  p.  106,  with  which  compare  Noldeke's 
comments  in  ZDMG.  XLI.  p.  719.  — 17.  in  D3m]  ©  seems  to  have  had  N3'> 
DD>i  in  ohiSn  which  is  adopted  by  Bu.  But  in  such  cases  the  shorter  clause 
has  the  presumption  in  its  favour.  —  qiS'jns]  it  is  still  disputed  whether  the 
morning  or  evening  twilight  is  intended.  In  the  majority  of  cases  n^-''^  is  cer- 
tainly the  early  evening  when  the  breeze  begins  to  stir,  and  there  seems  no 
reason  to  interpret  otherwise  here.  The  enemy  were  wholly  taken  by  surprise 
and  seem  to  have  made  no  serious  resistance.  To  suppose  that  David  spent 
the  whole  day  in  slaughter  is  difficult.  —  a.'^inrrS]  adds  to  the  difficulty,  for 
interpreted  in  the  natural  sense  it  would  extend  the  slaughter  over  two  whole 
days.  The  form  moreover  is  abnormal.  The  D  can  hardly  be  the  pronominal 
suffix,  and  the  adverbial  ending  is  equally  out  of  place.  The  text  is  probably 
corrupt.  S  seems  to  have  or  to  conjecture  cnnriND.  The  Bible  Commentary 
suggests  omnc'?;  We.  a;:nnnV  (adopted  by  Bu.) ;  Kl.  Dn^jno  Soa. 

18,  19.    David  rescued  all  that  had  been  carried  away,  nothing 
was  Missing']  2  S.  1 7^".  —  20.   Tbe  meaning  of  the  obscure  verse 


XXX.  18-25  249 

must  have  been  that,  in  addition  to  recovering  his  own,  David 
captured  a  large  amount  of  other  property.  — 21.  On  the  return, 
the  two  hundred  who  were  left  behind  came  to  meet  them, 
a7id  saluted  them.  —  22.  The  baser  men  among  those  who  had 
marched  in  the  pursuit  propose  to  keep  all  the  booty  for  their  own 
company  :  Because  they  did  not  go  with  us'\  the  present  text  reads 
with  7ne  —  we  will  not  give  them  of  the  booty  which  we  resetted'] 
the  term  booty  shows  that  no  previous  title  was  to  be  recognized. 
All  they  would  give  would  be  :  to  each  man  his  wife  and  his  chil- 
dren that  they  may  lead  them  away  and  depart. — 23.  David 
vetoes  the  proposition  :  Do  not  do  so  after  Vahweh  has  [wro2ight~\ 
for  us  and  preserved  us.  Injustice  is  a  sin  against  God,  and  in 
this  case  the  ingratitude  is  especially  conspicuous.  —  24.  The 
language  of  David  continues  in  the  couplet : 

As  the  portion  of  the  one  who  goes  down  into  battle, 

So  is  the  portion  of  the  one  7vho  remains  with  the  baggage. 

Early  statutes  (enactments  or  regulations)  were  put  in  rhythmical 
form  for  better  retention  in  memory.  The  original  couplet  has 
here  been  increased  by  the  added  words  :  They  shall  share  alike. 
—  25.  The  author  adds  \\\z.\.  from  that  time  on  they  made  it  a 
statute  and  a  precedent  in  Israel.  David's  decision  in  the  matter 
became  the  precedent  (tastra)  ;  it  was  a  statute  when  he  made  it 
a  general  rule.  Cf.  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuc}^, 
p.  248  f. 

18.  The  two  wives  seem  to  be  an  afterthought,  as  in  v.^  — 19.  SWdi] 
seems  to  belong  before  Dija"i>'i,  and  this  is  the  order  in  (5.  Possibly  however 
a  word  has  fallen  out;  we  should  expect :  D-'ja'nyi  Dirj  jc. — 20.  The  verse  as 
it  stands  is  unintelligible.  Its  object  must  be  to  tell  us  that  in  addition  to  the 
recovery  of  his  own  possessions  David  took  a  large  amount  of  other  booty : 
ante  pecus  siium  quod  liberaverant  duxerunt  greges  et  arvienta  quae  abstu- 
lerunt  Amalekitis,  as  Kimchi  is  rendered  by  Schmid.  But  this  is  not  ex- 
pressed by  the  present  text.  We.'s  restoration,  accepted  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki., 
makes  the  people,  out  of  gratitude,  resign  all  the  sheep  and  oxen  to  David  as 
his  share.  But  this  is  contrary  to  what  follows,  where  the  two  hundred  share 
in  the  booty  with  the  others.  I  suspect  the  original  to  have  been  something 
like  this:  ^n  S^tt'  nt  dj  dh^jcS  pSoy  unj  ik'n  npani  jNxn  '?3-nNi.  —  21.  03ib"i] 
should  probably  be  oa-'tt'^i,  David  being  the  natural  subject,  @IL. — Snivm]  on 
the  other  hand  is  read  as  a  plural  by  ^%.  The  men  left  behind  would  be  the 
ones  to  ask  for  the  welfare  of  those  who  had  gone  into  the  battle  (We.j;   for 


250  I  SAMUEL 

onS  we  should  probably  read  nS  (=  i':').  —  22.  '73]  is  lacking  in  &. — cy]  the 
singular  form  is  no  doubt  thoroughly  idiomatic.  But  if  we  retain  it  we  should 
apparently  change  both  jpj  and  ij'?xn  to  correspond.  It  is  easier  therefore  to 
read  us;'  with  8  MSS.  of  |^,  and  with  (@S1L.  —  23.  itt'N  hn  ^nx]  (5  undoubt- 
edly reads  icn  nnN  which  is  to  be  preferred,  because  it  makes  all  that  follows 
a  reason  for  the  dissuasion.  But  in  that  case  jpj  is  left  without  an  object  and 
must  be  replaced  by  another  verb,  as  ncy,  146.  —  24.  Tiin]  of  the  A7/^  is 
only  a  scribe's  error.  —  25.  '?N^^»S]  Vx^tt'ia  found  in  some  copies  and  editions 
seems  a  little  better  here.  —  nin  arn  nj?]  a  frequent  phrase,  especially  in  late 
writers.  It  naturally  implies  that  a  considerable  time  had  elapsed  since  the 
events  narrated. 

26.  David  uses  the  booty  at  his  disposal  to  win  the  hearts  of 
Judah.  Mohammed's  procedure  after  the  battle  of  Honein  will 
occur  to  every  one.  —  He  sent  of  the  booty  to  the  elders  of  Judah 
and  to  his  ki7ismen'\  reading  with  (^.  The  enumeration  of  towns 
follows.  All  of  them  seem  to  have  been  in  the  South  Country, 
none  north  of  Hebron.  —  27.  Bethel,  as  pointed  out  by  We,,  the 
same  with  the  Bethuel  of  i  Chr.  4^,  there  mentioned  in  connexion 
with  Hormah  and  Ziklag;  cf.  also  Bethul,  Jos.  ip*  (also  with 
Hormah).  Ramoth-Negeb  one  of  the  cities  of  Simeon,  Jos.  19^ 
Jattir,  Jos.  \^^^  21"  (with  Eshtemoa).  —  28.  ^w*?/' was  originally 
mentioned  in  Jos.  15^^  The  name  still  attaches  to  a  ruin  east- 
southeast  of  Beersheba.  Siphatnoih  seems  to  be  mentioned  no- 
where else.  Eshtemoa,  Jos.  15'^''  2  r"  identified  by  Robinson. — 
29.  For  the  unknown  Racal  of  ^  we  should  probably  read 
Carmel  on  the  basis  of  &. —  The  cities  of  the  Jerachmeelite  and 
the  cities  of  the  Ke?iite']  27^°.  — 30.  Hormah  Jd.  i^^  Num.  21'. 
For  Bor-Ashan  we  should  probably  restore  the  well-known  Beer 
Sheba  whose  absence  is  inexplicable. —  31.  Hebron,  the  chief 
city  of  Judah,  could  not  be  left  out  when  all  the  places  were  re- 
membered where  David  had  sojourned,  he  and  his  men. 

26.  in;;-\S]  koI  to7s  nXrialov  avrov  (3  seems  preferable;  S  Iim3n'7l  has  the 
conjunction  like  <&. — 27.  VNPoa]  written  as  one  word  by  Baer;  in  Gins- 
burg's  text  two  words  connected  by  the  Maqqeph.  The  name  occurs  in 
(5^  also  in  Jos.  15^^  ('^•03  |§)  just  before  Hormah.  In  our  passage  <5  has 
BaiBaovp  which  is  favoured  by  Ew.  and  Th.  For  Ramoth  ®^^  Ratna ;  in 
Jos.  198  where  |§  has  nm,  ©^  ^^s  Va^ixovB.  —  ->r»3]  eV  re90({p  6^  goes  back 
to  -inj;3.  Both  names  are  found  in  the  lists  of  Joshua  (i5''2-*8  19''  ai^*).  Cf. 
ZA  TW.  VI.  p.  6.  —  28.  -i>'i>-  is  the  name  of  more  than  one  place.  The  pres- 
ent one  should  be  in  the  Negeb,  and  a  ruin  is  pointed  out  in  this  region 


XXX.  26-XXXI.  3  251 

called  Ar'ara  (Buhl,  Geog.  p.  183).  In  Jos.  15^2  we  now  find  myiy  for  which 
(gB  has  'Apov^\.  Probably  nyn;?  should  be  restored  there  (cf.  Dillmann's 
CommenUry  and  Bennett's  text  in  SBOT.).  nTpt'  of  Ginsburg  and  the 
common  editions  is  written  niooa'  by  Baer.  In  this  verse  ©^  has  one  name 
more  than  |^,  inserting  'A/u/xaSei  which  may  be  a  corruption  of  'ApoTjp  (We.). 
It  does  not  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  basis  on  which  to  restore  nj-jiy  (Ew.). 
®^  seems  to  have  read  pp  n>'  from  \P.  For  nicD-i' :  2a0£t  <S^.  yDnii'N,  cf. 
Buhl,  Geog.  p.  163.  —  29.  The  verse  is  extended  in  ^^  perhaps  by  duplication 
from  the  preceding.  It  agrees  with  @^  in  giving  the  name  Carmel,  which 
Ewald  substitutes  for  Ssi.  For  the  Kenite,  ®  has  the  Kenezite.  Kenaz  was 
a  clan  of  Judah,  Jd.  i^^,  but  the  parallel  i  S.  2f-^  seems  to  decide  for  the 
Kenite  here. — 30.  Hormah,  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  i^''.  —  fti'y— iia3  in  the  early 
editions  according  to  Baer;  in  many  recent  ones  (Jablonski,  etc.)  '>""ni33.  In 
@  it  is  represented  by  Beersheba.  The  absence  of  so  prominent  a  place  as 
Beersheba  is  remarkable  and  the  name  is  perhaps  original.  \Vi  however  is 
the  name  of  a  town  in  Judah,  Jos.  I5'*2  \^.  injj  occurs  nowhere  else  in  |§. 
It  is  suggested  by  Buhl  (Ges.  HWB'^'^.)  that  it  is  the  same  with  nn^  noticed 
above,  which  is  twice  named  in  connexion  with  ]^';.  I  should  substitute 
Arad,  Jd.  i^^.     The  MSS.  of  @  differ  widely. 

XXXI.  The  death  of  Saul.  —  Two  accounts  are  given  of  the 
death  of  Saul.  In  the  one  before  us  he  is  hard  pressed  in  battle, 
and,  in  despair,  commits  suicide.  In  the  other  (contained  in 
2  Sam.  i""),  he  begs  an  Amalekite  camp  follower  to  slay  him, 
and  thus  meets  his  end.  The  two  accounts  seem  independent, 
and  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  represent  the  two  different 
streams  of  tradition.  In  that  case  the  chapter  before  us  continues 
the  narrative  of  28.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  natural  sequel  of  that 
chapter.  For  in  that  the  shadow  of  the  coming  defeat  already 
falls.  As  there  predicted,  Saul  sees  Israel  defeated  and  his  sons 
slain ;  and  commits  suicide  in  his  sense  of  abandonment  by  Yah- 
weh.  It  confirms  this  to  notice  that  2  S.  i  naturally  continues  the 
history  we  have  just  followed,  culminating  in  David's  distribution 
of  the  booty  to  Judah.  Chapter  3 1  is  unnecessary  to  that  narra- 
tive, and  in  fact  breaks  the  thread. 

1.   The  account  opens  abruptly  :   The  Philistines  fought  against 
Israel,  and  the  men  of  Israel  fled  before  the  Philistines,  and  fell 
down  slain  upon  Mount  Gilboa']   Israel  was  frequently  defeated 
in  the  plains.     In  this  case  the  battle  was  fought  on  their  own 
ground — the  high  places.  —  2,  3.   Three  sons  of  Saul  were  slain, 


252  I  SAMUEL 

and  the  fighting  pressed  hard  upon  Saul ;  the  archers  got  him  in 
range  and  he  was  wounded"]  the  text  is  not  certain. — 4,  Saul's 
command  to  his  armour-bearer :  Draw  thy  sword  and  run  me 
through  with  it~\  the  case  of  Abimelech  Jd.  9^  is  closely  parallel. 
There,  it  was  to  escape  death  at  the  hands  of  a  woman.  Here,  it 
is  lest  these  uncircunicised  come  and  make  sport  of  me]  amuse 
themselves  with  the  helpless  but  conscious  warrior,  Jd.  19-^  The 
armour-bearer  re/used  because  he  was  much  afraid]  whether  the 
author  means  that  he  was  in  too  great  a  panic  to  heed  the  com- 
mand, or  that  he  had  too  great  reverence  for  his  lord  cannot  be 
made  out  with  certainty.  The  latter  seems  more  probable.  Saul 
then  took  his  own  stuord  and  fell  upon  it]  one  of  the  very  rare 
instances  of  suicide  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  view  of  it,  the 
older  commentators  discuss  the  question  of  Saul's  final  salvation, 
generally  with  an  unfavourable  verdict.*  —  5.  The  armour-bearer 
would  not  survive  his  master.  —  6.  The  tragic  element  is  pointed 
out  in  the  fact  that  Saul  and  his  sons  and  his  armour-bearer  died 
together. — 7.  The  result  was  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities 
in  the  Jordan  valley  deserted  their  cities,  and  the  Philistines  took 
possession  of  them.     The  recovery  of  the  original  text  is  difficult. 

XXXI.  The  question  of  the  place  of  the  story  can  be  fully  considered  only 
when  we  come  to  the  following  chapter.  For  the  text  we  now  have  an 
additional  source  in  the  Chronicler  who  embodies  this  chapter  in  his  work 
(I  Chr.  10I-12). 

1.  Qicn'?j]  Chr.  xarhi  which  should  probably  be  restored.  The  author  of 
Sam.  changed  to  the  participle  to  indicate  that  while  David  and  his  men  were 
pursuing  the  Amalekites,  the  Philistines  were  fighting.  —  ''Cjn  iDn]  B'^n  Dri  C. 
which  is  more  idiomatic.  —  2.  1|13-im]  14^".  —  ^n]  nnN  C,  It  is  a  question 
whether  the  original  author  did  not  write  Sn.  The  verb  is  generally  used  with  3. 
The  names  of  Saul's  sons  show  some  variation  in  (5.  —  3.   Sn]  read  S;?  C.  ®S. 

—  a-'rjN  amen]  seems  impossible  and  C.  leaves  out  Q'^tMN.  But  nt'pa  omen 
is  redundant,  and  pcpa  cannot  be  connected  with  ihinxdm.  Dr.  proposes 
T^vp'y  aniDH  a''!:'jx  meaning  some  of  the  archers,  comparing  Gen.  37-^  i  S.  251". 
It  seems  simpler  to  strike  out  ntt'pa  dtjx  as  a  gloss  designed  to  define  omen. 

—  omnnD  nXD  Vhm]  Dnrn-jn  SnM  C.  The  words  are  generally  taken  to  mean 
he  feared  the  archers  exceedingly.  But  we  should  expect  ijds  if  that  were  the 
meaning.  (5  takes  Snii  to  be  from  SSn,  koI  iTpavfj.aTiffdri  ^^,  Koi  erpavfidriffav^, 
and  tliis  gives  a  better  sense,  for  the  words  of  Saul  to  his  armour-bearer  are 

*  Schmid,  p.  988. 


XXXI.  3-13  2S3 

the  words  of  a  man  sore  wounded.  —  amnnaj  tis  to.  viroxovSpia  (&  would  in- 
dicate  tfDna  or  o^jnna. — 4.  The  second  'jipii  is  lacking  in  C.  doubtless 
rightly.  What  Saul  dreaded  was  that  he  should  be  alive  to  be  mocked,  not 
that  they  should  mutilate  his  body  after  his  death. — 5.  nn]  seems  impossible 
to  reconcile  with  the  following  chapter.  —  6.  For  vh:s  ncji  C.  has  mo  Sji,  an 
intentional  exaggeration.  —  vcjn"'?d  dj]  lacking  in  C.<3^,  is  a  similar  exagger- 
ation. —  7.  ■'^jn]  C.  tt'iN-Sj.  For  p-iin  -\3>'3  irxi  pv;n  -i3j?2  *  C.  has  simply 
pcyz  "iC'N,  and  this  may  be  original,  though  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  could 
give  rise  to  the  present  text.  Probably  we  should  read  pTi]}n  n>'2  (Kl.). — 
is-\a»>  ^cjn]  is  omitted  by  C.  who  was  willing  to  throw  the  blame  upon  Saul 
alone.  —  Dn>'n]  read  annj?  with  C.  and  (§. 

8.  The  next  day  the  PhiUstines  came  to  strip  the  slain  and 
found  Said  and  his  three  sons  fallen  on  Moimt  Gilboa']  the  battle 
had  probably  lasted  until  evening.  —  9.  They  sent  the  head  of 
Saul  through  the  country  of  the  Philistines  to  bring  good  news  to 
their  idols  and  the  people^  perhaps  the  original  author  wrote  to 
their  gods  and  the  people.  —  10.  His  armour,  as  a  trophy,  came 
naturally  into  the  house  of  Ashtoretli]  where  this  was  we  are  not 
told. — And  his  corpse  they  exposed  on  the  walls  of  Bethshan']  a 
city  in  the  Jordan  valley  at  the  entrance  of  the  side  valley  which 
comes  down  from  the  Great  Plain.  It  still  bears  the  name  Beisan. 
— 11.  The  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead,  who  had  special  reasons  for 
remembering  Saul  with  gratitude  (ii^'"),  undertook  to  remove 
the  disgrace.  — 12.  All  the  tnen  of  courage  rose  up  and  marched 
all  night,  and  took  the  corpses  of  Saul  and  his  sons  from  the  ivall 
of  Bethshan  and  brought  them  to  Jabesh  and  burnt  them  there'] 
although  this  was  not  Israelitish  custom,  there  seems  to  be  no 
sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  received  text.  — 13.  The 
bones  were  buried  u?ider  the  tamarisk  tree]  probably  one  well 
known;  and  they  fasted  seven  days]  in  expression  of  their  grief. 

8.  ntt'St!']  omitted  by  C.  —  9.  C.  has  a  free  reproduction  of  the  first  clause. 
—  n>3]  C.  has  pn  which  is  doubtless  correct,  and  which  seems  also  to  be  im- 
plied by  @.  — 10.  nnnu'N]  the  singular  form  alone  is  in  place.  C.  substitutes 
dh^Sn.  For  lypn  read  i;?iprn  (Lag.  Anm.  zur  Griech.  Uebersetz.  d.  Proverbien, 
p.  iiii),  cf.  2  S.  2\^-^.  The  Chronicler,  thinking  of  the  head  and  armour  being 
sent  to  Philistia,  changes  the  last  clause  to :  and  they  stuck  up  his  skull  in  the 
house  of  Dago7t.     On  Bethshan,  Moore,  Jd.  i^T  and  reff.  —  11.    vVn]  lacking 

*  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  Israelites  beyond  the  Jordan  deserted  their 
cities.     The  example  of  Jabesh  Gilead  is  enough  to  show  this. 


254  2  SAMUFX 

in  <S^  C.  —  12.  nV>Sn-S3  oSmJ  lacking  in  C  which  also  changes  the  wording 
of  the  rest  of  the  verse  to  accord  with  its  own  omission  of  Bethshan,  v.^''.  — 
1X311]  read  din's^i  (3  C  —  du'  Dnx  lairMJ  is  lacking  in  C.  On  account  of  the 
lack  of  precedent,  Bu.  proposes  to  read  2w'  anS  noD'i.  The  mourning  how- 
ever should  be  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  fasting  at  the  end  of  the 
next  verse.  And  the  separate  mention  of  the  bones  which  follows  (note  inp^i) 
is  inexplicable  with  the  proposed  reading.  —  13.  napii  .  .  .  mpM]  C.  has  only 
n^pM.  For  '7B'Nn,  C.  has  n^an,  a  more  general  word,  or  perhaps  less  ob- 
noxious (if  he^ti  is  a  sacred  tree,  as  seems  probable).  The  Hebrew  name  is 
reproduced  in  the  modern  Arabic  name  a//i/,  applied  to  the  Tamarisk,  cf.  Post. 
Flora  of  Syria  (1896),  p.  166. 

2  Sam.  I.  1-27.  David's  reception  of  the  news  of  Saul's 
death.  —  An  Amalekite  brings  news  to  Ziklag  and  gives  a  circum- 
stantial account  of  the  death  of  Saul,  in  which  he  claims  to  have 
been  instrumental.  David  and  his  men  mourn  for  the  death  of 
Saul  and  his  men,  and  the  messenger  is  put  to  death  for  having 
laid  hands  on  the  Anointed  of  Yahweh.  In  addition  to  these 
marks  of  grief,  David  composes  an  Elegy  which  is  inserted  in  the 
text,  having  been  taken  from  the  Book  of  Jashar. 

The  historical  part  of  the  chapter  contains  a  separate  and  inde- 
pendent account  of  the  death  of  Saul.  In  I,  31  we  are  told  ex- 
pressly that  Saul  met  his  death  by  his  own  hand.  Here  the 
Amalekite  finds  him  suffering  from  extreme  fatigue,  but  without 
a  wound,  v.^  It  seems  impossible  to  reconcile  the  two  accounts. 
The  easiest  hypothesis  is  that  the  Amalekite  fabricated  his  story. 
But  the  whole  narrative  seems  against  this.  David  has  no  inkling 
that  the  man  is  not  truthful,  nor  does  the  author  suggest  it.  The 
natural  conclusion  is  that  we  have  here  a  document  different  from 
the  one  just  preceding.  It  strengthens  our  conviction  to  notice 
that  this  narrative,  with  a  very  slight  change  in  v.\  continues  the 
account  of  David's  experience  at  Ziklag  without  a  break.  It  is 
highly  dramatic  that  after  David's  severe  contest  with  Amalek,  an 
Amalekite  should  bring  him  the  news  of  Saul's  death.  For  this 
writer,  whose  chief  interest  was  in  David,  the  story  contains  all 
he  cared  to  tell  of  the  last  days  of  Saul. 

Budde  in  his  text  separates  v.^  as  a  late  insertion  and  vs.^"  ^^^* 
as  belonging  to  a  different  document.  He  succeeds  thus  in  pro- 
ducing a  continuation  of  I.  31.  But  where  the  exscinded  frag- 
ments belong  it  is  impossible  to  see.     They  continue  nothing  that 


I.  i-io  255 

precedes,  and  they  prepare  for  nothing  that  follows.  They  may 
be  a  mere  editorial  embellishment,  but  such  a  hypothesis  should 
not  be  urged  if  we  can  get  along  without  it. 

1.  The  ambiguity  of  the  data  shows  that  the  verse  has  been 
remodelled  to  make  it  connect  this  chapter  with  what  precedes. 
The  original  author  evidently  made  David  remain  in  Ziklag  two 
days  after  his  return  from  smiting  the  Amalekites.  The  editor 
inserted  the  reference  to  the  death  of  Saul.  —  2.  On  the  third  day 
there  came  a  man"]  the  Rabbinical  commentators  make  him  to 
have  been  Doeg,  or  his  son,  or  the  son  of  Agag.  —  With  his  clothes 
rent  and  earth  upon  his  head~\  like  the  other  bearer  of  bad  tidings, 
I  S.  4^^.  —  3,  4.  On  hearing  that  the  man  has  escaped  from  the 
camp  of  Israel,  David  asks  him  :  Ho7v  was  the  affair  ?\  cf.  i  S.  4^*^. 
The  reply  is  similar  to  that  of  the  messenger  at  Shiloh  :  The  people 
flea  from  the  battle,  and  many  of  the  people  fell,  and  Saul  and 
Jonathan  his  son  are  dead~\  the  climax  is  reached  in  that  in  which 
the  hearer  is  most  interested.  —  5.  David  asks  particularly  con- 
cerning the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  :  How  dost  thou  know 
that  Saul  and  Jonathan  his  son  are  dead?  —  6.  As  already  pointed 
out,  the  reply  contradicts  the  account  already  given  of  the  death 
of  Saul :  /  happened  to  be  o?i  Mount  Gilboa,  and  Saul  was  leaning 
on  his  spear,  a?id  the  chariots  and  horset?ie?i  drew  near  him'\  in 
31^  it  was  the  archers  who  got  him  in  range.  —  7.  And  he  looked 
behind  him  and  saw  me']  Saul  had  been  facing  the  enemy  but  now 
looked  about  for  help.  —  8.  After  calling  the  stranger,  Saul  says  : 
IVho  art  thou  ?  To  which  the  stranger  makes  the  reply  :  /  am 
an  Amalekite.  The  contradiction  has  thus  become  more  glaring ; 
Saul  instead  of  appealing  to  his  squire,  who  must  have  been  near 
his  person,  finds  only  one  person  within  call.  Instead  of  shrink- 
ing from  the  abuse  of  the  Philistine,  he  is  willing  to  give  himself 
to  be  despatched  by  an  equally  despised  enemy,  an  Amalekite.  — 

9.  Saul's  prayer  :  Stand  over  me,  I  pray,  and  slay  me,  for  dizzi- 
ness has  seized  me]  the  exhaustion  of  a  man  worn  out  with  fight- 
ing.    The  following  clause  is  obscure  ;   see  the  critical  note.  — 

10.  So  I  stood  over  him  and  slew  him  for  J  knew  that  he  could 
not  live  after  he  had  fallen]  an  apology  for  his  deed  on  the  part 
of  the  murderer.     He  also  took  Saul's  crown  and  his  armlet]  sev- 


256  2  SA^iuEL 

eral  such  are  pictured  on  the  arms  of  Assyrian  monarchs.*  For 
the  custom  of  kings  to  go  into  battle  in  their  regaha,  notice  the 
account  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Ahab  in  i  K.  22^'  where  Ahab's  dis- 
guising himself  is  an  exception  to  the  rule.  —  And  /wrought  them 
to  my  lord  here']  does  not  expressly  state  that  the  bearer  regarded 
David  as  the  legitimate  successor,  but  seems  to  imply  it. — 
11,  12.  David  and  his  men  mourn  for  Saul  and  Jonathan  and  for 
the  house  of  Israel,  with  the  customary  signs  of  grief —  rending 
the  clothes,  fasting,  and  weeping. — 13.  To  David's  question  con- 
cerning his  origin,  the  messenger  rephes  :  /  am  the  son  of  an 
Amalekite  sojourner']  one  who  had  taken  up  his  residence  in 
Israel  where  he  had  the  protection  accorded  to  a  client,  but  w^as 
not  in  full  citizenship.  Of  proselytes  as  we  understand  the  word, 
i.e.,  converts  to  the  true  religion,  there  is  no  trace  in  this  early 
period.  — 14.  David's  question  shows  his  indignation  at  any  one's 
(we  may  suppose  a  fo?-tiori  at  a  stranger's)  putting  out  his  hand 
to  destroy  the  anointed  of  Yahiveh']  the  sanctity  of  the  king  made 
such  an  act  sacrilege.  The  assassins  of  Ishbaal  received  similar 
treatment  to  that  recorded  here,  4'''^-,  and  for  the  reason  here  indi- 
cated.— 15,  16.  David  has  him  slain  by  one  of  his  soldiers  and 
justifies  the  act  in  the  words  :  Thy  blood  be  up07i  thy  head  because 
thine  own  viouth  testified  against  thee]  the  guilt  of  the  man's 
death  rests  upon  himself  because  he  deserves  to  die.  Otherwise 
it  would  rest  upon  David,  cf.  the  case  of  Abner,  3-*  and  also  i  K. 

232.  33.  37 

1.  The  natural  construction  of  the  verse  as  it  stands  is  to  make  ui  3tt'  im 
a  circumstantial  clause  and  therefore  parenthetical :  '  It  came  to  pass  after  the 
death  of  Saul  (David  meanwhile  had  returned  from  smiting  Amalek)  that 
David  abode  two  days  in  Ziklag.'  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  expresses 
the  sense  of  the  author.  What  he  means  is  that  after  returning  from  Amaiek, 
David  abode  tiuo  days  in  Zik/ag  before  the  message  came.  The  infelicity  of 
the  text  shows  editorial  adaptation  to  the  present  context.  The  original  begin- 
ning of  the  verse  was  probably  ^n  3t:'  nnx  >n>i  simply.  In  this  case,  there  is 
no  reason  why  it  may  not  have  continued  30^'.  —  pScyn]  should  be  ^p'^rDi'n 
(so  6  MSS.)  with  &  or  pScj?  with  @IL.  — 2.  For  Doeg  as  the  messenger,  Schm. 
refers  to  Isaaki,  and  for  the  son  of  Agag  to  Auctor  Antiq.  Bibl.  qui  falso 
Philo  fitisse  dicitur.  Doeg  is  also  given  by  Pseudo-Hieronymus,  Questio7tes. 
— Dyn]  is  read  by  (5  a>c,  but  |§  is  preferable  (We.).  —  4.   dj"is'n]  another 

*  Nestle,  Marginalien,  p.  16. 


I.  10-16  257 

case  of  -irN  in  the  sense  of  o,  i  S.  15^'^  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  146,  R.  2. — 
inc'i]  is  omitted  by<S^S,  perhaps  rightly;  ©^  inserts:  koX  awfOavev  koI  SaouA. 
—  6.  \~inpj  ^'^|■'J]  evidently  the  two  forms  are  intended  to  be  from  the  same 
root,  cf.  20^.  —  D''B'iDn  '"^joi]  we  read  nowhere  else  of  masters  of  the  horsemen, 
and  @  omits  ■^^'iz  here,  unless  0/  iVTrapx"'  covers  both  words.  Everywhere  else 
we  find  D^w-is  joined  with  3di.  Possibly  some  one  started  to  write  an'n  ^'^va 
(Gen.  49^*)  and  afterwards  discovered  a''B'i£3  in  his  text.  —  inpann]  strictly 
means  that  they  had  already  overtaken  him.  —  8.  idnm  Kt. :  "^dni  Qre.  The 
latter  is  necessary.  —  9.  iS;']  implies  that  Saul  had  sunk  down  —  which  ought, 
however,  to  be  distinctly  expressed.  —  lOtt-n]  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  the 
meaning  is  doubtful :  (tkotos  SfLvov  (5  possibly  a  corruption  of  ffKoroSn'os  — 
(dizziness.*  The  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  .v'jtis  S  (cf.  Nestle,  Afar- 
ginalien,  p.  16  and  reff.)  :  angustiae  IL,  nhvii  St  suppose  Saul  overcome  by 
terror.  Modern  interpreters  are  represented  by  Th.  who  renders  cramp,  and 
Kl.  who  accepts  giddiness.  Schmid  supposes  the  sentence  to  mean  t?ty 
armour  prevents  me,  i.e.,  from  carrying  out  my  purpose  to  kill  myself.  This 
interpretation  is  due  to  the  theory  that  Saul  had  attempted  suicide,  but  the 
sword  had  been  turned  aside  by  his  coat  of  mail,  so  that  the  blow  was  not 
fatal.  —  >B'BJ  liy'js"''^]  is  unusual.  It  is  supposed  to  be  by  hypallage  for 
^roj  So"niy~^D  (Ges.  HWB^'^.s.v.  '^d).  But  the  only  analogies  cited  are  Job  27* 
and  Hos.  14',  the  latter  of  which  has  a  corrupt  text.  It  is  doubtful  moreover 
whether  the  sense  supposed — for  yet  my  life  is  whole  within  me  —  is  appro- 
priate. I  think  more  likely  that  Saul  means  to  give  a  reason  for  his  dizziness, 
in  which  case  we  might  suppose  ^iroj  r\r^''^-2  13 :  for  my  strength  is  consumed, 
that  is,  /  am  utterly  exhausted,  cf.  Ps.  84^,  where,  to  be  sure,  the  soul  is  con- 
sumed with  desire.  Graetz  (^Gesch.  d.Juden,  I.  p.  224)  proposes  to  read  Sa 
for  '?3.  — 10.  iSdj]  on  the  pointing  cf.  Ges.^^  61  b;  the  word  must  mean  Saul's 
falling  to  the  earth,  showing  that  he  had  sunk  down  in  his  exhaustion.  —  nrj] 
of  the  royal  crown  2  K.  Ii'^.  —  mpsi]  occurs  only  here  and  Num.  31^^  but 
mj?x.  Is.  32'',  is  another  form  of  the  same  word.  We.  and  Dr.  propose  to  read 
r\-\'y'iT\  here  also,  as  the  article  seems  required  by  the  following  i::'t<.  Nestle's 
objection  that  the  king  may  have  worn  several  bracelets  does  not  remove  the 
difficulty,  for  one  of  his  bracelets  would  not  be  expressed  by  the  construction 
in  the  text.  — 11.  injaa  Qre,  is  sustained  by  the  following  plural  suffix. — 
12.  'Ti'i  '3  ^'i\  nin"'  Dj?  "^i'l]  is  tautology  and  is  relieved  by  ig  which  reads  for 
the  first  clause  and  over  the  people  of  Judah.  But  probably  even  then  one 
clause  is  an  interpolation.  — 13.  ij]  cf.  Bertholet,  Die  Stellung  der  Israeliten 
und  der  Juden  zu  den  Fremden  (1896),  pp.  I,  29.  — 16.  For  "I'si  the  Qre 
commands  ioi  as  in  i  K.  2''.  The  Kthib  however  is  justified  by  2  S.  3*'. 
Cf.  n  vs-i,  Lev.  20'-',  etc.,  and  n  mi,  Ezek.  t^-^. 

17-27.    David's  dirge.  —  The  author  here  inserts  a  poem  on 
the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  which  he  ascribes  to  David,  and 

*  Trendelenburg,  cited  by  Schleusner,  Nov.  Thesaurus,  V.  p.  62. 
S 


258  2  SAMUEI- 

which  he  avowedly  takes  from  a  book  older  than  his  own.  The 
composition  is  just  what  it  purports  to  be  —  a  lament  on  the  death 
of  Israel's  heroes.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen  is  the  refrain  at  the 
end  of  the  opening  tristich,  which  recurs  also  within  the  poem, 
and  again  at  the  close.  After  announcing  his  theme,  the  author 
deprecates  the  spread  of  news  which  will  cause  the  enemy  to 
rejoice.  He  then  pronounces  a  curse  upon  Mount  Gilboa,  the 
scene  of  so  cruel  an  event.  With  v.^  he  takes  up  the  panegyric 
of  the  departed  warriors  —  swifter  than  eagles,  stronger  tha?i  lions. 
He  exhorts  the  daughters  of  Israel  to  lament  over  Saul,  whose 
generosity  they  had  often  experienced  in  the  distribution  of  the 
booty.  And  in  conclusion  he  gives  vent  to  his  own  personal 
bereavement  in  the  loss  of  Jonathan. 

There  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  the 
poem.  One  negative  reason  in  its  favour  seems  to  be  of  over- 
whelming force  :  it  has  no  religious  allusion  whatever.  The  strong 
current  of  tradition  which  early  made  David  a  religious  hero,  ren- 
ders it  improbable  that  any  one  should  compose  for  David  a  poem 
which  contains  no  allusion  to  Yahweh,  to  his  relation  to  Israel,  or 
to  his  care  for  Israel's  king.  A  similar  argument  is  the  absence 
of  any  allusion  to  the  strained  relations  which  had  existed  between 
Saul  and  David.  That  David  should  show  true  magnanimity  in 
the  case  is  not  surprising.  But  it  would  hardly  be  human  nature 
for  an  imitator  not  to  make  at  least  a  veiled  allusion  to  David's 
experience  at  the  court  of  Saul  and  during  his  forced  exile.  With 
these  negative  indications  we  must  put  the  absence  of  any  positive 
marks  of  a  late  date.  There  seems  to  be  absolutely  nothing  in 
the  poem  which  is  inconsistent  with  its  alleged  authorship. 

The  text  of  the  poem  has  unfortunately  suffered  in  transmission, 
and  in  some  parts  it  cannot  be  restored  with  certainty.  For  the 
most  part  it  is  written  in  verses  of  four  accents.  Its  logical  divi- 
sions are  indicated  in  the  outline  already  given. 

17-27.  A  translation  is  given  by  Herder,  Geist  der  Ebr'dischen  Poesie, 
3  Aufl.  (Leipzig,  1825),  II.  p.  289  f.  Justi  inserts  also  in  this  edition  his 
own  translation,  with  a  reference  to  his  Nationalgesdnge  der  Hebr'der  as  well 
as  his  Blumen  althebrdischer  Dichtkunst,  neither  of  which  I  have  seen. 
Translations  are  given  also  by  E.  Meier,  Poet.  Nationalliteratur  d.  Hebr. 
p.   123;    Ewald,  Dichter  des  Alten  Bundes,   I.  p.   149  f.;    Graetz,  Gesch.  d. 


I.  17-18  259 

Juden,  I.  p.  224  f.;   Stade,  GVI.  I.  p.  259;   GASmith,  Geog.  p.  404  f.    The 
consensus  of  recent  scholars  is  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  poem. 

17.  David  sang  this  dirge']  as  he  sang  a  dirge  over  Abner,  3^ ; 
the  same  phrase  Ezek.  32^*^.  — 18.  The  first  half-verse  is  perfectly 
plain  so  far  as  the  words  are  concerned,  but  in  their  present  place 
they  are  wholly  incongruous  :  And  he  said  to  teach  the  children  of 
Judah  the  bow.  In  the  first  place  if  the  author  meant  that  David 
commanded  something  he  would  have  said  so.  Secondly,  the 
information  that  he  commanded  to  teach  the  use  of  the  bow  (AV.) 
is  irrelevant.  The  song  of  the  bow  (RV.)  is  equally  out  of  place 
unless  it  means  this  song,  which  some  indeed  suppose.  But  it  is 
a  strange  procedure  for  the  author  to  tell  us  that  David  com- 
manded to  teach  the  song  of  the  bow  without  letting  us  know  that 
this  means  the  song  before  us.  And  why  did  he  not  say  simply 
this  song  or  this  dirge,  which  would  have  been  perfectly  clear? 
We  can  do  nothing  with  the  text  as  it  stands,  and  the  efforts  of 
the  commentators  only  bring  the  difficulty  more  clearly  into  relief. 
The  versions  give  only  shght  help.  The  word  rendered  bow  is 
omitted  by  (§.  But  this  does  not  heal  the  difficulty.  The  only 
thing  certain  seems  to  be  that  the  half-verse  represents  the  open- 
ing words  of  the  dirge  with  the  introductory  phrase  :  And  he  said. 
By  a  conjecture  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  critical  note,"  I 
suppose  the  next  following  words  to  have  been  :  Weep,  O  Judah  ! 
The  second  half  of  the  verse  :  Behold  it  is  written  in  the  Book  of 
Jashar~\  is  a  marginal  note  which  has  crept  into  the  text.  The 
Book  of  Jashar  is  mentioned  Jos.  10^^,  and  was  possibly  also  cited 
in  the  original  of  i  K.  8^,  in  both  cases  as  authority  for  a  poetical 
quotation. 

18.  ncp  min^  >J3  id'?'?  i?dn>i]  there  is  no  reason  why  the  author  should 
not  say  ix-'i  if  he  meant  that  David  commanded  something.  We  expect  also 
rir'pn-nN  instead  of  the  simple  nrp.  But  the  great  difficulty  is  the  irrelevancy 
of  the  passage  in  this  connexion  —  between  the  announcement  of  the  dirge 
and  the  dirge  itself.  The  Jewish  expositors  do  not  see  the  difficulty.  Isaaki 
says  simply :  "  David  said,  now  that  the  mighty  men  of  Israel  have  fallen,  it  is 
necessary  that  the  Children  of  Judah  learn  war  and  draw  the  bow."  Kimchi 
supposes  that  David  encouraged  his  followers  by  reminding  them  that  Judah 
was  armed  with  the  bow.  Among  Christian  commentators,  Grotius  interprets 
that  the  song  was  to  be  sung  during  the  martial  exercises  of  the  soldiers; 
which   of  course   has  no   foundation   in   the   text.      Schm.  translates   "^DN'I 


26o  2  SAMUEL 

inscripsitquc,  and  makes  the  rest  of  the  clause  a  title,  similar  to  the  titles  of 
the  Psalms.  These  ingenious  examples  show  the  impossibility  of  making  any- 
thing of  the  present  text.  The  versions  seem  to  have  had  what  we  have,  except 
that  (S  omits  nrp;  but  this  leaves  us  pretty  much  where  we  were  before. 

Ew.  conjectures  as'p  for  ncp  translating,  he  commanded  to  teach  the  children 
of  Israel  accurately.  Conceding  that  this  translation  is  possible,  it  does  not 
relieve  the  main  difficulty,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Th.'s  emendation  of  the 
same  word  to  3;;'|t  for  which  he  cites  Is.  21''.  GASmith  changes  to  nijip  and 
regards  the  whole  clause  as  a  gloss.  But  why  should  a  glossator  get  it  into 
his  head  that  David  not  only  sang  the  rtrp  but  that  he  had  it  taught?  Such 
pains  is  unexampled,  and  the  glossator  can  have  supposed  it  possible  only 
because  there  was  already  corruption  of  the  text  of  which  he  had  to  make 
sense.  Perles  (^Analekten  zur  Textkritik,  p.  21)  thinks  nir'p  the  result  of 
abbreviation,  Sin";*  nrp  having  been  shortened  to  X'p  and  then  read  na'p.  He 
also  supposes  these  words  an  insertion.  We.  has  a  theory  to  account  for  t'v^. 
He  thinks  a  glossator  explained  D^smisn  in  v.^  by  putting  in  the  margin  '''"a 
rrp,  and  that  one  half  of  the  gloss  crept  into  v.^  and  the  other  half  into  this 
verse,  which  may  have  stood  in  the  corresponding  line  of  the  second  column 
of  the  page.     This  is  more  ingenious  than  convincing. 

Of  all  the  authors  I  have  found,  Klostermann  is  the  only  one  who  seems  to 
have  made  a  start  towards  the  right  solution.  He  sees  and  says  that  idn'i 
must  introduce  the  poem;  and  as  soon  as  this  is  pointed  out,  every  one  must 
recognize  the  correctness  of  the  observation.  Whatever  we  do  with  the  rest 
of  the  verse,  this  must  have  been  the  original  force  of  1CN>1  —  it  immediately 
preceded  the  text  of  the  poem.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  therefore  a 
later  insertion,  which  indeed  its  wording  makes  very  probable.  The  words 
following  ncNM  represent  the  opening  verse  of  the  dirge.  Kl.  (followed  by 
Bu.  in  his  text)  supposes  the  original  reading  to  have  been  nitt'p  min>  >yi 
which  Kl.  translates :  Receive,  O  Judah,  cruel  tidings.  But  it  is  doubtful 
whether  this  is  good  Hebrew. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  word  now  represented  by  >J2  was  origi- 
nally parallel  to  the  "laxyn  which  (as  we  shall  see)  must  be  restored  in  the 
next  verse.     But  if  so  the  natural  emendation  is  '33.     An  entirely  appropriate 

opening  of  the  dirge  would  be 

min>  ■"33 

After  '33  had  become  corrupted  to  "'J3  the  other  words  may  have  been  inserted 
to  make  some  sort  of  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  measure 
which  prevails  throughout  the  poem,  we  should  expect  six  words  in  this  couplet 
instead  of  four,  and  the  two  words  which  we  still  find  there  may  be  corrupt 
representatives  of  the  two  which  we  desire.  But,  as  to  their  original  form,  I 
have  not  any  probable  conjecture  to  offer. 

19.  The  received  text  has :  The  Gazelle  is  slain,  or :  The  beauty 
is  slain']  but  either  word  is  inappropriate.     The  gazelle  is  a  fleet 


I.  19-21  261 

but  shy  animal,  distinguished  for  a  grace  and  beauty  which  we 
think  of  as  feminine.  Saul  and  Jonathan  are  later  said  to  be 
swifter  than  eagles.  But  the  eagle  hastes  to  the  prey,  while  the 
gazelle  flees  from  the  pursuer.  One  comparison  is  as  inappropri- 
ate as  the  other  is  apt.  Nor  is  the  abstract  beauty  any  better,  for 
the  word  here  used  is  never  used  of  the  glory  which  is  given  by 
strength.  ^  found  a  verb,  and  following  its  hint  so  far  as  to 
restore  a  verb  here  we  may  read  :  Grieve,  O  Israel !  The  next 
following  words  must  then  be  made  a  clause  by  themselves  :  On 
thy  heights  are  the  slain.  It  is  too  long  for  the  metre  in  the 
present  text.  The  refrain  —  How  are  the  mighty  fallen  !  —  recurs 
below,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out. 

19.  ''3i'n]  is  defended  by  Dr.,  though  he  finds  it  a  httle  singular.  In  fact 
the  word  is  nowhere  used  with  reference  to  a  man,  and  it  would  be  strange  if 
Saul's  beauty  were  made  his  characteristic  here,  when  we  nowhere  else  hear 
of  it.  His  manly  strength  indeed  we  might  find  it  well  to  mention,  but  this 
would  not  be  the  term  chosen.  The  flower  of  Israel's  army  might  perhaps  be 
described  as  here,  though  even  this  is  without  analogy.  The  gazelle  is,  of 
course,  out  of  the  question.  Asahel  is  indeed  compared  to  one  of  the  gazelles, 
2^8,  but  we  are  expressly  told  that  the  point  of  the  comparison  is  his  swiftness 
of  foot.  @^B  ajiiKiaaov  and  <S^  axpiBcKrai  both  seem  to  render  '3"isn.  On  the 
ground  of  this,  Kl.  conjectures  ''Jxyn  which  commends  itself;  the  feminine 
form  being  chosen  because  Israel  is  the  mother  of  the  fallen  heroes.  'H'nDa 
should  be  pointed  to  agree  with  this.  —  SSn]  rendered  as  a  plural  by  (8JL,  is 
collective. 

20.  Tell  it  not  in  Gaf.'i,  make  it  not  known  in  the  streets  of  Ash- 
kelon']  representative  Philistine  cities.  The  paronomasia  of  the 
first  clause  is  repeated  in  Mic.  i^^  —  21.  Mountains  of  Gilboa  ! 
May  no  dew  descend ;  and  may  no  rain  fall  upon  you,  ye  fields  of 
death  I  For  the  conjecture  on  which  this  translation  is  based  see 
the  note.  The  common  text  is  unintelligible.  —  For  there  was 
cast  away  the  shield  of  heroes,  the  shield  of  Saul  not  anointed 
with  oill  the  shield  instead  of  being  polished  and  cared  for  by 
its  owner  is  left  to  rust  or  rot  in  the  field.  The  text  however  is 
not  free  from  difficulty. 

21.  jjaSjj  >'\r\']  is  suspicious  because  Gilboa  was  the  name  of  the  mountain 
ridge  itself,  not  of  the  district.  We  should  probably  read  yaSjn  ^•\r\,  favoured 
by  ®L5j^.  Kl.  proposes  to  restore  yaSj  oin  be  desolate,  Gilboa  !  —  an  extremely 
attractive  conjecture.     ^a"Sx  seems  to  require  a  verb,  fx)]  n-eVoi  ©f' ;  ^^  kchto.^^ 


262  2  SAMUEL 

(5*^;  insert  therefore  Ti\  The  Arab  poet  also  prays  that  no  dew  or  rain  may 
fall  on  the  place  where  the  heroes  have  fallen  (We.,  Skizzen,  I.  p.  139). — 
piDnn  1^^•l]  is  unintelligible:  fields  of  offerings  have  no  place  in  the  context, 
the  1  is  useless,  and  the  form  '^r  suspicious.  ©^  upTj  Qavirov  is  probably  right 
in  reading  the  last  three  letters  as  the  word  n-:.  In  that  case,  the  simplest 
expedient  is  to  restore  the  accredited  nna*  and  to  put  the  article  for  the  two 
letters  not  accounted  for  —  msn  ^^■^Z'  is  not  very  remote  from  the  text  and 
gives  a  satisfactory  sense.  Bu.  conjectures  nicin  m:;'  referring  to  Jd.  9^^ 
which  is  however  itself  corrupt  (cf.  Moore  on  the  passage).  It  would  be 
better  to  read  ri::-!^  with  Jer.  14I*  Ki.;  fields  of  deceit  fit  the  context  fairly 
well,  and  the  same  meaning  is  got  by  Kl.  who  proposes  .^icn  nnr;  GASmith 
reads  nicnc  nri;  Graetz  makes  nrcnn  ns*,  equivalent  to  mc  ^cnD  Jd.  5I*. 
The  variety  of  suggestions  (and  the  number  might  easily  be  increased)  shows 
the  difficulty  of  the  reading.  —  n^a'D  I'ra]  is  usually  understood  to  apply  to  the 
shield,  in  which  case  we  should  read  nv.;":  which  is  found  in  23  Heb.  MSS. 
and  some  early  editions.  We.  independently  conjectured  this  to  be  the  true 
reading.  Graetz  proposes  n^rs  ^'?r :  the  weapon  of  the  anointed.  3L  makes 
the  words  refer  to  Saul  quasi  noti  uncttis,  and  this  was  adopted  in  AV.  The 
reference  to  the  shield  was  understood  by  (5,  and  by  some  of  the  Rabbinical 
expositors.  Budde  makes  a  new  verse  begin  with  this  clause,  translating :  Not 
anointed  zvith  oil,  but  with  the  blood  and  fat  of  slain  warriors,  lies  now  the 
shield  of  Saul  upon  the  battlefield.     See  the  note  on  the  next  verse. 

22.  Saul  has  been  introduced  by  the  mention  of  his  shield  in 
the  preceding  verse.  This  leads  up  naturally  to  a  panegyric  of 
him  and  his  heroic  son.  The  devouring  sword  of  Saul  is  paralleled 
with  the  equally  insatiable  bow  of  Jonathan  :  Frofn  the  blood  of 
the  slain,  from  the  fat  of  heroes,  the  bow  of  Jofiathan  turned  not 
back,  and  the  sword  of  Saul  returned  not  e)nptf\  the  figure  seems 
entirely  appropriate ;  and  there  seems,  moreover,  no  reason  to 
change  the  order  of  the  clauses. 

22.  D'-naj  a'^no  D'»'?'?n  ana]  as  noticed  above,  Bu.  (and  similarly  Kl.)  makes 
these  words  define  the  contrast  between  Saul's  shield  as  it  now  lies,  and  its 
former  state  — instead  of  being  carefully  oiled  and  polished,  it  is  smeared  with 
the  blood  and  fat  of  the  slain.  But  with  \z'vi  we  should  certainly  expect  ma, 
and  the  change  to  another  preposition  is  inexplicable.  While  we  might  allow 
the  blood  to  smear  the  shield,  it  is  hard  to  picture  the  fat  of  the  slain  as  part 
of  the  polluting  medium.  On  the  other  hand,  the  usual  figure  of  the  sword  as 
a  devouring  monster  certainly  allows  us  to  think  of  it  as  satiated  with  the  fat 
as  well  as  the  blood  of  its  victims.  Retention  of  the  usual  connexion  and 
order  of  the  clauses  therefore  seems  to  be  more  satisfactory  than  any  change 
yet  suggested.  —  Jia-j]  an  unusual  spelling.  The  commoner  form  jidj  is  found 
in  some  MSS. 


I.  22-25  263 

23,  The  two  heroes  shared  a  common  fate:  Saul  and  Jona- 
than, the  belovea  and  the  lovely^  cf.  Cant.  i^®.  —  In  life  and  in  death 
they  were  not  dimded']  this  seems  to  be  the  natural  connexion  and 
sense  of  the  passage.  —  They  were  swifter  than  eagles']  the  speed 
of  the  bird  of  prey  is  noted  elsewhere,  Hab.  i*.  The  vehemence 
of  its  attack  is  the  point  of  the  comparison,  cf.  Jer.  4^^.  —  They 
were  stronger  than  lions]  Jd.  14^**. 

23.  rriN]  this  seems  to  be  the  usual  plural  for  nx,  and  does  not  mean 
lionesses  as  distinguished  from  lions, 

24.  The  women  of  Israel  are  reminded  of  their  loss  and  called 
upon  to  weep  over  Saul.  As  the  women  took  the  lead  in  public 
festivities  on  joyful  occasions,  so  it  was  they  who  lamented  the 
fallen  when  there  was  ceremonial  mourning.  They  had  special 
reason  when  a  warlike  prince  had  fallen,  for  from  his  hand  they 
had  received  the  spoil  of  the  enemy  :  who  clothed  you  with  scarlet 
and  fine  linen.  The  two  articles  of  luxury  belong  together, 
Luke  i6^^  For  \hQ  golden  jewels  with  which  he  decked  them,  cf. 
Jer.  4^. 

24.  n^a  with  ^n  is  not  common,  but  cf.  Ezek.  27^1.  We  should  perhaps 
read  Sy  with  10  MSS. — a^ny  o;]  with  dainties  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
words,  but  the  construction  is  harsh,  and  3C  is  obliged  to  insert  DsS  S'31D1.  It 
seems  better  to  emend  with  Graetz  (  Gesch.  d.Juden,  I.  p.  192)  reading  QijnD  D;?, 
cf.  Jd.  14I2  Is.  223_     ,-,jj  is  collective  as  in  Ex.  33^. 

25.  The  lament  over  the  fallen  is  followed  by  David's  expres- 
sion of  personal  bereavement.  Repeating  the  refrain  :  How  are 
the  mighty  fallen  in  the  battle,  he  makes  special  mention  of  Jona- 
than. Unfortunately,  this  half  of  the  verse  is  hopelessly  corrupt. 
The  received  text  gives  :  Jonathati  on  thy  heights  is  slain.  But 
the  pronoun  must  refer  to  Israel  in  order  to  make  sense,  and 
Israel  has  not  been  mentioned  since  the  opening  distich.  No  one 
of  the  various  conjectures  which  have  been  brought  forward  seems 
free  from  difficulty. 

25.  If  the  first  half  of  the  verse  stood  alone  we  might  suppose  it  to  contain 
the  lament  which  the  women  are  to  chant.  For  this  reason  Kl.  emends  by 
changing  the  words  ncnScn  ima  into  icno  "h-i  nas'i  a  variant  of  which  he 
supposes  now  to  stand  at  the  end  of  the  dirge  (where  (S''  reads  fniBufitjTd  for 
non'^D).     But  if  this  be  original,  it  is  hard  to  account  for  the  corruption. 


264  a  SAMUEL 

Graetz  corrects  jnjin^  to  Sn-ii:"'  which  would  give  a  good  sense  in  itself  consid^ 
ered.  But  the  opening  of  v.^^  would  then  be  very  abrupt.  We.  points  out 
that  several  Greek  codd.  read  ds  dauarov  erpavixaTiadr\(^s)  ((S^  adds  eVoQ 
which  would  allow  us  to  restore  nSSh  niD^.  Kl.  goes  further,  suggesting: 
'JM  P'Sn  imD3,  in  thy  death  I  too  am  wounded,  while  Bu.  reads  in  his  text 
SSn  imD3  "laV,  my  heart  is  wounded  in  thy  death.  The  last  is  less  remote 
from  the  received  text,  but  none  can  be  regarded  as  convincing. 

26.  A  burst  of  grief  at  the  recollection  of  what  Jonathan's 
friendship  had  been.  It  seems  necessary  to  disregard  the  accents 
and  arrange  the  words  as  a  tristich  : 

I  am  in  anguish  for  thee,  my  brother,  Jonathan  ! 
Thou  wert  delightsome  to  me  —  exceedingly  wonderful  I 
Thy  love  for  me  was  beyond  the  love  of  women. 

We  thus  conform  to  the  metre  of  the  rest  of  the  composition. 
The  love  0/ women  which  the  poet  has  in  mind  may  be  supposed 
to  include  both  the  love  of  the  bride  for  her  husband  and  the  love 
of  the  mother  for  her  son.  —  27.  The  refrain  is  here  completed 
by  the  additional  clause  :  And  the  weapons  of  war  perished  / 
The  parallelism  suggests  that  the  weapons  of  war  are  Saul  and 
Jonathan  themselves  (Dr.  from  Ewald). 

26.  hpn'^dj]  on  the  form  as  here  pointed  cf.  Ges.^®  TS^o.  The  text  may 
not  be  sound,  but  no  acceptable  emendation  has  yet  been  proposed.  Kl. 
points  out  that  the  termination  would  cause  us  to  read  nnsSDJ,  thou  wert 
wonderful,  an  emphatic  repetition  of  nDj?j,  and  although  this  is  without 
analogy,  so  far  as  I  discover,  it  is  probably  the  best  we  can  do  with  the 
present  text.  Bu.'s  nxSisj  taken  adverbially  would  require  the  ind  to  follow. 
—  27.  ncn'?nn]  irtidvfj.j)Td.  is  found  in  ^^  as  noted  above.  It  seems  to  be 
taken  from  Theodotion  (cf.  Field,  Hex.  Origenis) . 

The  following  translation  is  designed  simply  to  embody  the  results  of  th« 

foregoing  inquiry. 

I. 

18.  Weep,  O  Judah! 

19.  Grieve,  O  Israel ! 

On  thy  heights  are  the  slain; 
How  are  the  mighty  fallen ! 

II. 

20.  Tell  it  not  in  Gath; 

Publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Ashkelon ! 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice ; 
Lest  the  daughters  of  *b°  'mcircumcised  be  glad. 


I.  26-11.  I  265 

21.  Mountains  of  Gilboa !    May  no  dew  descend 
Nor  rain  upon  you,  fields  of  death  ! 

For  there  was  cast  away  ihe  shield  of  heroes., 
The  shield  of  Saul  not  anointed  with  oil, 

22.  From  the  blood  of  the  slain, 
From  the  fat  of  heroes, 

The  bow  of  Jonathan  turned  not  back, 
And  the  sword  of  Saul  returned  not  empty. 

23.  Saul  and  Jonathan,  the  beloved  and  the  lovely  i 
In  life  and  in  death  they  were  not  divided. 
They  were  swifter  than  eagles. 

They  were  stronger  than  lions. 

24.  Daughters  of  Israel,  weep  over  Saul ! 

Who  clothed  you  with  scarlet  and  fine  linen. 
Who  put  golden  jewels  upon  your  clothing. 

25.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen 
In  the  midst  of  the  battle  ! 

III. 
Jonathan         

26.  I  am  distressed  for  thee,  Jonathan,  my  brother ! 
Thou  wert  delightsome  to  me  —  exceeding  wonderful ! 
Thy  love  to  me  was  beyond  the  love  of  women. 

27.  How  are  the  mighty  fallen. 

And  the  weapons  of  war  perished ! 


2  SAMUEL  II.-XXIV.     DAVID  THE   KING. 

This  is  the  third  part  of  the  Books  of  Samuely  as  now  con- 
structed. The  composite  nature  of  the  history  has  been  indicated 
in  the  Introduction,  as  has  the  fact  that  the  main  source  continues 
into  I  Kings. 

Chapters  II.-IV.  The  Kingdom  of  Hebron.  —  The  account 
seems  to  continue  immediately  the  story  broken  off  (for  the  in- 
sertion of  the  Dirge)  at  i^^ 

II.  1-4*.  David  becomes  king  of  Hebron.  —  After  this,  that 
is,  after  receiving  the  news  of  Saul's  death,  David  asked  of 
YahweJi^  i  S.  23'  30'.     In  the  account  here  given,  David's  first 


266  2  SAMUEL 

question  is  in  the  usual  direct  form,  the  second  asks  for  a  specific 
name.  But  probably  the  name  was  obtained  by  a  process  of 
exclusion  like  that  used  in  discovering  a  person  by  lot.  Hebron 
was  in  fact  indicated  by  its  position,  and  the  oracle  could  hardly 
go  astray.  It  was  the  well-known  chief  city  of  Judah,  or  rather  of 
Caleb,  Jd.  i'" ""  Jos.  15'^  The  writer  counts  it  to  Judah,  Caleb 
having  already  become  a  clan  of  that  tribe.  David  %ue7it  up  to  it 
from  Ziklag  which  lay  lower  down.  —  2,  3.  David  brought  up  his 
household  and  his  men  with  their  families,  and  they  dwelt  in  the 
citadel  of  Hebron\  the  received  text  has  :  in  the  cities  of  Hebron, 
which  can  hardly  be  correct. — 4.  And  the  men  of  Judah  came 
and  anointed  David  there  as  king  over  the  house  of  Judah'\  the 
sovereignty  would  not  be  legitimate  unless  confirmed  by  the 
Sheikhs  of  the  clans.  How  much  choice  they  had  in  the  matter 
is  difficult  to  say.  The  master  of  a  devoted  band  of  seasoned 
soldiers  was  a  dangerous  man  to  reject.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
public  defence  was  likely  to  be  well  attended  to  by  such  a  man, 
and  David  had  always  been  well  disposed  towards  his  own  people. 
That  he  continued  to  acknowledge  the  suzerainty  of  Achish  seems 
almost  certain,  from  the  fact  that  the  Phihstines  allowed  him  to 
extend  his  kingdom  so  far  as  he  did. 

1.  The  name  pi3n  possibly  means  confederacy,  and  the  other  name  given 
to  the  city  —  Kirjath-Arba  —  may  indicate  the  fact  that  the  town  was  originally 
settled  by  various  clans  who  made  an  alliance;  cf.  Moore  on  Jd.  1^°  with  his 
references.  The  cohabitation  of  various  Arab  tribes  in  Medina  is  a  parallel 
instance.  GASmith  {Geog.  p.  318)  thinks  the  ancient  city  lay  on  a  hill  to  the 
northwest  of  the  present  site.  —  3.  vs'jni]  the  suffix  is  superfluous;  read 
DiB'jNni  with  ®^.  It  is  possible  that  the  text  of  2-  3  ^iras  originally  shorter.  — 
|n3n  nya]  is  supposed  to  mean  iti  the  towns  in  the  district  of  which  Hebron 
was  the  centre.  These  dependent  places  however  are  called  elsewhere  nnsn, 
or  else  the  daughters  of  the  chief  city,  and  there  is  no  clear  parallel  to  nj; 
|n2n.  It  seems  better  therefore  to  read  |nan  i''>3  and  take  T'i'  in  its  primary 
sense  of  fort  or  citadel,  cf.  5^-  ^.  There  is  no  reason  why  David's  procedure  at 
Hebron  should  differ  from  that  at  Jerusalem. 

4b-7.  David's  message  to  the  Gileadites.  —  The  fragment  ob- 
viously presupposes  i  S.  31,  and  seems  to  continue  that  narrative 
directly,  for  31^^  is  abrupt  in  its  ending  and  requires  something 
further.  In  that  case,  this  document  had  an  account  of  David's 
anointing. — 4.   The  Hebrew  as  it  stands  does  not  make  sense. 


II.  1-7  26/ 

They  told  David  of  the  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead,  which  is  probably 
the  intention  of  the  author,  would  require  a  different  order.  — 

5.  David  blesses  them  because  they  had  done  this  kindness  to  their 
lord.  The  burial  of  the  dead  is  an  act  of  piety.  —  6.  In  addition 
to  invoking  Yahweh's  blessing  on  them,  David  promises  :  /  also 
7vill  do  you  good  because  you  have  done  this  thing]  the  text  must 
be  emended  in  a  single  word.  —  7.  The  times  call  for  courage  on 
their  part :  For  your  lord  Saiil  is  dead  and  me  the  house  of  Judah 
have  anointed  king  over  them]  so  that  I  am  kept  at  a  distance  from 
you  for  the  present,  seems  to  be  the  implication. 

4b,  The  sentence,  as  it  stands,  is  incomplete :  lliey  told  David,  saying  : 
The  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead  who  buried  Saul.  Precisely  as  in  English,  a  predi- 
cate should  follow;  but  the  present  text  leaves  us  in  the  lurch.  The  English 
version  :  The  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead  were  they  that  buried  Saul  would  require 
the  insertion  of  ncn  at  least.  ^^  translates  as  if  it  had  ncn  instead  of  nifN; 
@B  transfers  irN,  making  it  follow  icn"^,  while  S)  omits  ti'N'.  Bu.  does  the 
same  on  conjecture  but  does  not  profess  to  regard  the  resulting  text  as  origi- 
nal. Kl.  proposes  to  read  mx-'^y  for  icn'^,  cf.  Gen.  26^2^  I  should  think 
nioa'~ns  equally  appropriate  —  they  told  David  the  names  of  the  men.  But 
the  insecurity  of  our  footing  is  evident.  —  5.  ^Z'iH]  ©^  has  Tjyovfxevovs  {riye/xS- 
j/as  L)  representing  ^S;"3,  cf.  Jd.  9^1  ((3^).  For  ntn  nonn  (gA  (B  jg  lacking 
here)  has  t^  f\eos  tov  Oeov  which  is  perhaps  original;    <3^  omits  n;n.  — 

6.  PNrn  norjn]  seems  difficult.  If  it  refer  to  the  present  embassy  (perhaps 
with  a  gift)  we  should  expect  the  verb  to  be  in  the  other  tense.  Kl.  makes 
n^'-jK  a  cohortative :  let  me  show  you  this  friendliness.  But  a  king  would 
hardly  take  this  tone.  It  is  best  therefore  to  change  pnth  to  nnn  as  is  done 
by  We.  (Dr.,  Bu.).  —  7.  dji]  naturally  introduces  a  reason  of  the  same  kind 
with  that  which  had  preceded,  and  this  can  only  be  that  the  administration  of 
Judah  keeps  David  just  now  from  coming  to  the  assistance  of  Gilead. 

II.  8-IV.  12.  The  reign  of  Ishbaal.  —  Ishbaal,  the  only  surviv- 
ing son  of  Saul,  becomes  king  over  North  Israel.  The  chief  sup- 
port of  his  throne  is  Abner,  Saul's  general.  In  the  war  carried 
on  between  the  two  Israelitish  powers,  David  is  the  gainer.  Ish- 
baal hastens  his  own  downfall  by  his  resentment  at  Abner's 
encroachments  on  the  prerogative.  Abner  agrees  to  deliver  the 
kingdom  to  David,  but  is  murdered  in  blood  revenge  by  Joab. 
Ishbaal,  deprived  of  his  chief  officer,  falls  by  the  hand  of  assassins. 
But  when  these  come  to  David  expecting  a  reward,  they  are  treated 
as  the  murderer  of  Saul  had  been  treated. 


268  2  SAMUEL 

The  piece  is  homogeneous,  except  some  brief  interpolations 
which  will  be  noticed  in  the  course  of  the  exposition.  The  most 
extensive  is  3".  The  document  from  which  the  section  is  taken 
seems  to  be  the  same  from  which  we  have  the  full  account  of 
David's  reign  in  9-20. 

8-11.  Abner  places  Ishbaal  on  the  throne. — The  opening  part 
of  the  paragraph  is  necessary  to  the  understanding  of  what  follows. 
Not  so  with  ^^  and  ",  two  chronological  statements  such  as  else- 
where belong  to  the  final  redaction  of  the  book.  —  8.  The  verse 
follows  I  S.  31^''.  After  the  death  of  Saul,  we  naturally  inquire 
what  became  of  his  kingdom.  As  fitted  to  the  present  place  it 
tells  us  that  Abner  had  takcti  Ishbaal  and  brought  him  over  to 
Mahanaif/t]  the  name  Ishbaal  has  been  mutilated  to  Ishbosheth  to 
suit  the  squeamishness  of  the  scribes.  Mahanaim,  an  ancient 
sanctuary,  was  later  David's  refuge  when  driven  out  of  his  capital. 
It  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Jacob's  wanderings,  immediately 
after  the  treaty  with  Laban,  Gen.  32^  This  account  brings  it  into 
connexion  with  the  Jabbok,  and  from  2  S.  18^^  we  infer  that  it 
cannot  have  been  far  from  the  Jordan  valley.  It  is  not  yet  clearly 
identified  in  any  modern  site. — 9.  Ishbaal's  kingdom  included 
nearly  all  Israel  —  all  north  of  Jerusalem  and  all  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan :  Gilead,  the  well-known  transjordanic  district,  and  the  Ashe- 
rite,  north  of  the  Great  Plain,  Jd.  i^'*^^,  and  Jezreel,  and  Ephraim, 
and  Benjamin,  and  [in  fact]  all  Israel.  The  original  narrative 
continued  by  adding  ^'"' :  only  the  house  of  Judah  followed  David. 
The  extent  of  Ishbaal's  kingdom  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the 
battle,  an  account  of  which  follows,  was  fought  at  Gibeon,  and 
further  by  the  fact  that  a  late  writer  would  have  reduced  its  pro- 
portions and  have  given  more  of  it  to  David.  The  Philistine 
occupation  of  the  country  was  maintained  to  an  extent  sufficient 
to  secure  their  sovereignty,  and  it  is  probable  that  both  Ishbaal 
and  David  were  their  tributaries.*  That  their  vassals  should 
weaken  each  other  by  war  was,  of  course,  according  to  the  wish 
of  the  Philistines.  — 10.  The  first  half-verse  is  an  endeavour  to 
introduce  a  scheme  of  chronology,  Hke  i  S.  13^  The  data  are 
suspicious.     Ishbaal  could  hardly  have  been  forty  years  old,  and 


*  Cf.  Kamphausen,  "  Philister  und  Hebraer,"  in  the  7.ATW.  VI.  pp.  43-97. 


II.  8-1 1  269 

it  seems  altogether  likely  that  he  reigned  more  than  two  years.  — 
11.  Another  insertion  possibly  occasioned  by  "*,  as  though  the 
redactor  in  speaking  of  the  length  of  Ishbaal's  reign  felt  it  neces- 
sary to  add  something  concerning  David.  It  could  hardly  escape 
notice  however  that  the  two  verses  are  inconsistent.  The  reign  of 
Ishbaal  virtually  coincided  in  length  with  David's  reign  at  Hebron. 
The  hypothesis  that  Abner  was  five  years  in  reconquering  the  ter- 
ritory of  Saul  is  untenable,  for  in  any  case  Ishbaal  must  count  his 
reign  from  the  death  of  Saul,  whose  legitimate  successor  he  was. 
On  the  other  hand,  that  five  years  elapsed  after  the  death  of  Ish- 
baal before  the  tribes  acknowledged  David,  is  contrary  to  all  the 
indications  of  the  narrative.  The  length  of  David's  Hebron  reign, 
as  given  here,  coincides  with  the  datum  in  5^,  and  we  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  its  correctness. 

8.  na'a~B"K]  The  man  of  shame  would  be  no  name  to  give  a  son,  espe- 
cially a  king's  son.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  original  name  is  preserved 
to  us  in  the  form  '?;'3.:'.s,  i  Chr.  8^^  9^^.  We  find  traces  of  the  original  form 
in  some  MSS.  of  (5  and  I  in  this  passage  also.  The  reluctance  of  the  later 
Jews  to  pronounce  the  name  Baal  led  to  the  substitution  of  r-z'i  for  it,  even 
in  proper  names.  Another  method  was  taken  with  this  name  in  i  S.  14*'. 
As  we  see  from  Jerubbaal,  the  name  Baal  was,  in  the  early  period  of  Israel's 
history,  applied  without  scruple  to  Yahweh,  cf.  Moore,  Judges,  p.  195. — 
0''jnD]  iK  T^y  irape/iiBoATJs  (3  '■  per  castra  IL.  That  a  proper  name  is  intended 
is  certain.  A  number  of  transjordanic  names  have  the  (apparent)  dual  end- 
ing: Eglaim,  Kirjathaim,  and  others.  For  the  location  we  may  note  that 
Jacob  passed  Mahanaim  before  he  reached  Penuel  on  his  way  from  Syria  to 
Canaan,  and  that  Penuel  lay  at  the  fords  of  the  Jabbok.  Josh.  1328-30  makes 
Mahanaim  a  point  on  the  boundary  line  of  Gad  and  the  eastern  Manasseh. 
But  none  of  these  indications  are  sufficient  to  identify  the  exact  spot.  Mahne 
or  Mihne  mentioned  by  Buhl  {Geog.  p.  257)  from  Seetzen  and  Merrill  {Across 
the  fordaft,  p.  433  ff.)  seems  to  lie  too  far  from  the  Jordan  valley  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  2  S.  18. — 9.  nv.:'sn]  of  a  clan  of  this  name  we  have  a  trace 
in  Gen.  25^.  But  they  were  evidently  Bedawin  and  not  likely  to  come  under 
Ishbaal.  The  Israelite  tribe  ntrxn  seems  to  fit  the  case.  Th.,  following  Ew., 
adopts  iiv.;Mn,  which  is  supported  by  S>  and  some  MSS.  of  3L.  It  seems 
doubtful  however  whether  the  Geshiirites,  who  had  a  king  of  their  own  at 
about  this  time,  3*,  could  have  been  under  Ishbaal.  The  tribe  of  Asher  is 
found  in  this  verse  by  Pseudo-Hieronymus,  Questiones  in  Libros  Regum. 
Notice  the  way  in  which  '^x  and  S>  are  used  together  in  this  verse.  The 
original  writer  must  have  used  Sy  throughout.  — 10,  11.  The  authorities  are 
pretty  well  united  in  the  supposition  that  i"*  '^  are  redactional  insertions. 


270  2  SAMUKL 

12-17.  The  battle  of  Gibeon.  —  One  of  the  battles  between 
the  soldiers  of  the  two  Israelite  monarchs  is  related  in  detail. 
The  reason  for  the  choice  of  this  particular  one  is  its  bearing  on 
the  later  history — in  its  sequel.  It  is  commonly  assumed  that 
Abner  was  the  aggressor.  But  as  the  battle  took  place  on  Ben- 
jamite  territory,  where  if  anywhere  Ishbaal's  claim  was  valid,  it 
seems  more  probable  that  David's  men  were  acting  on  the  offen- 
sive. David  was  seeking  to  extend  his  kingdom  to  the  north  of 
Judah.  His  piety  towards  Saul  would  not  necessarily  cause  him 
to  spare  his  successor.  The  account  of  the  battle  proper  is  very 
brief. 

12.  Abner  and  the  servants  of  Ishbaal'\  that  is,  the  standing 
army  whose  quarters  were  at  the  capital.  —  Gibeon  was  a  well- 
known  Canaanite  city  whose  inhabitants  had  a  treaty  with  the 
Israelites  until  the  time  of  Saul.  By  the  extermination  of  the 
Canaanite  stock,  Saul  made  the  city  Benjamite.  A  village  on 
the  ancient  site  still  bears  the  name  el- Gib.  — 13.  And  Joab  the 
son  of  Zeruiah'\  who  here  appears  for  the  first  time  as  David's 
General,  and  the  servants  of  David  went  outl  from  Hebron  as  (3 
correctly  interprets.  —  And  met  them  at  the  pool  of  Gibeon'\  a  large 
reservoir  which  still  exists.  — 14.  Abner's  proposition  for  a  tourna- 
ment is  acceded  to  by  Joab.  Individual  combats  frequently  pre- 
cede the  general  engagement  in  oriental  warfare.  — 15,  16.  The 
tournament  was  held,  with  twelve  champions  for  each  side.  Ex- 
actly what  took  place  is  not  easy  to  make  out,  but  the  result  was 
that  they  fell  dead  together.  As  in  so  many  other  cases  the  inci- 
dent was  commemorated  by  naming  the  place.  The  field  Avas 
called  the  Field  of  the  Enemies.  — 17.  The  battle  which  was  thus 
introduced  was  exceedingly  severe.  But  the  result  was  in  favour 
of  David's  men.  The  king  himself  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
present. 

12.  njyaj]  Va^aiii  ®^.  The  place  is  five  miles  west  of  north  from  Jerusa- 
lem, cf.  Robinson,  BR"^.  I.  p.  455  f.  — 13.  3Nr]  Yahweh  is  father,  cf.  '^n  n 
and  ax^'^N.  —  ins'']  (5  adds  €/c  XeSpuv,  adopted  by  Bu.,  but  the  insertion  is 
more  likely  than  the  omission.  —  sirjci]  does  not  necessarily  mean  (as  Kl. 
supposes)  that  the  meeting  was  unexpected,  cf.  Ex.  4^''.  —  ^'\r\^'\  is  superfluous, 
and  in  fact  impossible,  after  the  suffix  in  dk'JO'I.  Probably  it  is  a  corruption 
of  some  word  defining  the  circumstances  —  Kl.  suggests  D'jn,  camping. —  HiD 


II.    12-23  271 

.  .  .  nrc]  as  in  i  S.  14*.  — 14.  ipnt^M]  used  nowhere  else  of  fighting.  It 
seems  plain  however  that  the  proposition  was  to  have  a  combat  of  picked  men 
as  a  prelude  to  the  main  battle.  — 15.  nay^]  "  of  the  individuals  passing  in 
order  before  the  teller"  (Dr.).  —  r>N'^i]  omit  the  1  with  <3&.  — 16.  A  difficult 
verse.  The  interpretation  must  proceed  from  im  iSb^i  which  most  laturally 
means  i/iey  fell  all  together,  i.e.,  the  champions  fell  dead,  not  the  two  armies 
came  into  conflict  as  is  supposed  by  Kl.  The  clause  'ui  prnM  will  then  describe 
the  action  of  the  champions  in  the  tournament :  Each  took  hold  of  the  head 
of  his  fellow.  But  who  is  meant  by  his  fellow  ?  We  most  naturally  suppose 
it  to  be  his  next  neighbour  of  his  own  party.  But  as  this  gives  no  suitable 
sense  we  are  compelled  to  make  in;;T  refer  to  each  one's  antagonist.  The 
next  clause  is  difficult  in  either  case :  and  his  sword  in  the  side  of  his  fellow. 
A  verb  seems  required,  as  ipmn  could  not  in  itself  mean  that  he  struck  his 
sword  into  his  fellow,  defixit  gladium  3L.  I  suspect  the  corruption  to  be  in 
Z'i<•^2  as  is  alleged  by  KL,  though  I  cannot  accept  his  emendation.  After  l^'1N 
@  inserts  tj?  x^'P'  probably  correctly,  —  onsn]  might  be  of  the  sharp  knives 
as  is  perhaps  intended  by  the  punctuation.  The  conjecture  that  @  rwv 
iTn^ovKwv  goes  back  to  nnin,  first  broached  by  Schleusner,  and  accepted  by 
Ew.  and  others,  does  not  seem  well  founded.  'Eirl0ov\os  nowhere  occurs  for 
^s  (or  nix)  but  generally  for  for,  once  for  ix.  There  is  no  question  o{ plotters 
or  liers-in-wait,  but  of  determined  etiemies,  which  would  be  onxn. 

18-23.  The  death  of  Asahel ;  a  single  incident  of  the  battle, 
important  for  the  prominence  of  the  actors  and  for  its  sequel.  — 
18.  The  three  sons  of  Zeruiah,  nephews  of  David,  were  foremost 
in  the  fight.  Joab  and  Abishai  have  appeared  in  the  earlier  narra- 
tive. Asahel  seems  to  have  been  the  youngest.  He  is  described 
as  swift  of  foot  like  one  of  the  gazelles  which  are  in  the  field'\  the 
gazelle  lives  in  the  open  country.  Swiftness  was  a  prime  qualifi- 
cation for  the  ancient  warrior,  cf.  what  is  said  of  Saul  and  Jona- 
than, i^.  — 19.  Asahel's  ambition  was  content  with  no  less  a  prey 
than  Abner  himself  whom  he  followed  steadily.  —  20.  Abner, 
overtaken  by  his  pursuer,  but  conscious  of  his  own  superiority, 
is  unwilhng  to  fight  with  him.  He  first  assures  himself  that  it  is 
Asahel  as  he  supposed.  —  21,  He  then  counsels  him  to  be  content 
with  an  antagonist  of  lesser  rank  :  Seize  one  of  the  young  men  and 
take  his  spoif]  trophy  enough,  without  aspiring  to  the  conquest 
of  the  general.  —  22,  Abner  makes  a  second  attempt  to  dissuade 
his  pursuer  :  Why  should  J  smite  thee  to  the  ground  ?  And  how 
[in  that  case]  could  I  lift  up  my  face  to  Joab  thy  brother  ?'\  Abner 
fears  the  blood  feud  which  must  follow.  —  23.   The  only  resource 


272  2  SAMUEL 

was  to  strike  :  And  Abner  smote  him  with  a  backward  stroke  in 
the  abdomen,  and  the  spear  came  out  at  his  back,  and  he  fell  there 
and  died  in  his  place.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  seems  to  be 
an  erroneous  supplement,  inserted  as  a  reminiscence  from  the 
similar  passage  20^-  where  alone  such  a  standing  still  of  the  people 
is  in  place. 

18.  Skhb-jj]  similar  names  are  SN^ty;;  and  r\-»»^.  A  similar  n  in  nixmo  Num. 
lio_  □>3i;  the  plural  of  '3X;  the  same  word  is  used  of  the  mature  gazelle  in 
Arabic.  — 19.  I'D'.tSj;]  where  we  should  expect  '?n.  But  ^1  is  repeated  in 
v.''^^  —  21.  "i*?  ntDj]  the  dative  of  advantage  is  frequent  in  such  connexion,  as 
in  iS  -iiD  of  the  following  verse.  —  ins'^n]  that  which  was  stripped  from  the 
slain.  It  was  the  natural  law  of  war  that  the  arms  of  the  slain  belonged  to 
the  slayer.  Such  was  Mohammed's  ruling  in  his  campaigns.  The  arms  of 
the  hostile  general  would  confer  especial  renown  on  their  captor.  —  22.  i^ni 
"ijD  Ni's]  a  duplicate  translation  of  (5^  goes  back  to  njs  nr  -fxi  —  obviously 
the  poorer  text.  —  23.  nunn  innNa]  is  supposed  to  mean  wzV//  the  butt  of  the 
spear.  It  is  doubtful  however  whether  annN  is  so  used,  and  it  is  further 
doubtful  whether  the  butt  of  the  spear  was  ever  so  sharp  that  it  would  go 
through  a  man,  as  here  described.  We.  recognizes  the  difficulty,  but  has  no 
solution.  Kl.  proposes  to  read  n^'nnN  which  might  describe  the  blow  of  a 
man  delivered  backward,  without  turning  to  face  his  pursuer,  but,  of  course, 
with  the  point  of  the  (reversed)  spear.  This  is  adopted  byBu.  The  conclud- 
ing part  of  the  verse  disturbs  the  connexion  and  is  regarded  as  an  interpolation 
by  Kl.,  Bu.     It  also  contradicts  the  account  which  follows. 

24-III.  1.  Conclusion  of  the  battle.  —  A  final  stand  is  made 
by  the  Benjamites,  but  when  the  attack  is  about  to  be  made  Abner 
appeals  for  clemency,  so  that  Joab  draws  off  his  men.  —  24.  The 
pursuit  lasted  until  sundown  when  the  contending  parties  reached 
the  Hill  of  Ammah,  mentioned  nowhere  else  and  unidentified. 
The  author  endeavours  to  give  the  exact  location,  but  we  are  unable 
to  follow  him.  —  25.  There  the  Benjamites  collected  behind  Abner 
afid  made  themselves  a  phalajix]  a  close  knot  like  the  bunch  of 
hyssop,  Ex.  12'^.  That  this  was  on  the  hill  already  mentioned  is 
evident,  though  not  asserted  in  the  present  text.  —  26.  Abner's 
appeal :  Shall  the  sword  devour  forever  ?  Dost  thou  not  knoiv 
that  the  sequel  will  be  bitter .?]  is  directed  to  the  consciousness  of 
common  blood  in  the  pursuers.  The  Bedawin  still  shrink  from 
the  extermination  of  a  clan,  even  in  bitter  feuds.  —  How  long  wilt 
thou  refrain  from  cotnniatiding  the  people  to  turn  from  the  pursuit 


II.  23-III.  I  273 

of  their  brethren  ?     The  question  is  in  effect  a  cry  for  quarter.  — 

27.  Joab,  though  ruthless,  is  not  altogether  without  conscience. 
He  would  have  kept  up  the  pursuit  all  night  unless  Abner  had 
spoken,  but  now  he  will  relent.  —  28.  He  therefore  gives  the  sig- 
nal and  the  fighting  is  stayed.  —  29.  Abner  and  his  men  marched 
in  the  Arabah  all  that  jiight  and  crossed  the  Jordan  and  went 
through  the  whole  Bithron']  or  Ravine,  doubtless  the  proper  name 
of  one  of  the  side  valleys  up  which  Mahanaim  was  situated.  — 
—  30.  At  the  muster  of  Joab's  troops,  there  were  missing  nineteen 
men  besides  Asahel^  who  receives  special  mention  on  account  of 
his  prominence.  —  31.  The  loss  on  Abner's  side  —  360  men  — 
shows  that  the  experienced  warriors  of  David  were  opposed  in  the 
main  by  untried  men.  Saul's  old  soldiers  (of  his  body-guard)  had 
perished  with  their  master.  —  32.  The  next  day  was  occupied  in 
the  march  to  Bethlehem,  where  Asahel  was  duly  buried  in  the  sep- 
ulchre of  his  father,  and  Joab  continued  his  march  through  the 
night  so  that  day  dazvned  upon  them  in  Hebron.  —  III.  1.  Con- 
cluding notice  of  this  paragraph  :  The  war  7vas  prolonged  .  .  . 
but  David  kept  growing  stronger,  while  the  house  of  Saul  kept 
growing  weaker. 

2Ai.  The  hill  is  described  as  T»T  nM  ^JD~'?y,  where  n>j  is  obscure  and  prob- 
ably corrupt :  @^  has  Ya.'i.  which  might  represent  Nu  or  >>'.  We.  supposes  nu 
to  have  arisen  by  the  erroneous  duplication  of  the  two  preceding  letters  to- 
gether with  n  from  ^mn  so  that  he  restores  'in  ijfl  Sjr  which  is  adopted  by 
Bu.  He  also  proposes  to  read  -i3ica  for  ijic.  He  thus  locates  the  hill  east 
of  the  road  in  the  wilderness  of  Gibeon.  Nothing  better  has  been  proposed, 
but  it  is  remarkable  that  after  so  complete  a  rout,  the  forces  had  got  no  further 
than  the  wilderness  (or  pasture  land)  of  Gibeon.  The  original  reading  was 
probably  different.  —  25.  nnx  nyaj]  as  the  mention  of  the  Hill  of  Ammah  is 
superfluous  unless  the  rally  took  place  upon  it,  we  should  probably  restore 
here  hdn  nyjj  with  Ki.,  Bu.  —  26.  njnnx^]  I  have  ventured  to  read  njnns-n 
with  @r.,  —  ^jji]  the  1  is  omitted  by  S3L,  but  not  by  (g  as  We.  asserts.  Hozo 
long  dost  thou  not  command,  where  we  should  say :  How  long  dost  thou  refrain 
from  cofnmanding  ?  —  27.  n'^yj]  the  verb  is  used  of  giving  up  the  siege  of  a 
city,  Jer.  yj^-^'^,  cf.  Num.  \(fi^'^.  In  this  place  @  kviQ-t]  seems  to  have  read 
jTjjj';    but   the   analogy  of  hypothetical    sentences   elsewhere  favours  |^. — 

28.  The  plain  intimation  is  that  the  whole  force  was  within  hearing  of  the 
commander's  horn.  —  29.  idSm]  the  same  verb  with  an  accusative  of  the  coun- 
try traversed  (as  here)  is  found  Dt.  i^*  2^.  —  30.  npQM]  cf.  i  S.  ao^*.  —  Ssnifyi] 
is  connected  with  the  next  verse  by  ©^  (or  by  the  editor).     It  does  not  seem 

T 


374  2  SAMUEL 

nalural  to  make  /\sahcl  piDtninont  in  tliis  way,  to  the  ignoring  of  Joab  and 
Abishai,  who  must  have  been  equally  active  in  the  combat.  —  31.  i^-js^i]  it  is 
difficult  to  make  out  whether  the  author  wishes  to  make  two  classes  of  the 
soldiers  of  Abner  and  the  men  of  Benjamin.  Probably  not,  in  which  case  we 
should  read  without  i  as  @  does.  —  inn]  is  incomprehensible,  perhaps  a  mar- 
ginal gloss  which  has  crept  into  the  text.  <S^'  omits  it  (so  S  which  inserts  pd 
at  the  end  of  v.^*^),  while  (5^  represents  inx".  —  32.  on*^  n^^j  for  which  9 
MSS.  (DeR,)  have  'S  noa  and  @  has  iv  B.  — III.  1.  hjin]  cf.  Ez.  1222 
Jer.  2928.    The  word  seems  better  than  nain  which  was  read  by  ®. 

III.  2-5.  David's  family.  —  Before  taking  up  the  event  which 
brought  Israel  into  David's  hands,  the  compiler  inserts  the  names 
of  the  sons  born  to  him  in  Hebron.  They  were  six,  from  as  many 
wives.  —  Aninon  the  first  born,  afterwards  notorious,  was  the  son 
of  Ahinoam  mentioned  above,  i  S.  25'*^. —  Chileab,  the  son  of 
Abigail,  bears  a  name  which  reminds  us  of  his  mother's  blood.  — 
Absalom'' s  mother  was  a  daughter  of  Talma i  king  of  Geshur,  a 
small  Aramaic  kingdom,  15*.  —  Adonijah  is  well  known  in  the  later 
history,  whereas  Shephatiah  is  not  again  heard  of.  The  same  is 
true  of  Ithream,  the  son  of  Eglah,  who  is  curiously  described  in 
the  received  text  as  the  wife  of  David.  This  cannot  be  original, 
as  all  the  others  were  equally  wives  of  David.  From  the  analogy 
of  Abigail,  we  expect  here  the  name  of  her  former  husband,  but 
possibly  the  description  was  of  a  different  kind. 

2-5.  The  paragraph  is  placed  by  Bu.  after  8^^  and  is  followed  in  his  text 
immediately  by  5^^^^.  It  is  in  fact  probable  that  the  notices  of  David's  family 
belong  together.  Whether  they  ever  stood  at  the  end  of  8^*  is  doubtful. — 
2.  nSn]  for  which  Qre  proposes  nSvi.  The  Kt.  is  probably  for  nS;'^,  cf. 
similar  instances  in  Piel,  Ges.^^  69?^.  —  3.  jn'^d]  may  have  some  connexion 
with  the  tribe  Caleb.  —  Sji^nS]  the  form  varies  between  Sjon  and  ^''^''^n. — 
niS'Ji]  is  brought  into  connexion  with  Aram,  not  only  15^,  but  also  i  Chr.  2^8. 
It  is  contiguous  to  Bashan  Josh.  \2^. — 4.  nijt.s  ^  has'O/Jvio;  @^^Opvii\. — 
6.  in  ns'N]  for  which  i  Chr.  3^  has  ^7^v^,  is  uncalled  for.  The  name  of  a 
former  husband  would  be  in  place.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  a  name 
could  be  replaced  by  David's,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  woman  was  David's 
relative  within  the  degrees  afterwards  regarded  as  prohibited,  his  half-sister 
for  example.  Such  a  marriage  was  regarded  as  regular  so  late  as  the  time 
of  the  Elohistic  author  of  the  life  of  Abraham  (Gen.  zd^"^),  and  would  have 
given  no  offence  in  the  time  of  David.  Read  therefore  nn  ninx.  The  sins 
of  Jerusalem  as  enumerated  by  Ezekiel  (22^^)  include  the  humbling  of  ofie^s 
sister,  showing  that  such  marriages  were  entered  into  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Exile. 


111.  2-8  275 

6-39.  Abner's  negotiation  with  David  and  his  death.— 
Abner  quarrels  with  his  king  on  account  of  a  concubine  of  Saul. 
He  opens  negotiations  with  David  looking  to  the  transfer  of 
Israel's  allegiance.  To  this  end  he  visits  Hebron.  An  agreement 
is  reached  in  the  absence  of  Joab.  This  officer,  on  learning  of 
what  has  been  done,  recalls  Abner  and  puts  him  to  death  in 
revenge  for  the  death  of  Asahel.  David  shows  by  his  lament  for 
Abner,  that  he  has  no  part  in  the  murder. 

The  section  seems  to  be  generally  regarded  as  homogeneous ; 
only  Bonk  characterizes  ^''^^  as  an  interpolation.  In  fact  the  story 
is  over  full  and  there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  two  accounts  have 
been  wrought  into  one.  Verse  ^^  would  join  well  to  v.\  But  the 
division  comes  more  naturally  after  v.^^  than  after  v.'".  One  of  the 
two  accounts  made  Abner  send  to  David  by  the  hand  of  messen- 
gers ;  the  other  made  him  come  in  person.  In  the  former  docu- 
ment his  motive  was  simply  the  conviction  that  David  was  the  man 
of  the  future.  The  other  gave  the  quarrel  with  Ishbaal  as  the 
occasion. 

6-11.  The  quarrel  with  Ishbaal.  —  Abner  was  conscious  of 
his  own  power,  and  trespassed  upon  the  prerogative  of  the  mon- 
arch. —  6.  While  the  war  was  going  on,  Abner  was  overbearing  in 
the  house  of  Satil^  as  is  shown  by  the  instance  which  follows.  — 
7.  Saul  had  a  co7icubine  whose  name  was  Rizpah'\  cf.  21*.  The 
custom  of  men  of  wealth  and  station  to  take  wives  of  the  second 
rank  is  abundantly  illustrated  from  the  time  of  Abraham  down.  — 
And  Abner  took  her']  missing  in  |^,  is  necessary  to  the  sense.  It 
is  preserved  in  &^.  Ishbaal  protested  :  Why  didst  thou  go  in  to 
my  father's  concubine  ?  He  was  fully  in  the  right.  The  son  inher- 
ited his  father's  wives  with  the  rest  of  the  estate.  Abner  invaded 
the  rights  of  the  king  as  truly  as  if  he  had  seduced  any  one  of 
Ishbaal's  wives.  To  indicate  assumption  of  the  throne,  Absalom 
takes  possession  of  his  father's  concubines,  16-',  and  the  request 
of  Adonijah  for  Abishag  rouses  the  wrath  of  Solomon  on  the  same 
grounds  which  provoke  Ishbaal  here.  Arabic  custom  to  the  time 
of  Mohammed  is  well  known,  and  the  same  seems  to  have  pre- 
vailed in  Judah  down  to  the  Exile,  cf.  Ezek.  22'°.  —  8.  The  reply 
of  Abner  is  not  a  justification  of  his  act  but  an  assertion  of  his 


276  2  SAMUEL 

merits  :  Am  I  a  dog's  head,  I,  who  keep  showing  kindness  to  the 
house  of  Saul  .  .  .  and  who  have  not  delivered  thee  into  the  hand 
of  David,  that  to-day  thou  findest  fault  with  me  about  a  woman  ? 
The  text  is  not  altogether  sound,  but  the  thought  is  sufficiently 
clear.  —  9,  10.  Abner  swears  to  accompUsh  what  Yahweh  has 
sworn  to  David  —  to  transfer  the  kingdom  from  the  house  of  Saul, 
and  to  establish  David's  throne  over  Israel  and  over  Judah  from 
Dan  to  Beersheba'\  1  S.  3^.  — 11.  The  weak  Ishbaal  was  not  able 
to  make  any  reply. 

6.  The  first  clause  is  an  appropriate  introduction  to  what  follows.  If  it 
immediately  followed  v.^  it  would  be  superfluous,  but  that  it  did  so  follow  is 
not  certain.  —  pinnc]  the  parallel  cases  of  the  verb  with  a  would  favour  the 
meaning  strengthened  himself  in  the  house  of  Saul,  that  is,  fortified  his  cause 
by  dependence  upon  the  house  of  Saul,  i  S.  30^.  But  the  weakness  of  the 
house  of  Saul  is  against  this  rendering.  It  seems  necessary  therefore  to  inter- 
pret the  words  of  Abner's  arrogance  towards  the  king  whose  throne  was  sup- 
ported by  him  —  Abner  regebat  domus  Saul  IL.  —  7.  n'N"P3]  an  Edomite  clan 
bore  the  name  n<N,  Gen.  36^*.  Before  ->r:f<''i  @^  inserts  koX  iKa.&i\v  avTi]v 
'ASevv/ip,  and  after  the  same  word  (3  inserts  the  name  of  the  king,  as  do  Sit 
and  a  few  MSS.  of  |§.  On  the  son's  marrying  the  wife  of  his  father  cf. 
W.  R.  Smith  {/kinship  and  Marriage,  p.  89  f.),  who  calls  attention  to  Well- 
hausen's  restoration  of  I  Chr.  2^*,  an  emendation  adopted  by  Kittel,  in  his 
edition  of  Chronicles  {SBOT.).  Wellhausen's  emendation  is  in  his  disserta- 
tion De  Gentibus  et  Familiis  Judaeis  (1870),  p.  14,  n.  i.  Cf.  also  Driver  on 
Dt.  23^  (=  22^^).  —  8.  a'?^  tt'sin]  the  expression  is  not  used  elsewhere,  but 
seems  intelligible  without  supposing  a  contemptuous  reference  to  the  clan 
Caleb.  —  miniS  nrvs]  must  qualify  a'^:',  taking  the  place  of  an  adjective  —  Am 
I  a  Judahite  dog' s  head ?  But  the  construction  of  what  follows  is  thus  ren- 
dered more  difficult,  and  there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  min>'',  which  is  not 
represented  in  (@,  is  not  original.  Its  insertion  may  be  the  work  of  a  scribe 
who  interpreted  the  preceding  word  as  referring  to  the  tribe  of  Caleb  as 
though  Abner  asked:  Am  la  Calebite  captain,  that  is,  a  turbulent  freebooter  ? 
Omitting  min>S  we  get  a  fairly  good  sense. — na-j-N]  in  the  frequentative 
sense.  The  house  of  Saul  is  defined  so  as  to  include  his  brothers  and  his 
comrades.  It  is  unnecessary  to  insert  1  before  vnx'VvV,  as  is  done  by  some 
MSS.  of  1^,  by  @  and  3L.  The  guilt  of  a  woman  (genitive  of  the  object)  is 
evidently  regarded  as  a  trifle.  We  should  read  na»x  with  (5,  so  We.,  Bu.,  al.  — 
9.  i'?".-!;';"^]  -|-  iv  TT)  riii.ip'i  ravrrj  (§  is  adopted  by  We.  and  others,  though  the 
sense  seems  good  without  it. 

12-19.  The  return  of  Michal.  —  Abner  sends  messengers  to 
David  to  treat  for  the  submission  of  all  Israel.     David  will  enter 


III.  8-17  277 

on  the  negotiation  only  on  the  condition  of  the  return  of  Michal 
his  wife.  She  is  therefore  brought  back,  and  Abner  speaks  to  the 
elders  of  Israel  with  a  view  to  making  David  king. 

12-19.  As  remarked  above,  the  section  does  not  altogether  agree  with 
what  follows.  In  v.-i  Abner  promises  that  he  will  go  and  gather  all  Israel, 
and  they  will  make  an  agreement  with  David.  It  looks  therefore  as  if 
Abner's  visit  (v.^'')  was  the  opening  of  negotiations,  and  there  is  no  room  for 
12-19_  The  latter  is  another  representation  of  Abner's  action,  into  which  the 
narrator  inserted  the  account  of  the  return  of  Michal.  This  also  presents 
difficulties.  In  v.^^  David  stipulates  that  Abner  shall  bring  her  back.  In  v.^* 
he  sends  for  her  to  Ishbaal.  In  v.^^  Abner  accompanies  her  as  far  as  Bahurim, 
but  apparently  not  to  Hebron.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  this  account  (vv.i'*-!^) 
was  originally  continued  in  such  a  form  as  to  make  Abner's  visit  to  David  the 
conclusion  of  the  journey  with  Michal. 

12.  Abner  sent  messengers  to  David  offering  to  turn  all  Israel 
to  him,  if  David  would  make  a  definite  agreement  with  Abner. 
The  contents  of  the  agreement  are  not  told,  but  we  may  suppose 
that  it  included  personal  advantages  to  Abner,  as  well  as  immunity 
for  past  opposition.  On  some  difficulties  in  the  text,  see  the  criti- 
cal note.  — 13.  David  stipulates  first  of  all  that  Abner  should 
bring  Michal  when  he  comes  to  see  him.  The  prohibition  of  the 
Law,  which  forbade  a  man  to  take  back  a  wife  who  had  been 
married  to  another,  seems  to  have  been  unknown,  cf.  Deut.  24^"*. 
The  scrupulosity  of  the  Jews  is  shown  by  the  Rabbinical  fancy 
that  Paltiel  had  not  consummated  his  marriage  with  Michal. — 
14.  David  sends  messengers  to  Ishbaal  with  the  demand  :  Give 
me  my  wife  Michal,  whofti  I  bought  for  a  hundred  foreskins  of 
the  Philistines']  the  reference  to  i  S.  i8^-  ^  is  obvious,  but  the  pas- 
sage knows  nothing  of  David's  paying  double  the  price  demanded 
by  Saul.  — 15.  Ishbaal  sends  and  takes  hex  from  her  husband, 
Paltiel  ben  Laish]  to  whom  she  was  given  by  Saul,  i  S.  25*^. — 
16.  Her  husband  followed  her  weeping  as  he  went  as  far  as  Bahu- 
rim, a  place  near  Jerusalem,  16^.  Probably  it  was  the  last  Ben- 
jamite  village  on  the  road  they  were  travelling.  Here  at  Abner's 
command  he  turned  back.  — 17.  The  account  should  naturally 
tell  of  the  completion  of  Michal's  return.  But  it  breaks  off  and 
tells  of  Abner's  activity  among  the  elders  of  Israel.  In  the  pres- 
ent connexion  we  most  naturally  translate  :    And  Abner's  word 


278  2  SAMUEL 

Jiad  been  with  the  Sheikhs  of  Israel~\  the  implication  is  that  he 
had  taken  measures  to  change  the  allegiance  of  Israel  before  his 
journey.  — 18.  After  reminding  them  that  they  had  already  some 
leanings  towards  David  he  adds  the  promise  of  God  :  Now  act  f 
For  Yahweh  has  said  to  David :  By  the  hand  of  David  my  seniant 
will  I  deliver  my  people  Israel.  It  is  idle  to  inquire  what  particular 
promise  is  referred  to.  — 19.  The  prominent  mention  of  Benjamin 
is  due  to  the  fact  that,  as  the  tribe  of  Saul,  it  would  be  the  most 
difificult  to  move. 

12.  iDN^  }*""<  ^o''  "inf<S  innn]  is  unintelligible  and  certainly  corrupt.  @^ 
has  simply  els  Xf^paif  \eyuv  which  looks  like  a  conjectural  emendation. 
(@^  has  «is  QatXafi  ov  ^v  irapaxpriM"  Ae7&)i/,  but  what  this  represents  is  difficult 
to  say.  That  David  was  in  Telam  at  the  time  seems  to  be  the  intention, 
though  elsewhere  (5  renders  this  name  by  Te\(fi.  The  other  versions  seem  to 
have  had  the  received  text  before  them.  All  are  compelled  (like  the  modern 
expositors  who  try  to  make  sense  out  of  this  text)  to  translate  as  though  V"in 
could  stand  for  inxi  which  is  not  the  case.  If  Abner  had  meant  to  ask  w/tose 
is  the  land?  insinuating  in  manu  mea  est  terra  ut  ad  te  iransferam,*  he  must 
have  said  )»nsn  id'^.  Even  if  this  were  the  reading,  the  following  icnS  would 
be  unaccountable.  Of  the  proposals  to  emend  the  text,  Kl.'s  deserves  mention. 
He  supposes  the  original  to  have  been  idn"?  nxis  id*?  nn*?  innn  ^h-\v  no  S3, 
all  the  house  of  Israel  is  under  my  hand  to  give  to  whom  I  please  when  I 
say.  The  sentence  would  be  an  appropriate  introduction  to  what  follows.  — 
13.  '>j£3S"at<  'j]  is  redundant,  and  'j£3'?  is  lacking  in  (5,  which  also  reads  rNjn, 
adopted  by  Th.,  al.  On  the  Rabbinical  theory  of  Paltiel's  self-control  cf. 
Schm.  The  text  gives  no  indication  that  he  was  not  Michal's  rightful 
husband.  David  asserts  his  claim  as  one  who  had  paid  the  purchase  price, 
and  to  this  extent  he  had  suffered  wrong.  — 15.  «'•'!<]  the  reading  nc>{<  on  the 
basis  of  (5  is  now  generally  adopted.  The  omission  of  the  suffix  may  have 
been  made  intentionally  by  some  legalistic  scribe  to  disguise  the  fact  that 
Paltiel  is  called  her  husband.  —  '?t<''B'?fl]  the  fuller  form  of  the  name  which 
appears  as  ''B'?fl  i  S.  25^*. — C'lS]  vh  Qre  agrees  with  the  form  found  else- 
where. — 16.  anna]  elsewhere  mentioned  as  on  the  road  from  Jerusalem  to 
the  Jordan  valley,  17I8,  — 17-19.  The  verses  anticipate  the  account  which 
follows.  The  intimation  that  the  people  had  already  for  some  time  been 
seeking  David  as  king  and  the  reference  to  the  promise  of  Yahweh,  indicate 
a  later  hand  than  that  to  which  we  owe  the  main  narrative. — >''tMn]  is  to  be 
changed  to  y^ivw  with  40  MSS.  and  the  versions.  —  ij^n'dj]  must  mean  that, 
besides  sending  messages  and  messengers,  Abner  went  in  person  to  Benja- 
min and  to  David  —  wholly  superfluous  in  view  of  what  follows. 

*  Sanctius  apitd  Schm.,  p.  11 1. 


III.  17-25  279 

20,  21.  As  the  narrative  now  stands,  the  verses  form  the  con- 
clusion of  Abner's  negotiation  with  David.  Abner  with  a  suitable 
escort  came  to  David  at  Hebron,  a^id  David  made  a  feast  to  Abner 
and  to  the  men  who  were  with  him~\  the  feast  was  an  occasion  for 
drinking  rather  than  eating  and  is  so  named,  like  o-u/xTroo-toi/. 
Abner  agrees  definitely  :  /  wi/l  gather  all  Israel  to  my  Lord  and 
they  will  make  an  agreement  with  thee']  by  their  Sheikhs  or  heads 
of  the  clans.  The  monarchy  is  established  by  consent  of  the 
tribes.  So  in  the  time  of  Rehoboam  we  find  the  tribes  negotiat- 
ing with  the  heir  to  the  throne,  before  acknowledging  him. — 
And  thou  shall  rule  over  all  which  thou  desirest.  The  aspiration 
of  David  could  hardly  be  less  than  the  rule  over  all  Israel.  The 
promise  of  Abner  seems  to  imply  no  more  than  that  he  will  set 
about  influencing  the  tribes,  with  the  expectation  of  bringing  them 
into  allegiance  to  David. 

20.  D^ii'jN^i]  there  seems  no  reason  why  we  should  not  point  with  the 
article,  which  is  in  fact  required  by  the  following  ns'N.  Read  a''B'jN'^i  with  Bu. 
—  21.  HDips]  (@  seems  to  have  added  nj  which  however  is  not  called  for. — 
nna  ^^S  imsM]  koX  Siad-ftaofxai  fier'  avTov  Siadi^KTjv,  ©^ :  ;cal  Stadi}(rofxai  fiera 
(Tov  SiadTfiKYiv  <S^.  The  reading  of  |^  seems  the  best,  for  Abner's  promise 
looked  to  what  afterwards  occurred,  5^.  —  'roa]  can  hardly  be  wi^A  all  the  con- 
ditions that  shall  please  thee  (Th.),  but  over  all  the  people  that  thou  desirest. 
The  main  thing  was  that  David  should  be  acknowledged  as  king. 

22-27.  The  murder  of  Abner.  —  Joab,  David's  general,  was 
absent  on  an  expedition  when  Abner  made  his  visit.  Not  improb- 
ably David  had  so  planned  it.  But  the  servants  of  David,  that  is, 
the  mercenaries,  and  Joab  came  from  the  raid]  in  which  they 
were  then  engaged,  a^id  brought  with  them  great  spoil.  The  booty 
of  the  surrounding  tribes  makes  the  revenue  of  such  a  monarchy 
to  a  considerable  extent.  The  renewed  assurance  that  David  had 
dismissed  Abner  and  he  had  gone  in  peace  is  intended  to  bring 
out  more  distinctly  Joab's  vindictiveness.  —  23.  The  information 
given  to  Joab  does  not  indicate  that  Abner  was  planning  to  dis- 
place him.  It  was  simply  to  the  effect  that  the  king  had  let  Abner 
go  in  peace.  By  tribal  morality,  David  as  kinsman  of  Asahel  was 
bound  to  take  blood  revenge  as  much  as  Joab  himself.  —  24.  This 
is  the  first  point  of  Joab's  expostulation  with  David  —  that  he  did 
not  smite  Abner  while  he  had  him  in  his  power,  —  2$.    I'he  second 


280  »  SAMUEL 

ascribes  to  Abner  treacherous  motives  :  Dost  thou  not  knotv  Ahner 
the  son  of  Ner,  that  he  came  to  deceive  thee']  under  pretence  of 
friendly  negotiation ;  ajid  to  know  thy  going  forth  and  thy  comifig 
in,  and  to  know  all  thou  art  doing?]  in  order  to  make  a  later 
attack  upon  the  person  of  the  king.  Joab  was  unable  to  conceive 
of  Abner  as  anything  but  an  enemy  of  Judah.  The  freedom  with 
which  Joab  expostulates  shows  the  position  which  he  occupied 
both  as  kinsman  and  as  officer  of  David.  —  26.  Joab,  without 
David's  knowledge,  promptly  sent  messengers  after  Abner  and  they 
brought  him  back  from  the  Cistern  of  Sirah]  unknown  to  us  except 
from  this  passage.  —  27.  Abner  turned  back,  doubtless  under  the 
impression  that  the  king  had  sent  for  him,  and  Joab  turned  him 
aside  to  the  side  of  the  gate  to  speak  to  hitn  quietly]  the  ostensible 
purpose  is  given  without  comment.  —  And  he  smote  him  there  in 
the  abdomen]  cf  2^.  So  he  died  for  the  blood  of  Asahel  the 
brother  of  Joab.  The  curious  thing  is  not  that  Joab  should  take 
blood  revenge,  but  that  Abner  should  be  so  unsuspicious.  We  can 
account  for  his  conduct  only  by  supposing  that  he  had  a  distinct 
safe  conduct  from  David. 

22.  N3]  as  generally  recognized,  the  true  reading  is  a''N2  (Ginsb.  gives  W3 
in  the  margin)  the  3  having  disappeared  in  the  ;:  of  the  next  word.  —  3^]  is 
omitted  by  (5^  and  is  in  fact  superfluous;  how  much  booty  they  brought  with 
them  does  not  concern  us  here.  —  24.  ^1'?^]  throws  emphasis  on  the  fact  that 
Abner  had  been  allowed  to  go  away  at  all.  @  has  4v  flprjpri  conforming  to  the 
clause  in  v.^^.  — 25.  @  and  B  read  N'i'rn  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  and  this 
word  is  probably  to  be  restored  (Th.).  —  ij3N-nN]  riiv  KUKiav  'ABtwrip  (S  is 
attractive  (Kl.).  —  inus]  is  changed  by  the  punctuators  to  in3"'C  for  the  sake 
of  the  paronomasia.  —  26.  nion]  is  called  by  Josephus  Btjo-tj/jS.  The  transla- 
tion of  Josephus  in  Bohn's  Library  speaks  of  'Atn  Sarah  near  Hebron,  of 
which  I  find  no  other  trace.  — 27.  For  im  read  i^  with  (5  (Th.).  —  E'cnn] 
always  elsewhere  we  find  ti'cnn  Sx  which  is  found  here  also  in  13  MSS.  and  is 
favoured  by  (5.  —  rns]  is  awkward,  so  that  Bu.  restores  axr  "■nN  with  ®^. 
I  suspect  however  that  pdm  is  an  intrusion.  The  sense  is  perfectly  good 
without  it. 

28-32.  David  declares  his  innocence  of  the  crime.  —  28.  / 
and  my  kingdom  are  innocent  before  Yahweh]  who  avenges  those 
slain  without  cause,  Ps.  9^^.  —  29.  Let  it  come  upon  Joab  and  upon 
all  his  clan]  the  imprecation  strictly  interpreted  would  affect  David 
himself,  but  the  following  clauses  show  that  David  is  thinking  of 


III.  25-34  281 

Joab's  descendants.  Among  these  he  prays  that  there  may 
always  be  one  that  has  an  issue  and  one  that  is  a  leper]  two  dis- 
eases which  involve  continual  defilement ;  and  one  that  holds  the 
spittdle]  effeminate  and  unfit  for  manly  occupations.  —  30.  An 
editorial  note  or  later  interpolation  excusing  the  deed  of  Joab : 
But  Joab  and  Abishai  had  lain  in  wait  for  Abner  because  he  had 
killed  Asahel.  Strictly  speaking,  it  contradicts  v.^,  where  Joab 
alone  is  the  slayer.  —  31,  32.  As  further  evidence  of  his  innocence, 
David  commands  all  the  people  to  show  the  customary  signs  of 
mourning,  rending  the  clothes  and  putting  on  haircloth.  He  him- 
self honoured  the  dead  by  following  the  bier,  and  by  weeping  at 
the  grave. 

28.  nini  oyc]  one  is  free  from  an  obligation,  Gen.  24^,  or  from  the  guilt 
incurred  by  violation  of  it,  Nu.  5^1,  or  from  the  one  who  has  a  claim  based  on 
the  obligation  or  the  violation,  Jud.  158.  In  this  case  Yahweh  has  the  claim, 
for  innocent  blood  cries  to  him  for  vengeance.  The  double  71:  —  I  am  inno- 
cent towards  Yahweh  of  the  blood — does  not  seem  to  occur  elsewhere.  The 
original  reading  of  (5  was  1  n.n>"D  instead  of  nini  zyv.  —  ■'Die]  (B^-  represents 
^m  which  it  makes  the  beginning  of  v."^^.  —  29.  iSn'']  the  verb  is  used  twice 
of  the  tempest,  as  whirling  upon  the  head  of  its  victims,  Jer.  23I'  so'^"*,  and 
once  of  the  sword  Hos.  11^.  It  does  not  seem  appropriate  to  the  blood  which 
is  the  subject  here;  (5^  omits  the  verb  altogether  and  it  is  possible  that  it  read 
simply  n^n^  elsewhere  used  in  similar  context.  —  Sni]  read 'rp  with  10  MSS. 
and  the  versions.  —  iSoa  p^jnc]  as  shown  by  Dr.,  it  is  better  to  adhere  to  the 
established  meaning  of  ^Ss,  a  spindle.  In  contrast  with  the  warrior  Joab,  an 
effeminate  descendant  would  be  a  curse.  Still,  a  cripple  who  supports  himself 
by  a  staff  or  crutch  seems  more  suitable  in  this  context,  and  it  is  possible  that 
the  text  has  suffered.  According  to  Theodoret,  Aquila  read  one  blind,  per- 
haps because  a  blind  man  feels  his  way  with  his  staff.  —  30.  The  verse  inter- 
rupts the  narrative,  and  can  be  understood  only  as  a  later  insertion.  For  unn 
read  13in  as  suggested  by  Ew.  {GV/^.  III.  p.  160,  Eng.  Tr.  p.  117)  on  the 
basis  of  (5.  —  31.  D^-it:']  the  clothing  of  mourners.  Schwally  {ZATW.  XI. 
p.  174)  compares  the  ihrSm  of  the  Moslem,  which  however  is  not  of  haircloth. 
—  nann]  the  couch  on  which  a  man  lay  was  also  used  as  a  bier. 

33-39.  The  burial  of  Abner.  —  David  expressed  his  grief  in 
an  impromptu  dirge  : 

33.  Must  Abner  die  as  dies  the  fool? 

34.  Thy  hands  were  not  bound. 

Thy  feet  were  not  brought  i7ito  fetters  : 

As  one  falls  before  ruthless  men,  thou  didst  fall. 


282  2  SAMUEL 

The  fool  brings  an  early  death  upon  himself  by  his  reckless 
conduct,  Prov.  7-^-.  Abner  had  not  even  the  honour  of  being 
made  a  prisoner  of  war,  or  of  suffering  death  after  being  overpow- 
ered in  battle.  —  35.  After  the  burial,  the  people  came  to  cause  the 
king  to  eat  bread  while  it  was  yet  day.  David  showed  that  he  was 
in  earnest  in  mourning  by  swearing  not  to  taste  anything  until 
sundown,  when  of  course  a  new  day  began.  —  36,  37.  All  the 
people  took  notice  and  knew  that  David  had  no  part  in  the  matter 
and  were  pleased.  His  relationship  to  Joab  laid  him  open  to  sus- 
picion. —  38.  Know  you  not  that  a  prince  and  a  great  man  has 
fallen  to-day  in  Israel  ?'\  reason  enough  for  mourning. — 39.  As 
the  verse  now  stands,  it  contains  David's  confession  of  his  own 
weakness  and  inability  to  punish  Joab.  Such  a  confession  so 
early  in  his  career  seems  improbable.  The  original  reading, 
which  can  be  restored  only  conjecturally,  seems  to  have  said 
that  although  Abner  was  uncle  and  high  official  of  a  king,  the  sons 
of  Zeruiah  had  treated  him  as  harshly  as  they  would  a  common 
man.  Tribal  morality  being  on  their  side,  David  did  not  attempt 
to  punish  them,  but  contented  himself  with  a  prayer  that  Yahweh 
would  requite  the  doer  of  evil  according  to  his  evil. 

33.  mcDn]  the  verbal  form  is  infinitive.  —  Saj]  the  name  of  Nabal  is  ren- 
dered by  (§.  But  the  death  of  Abner  could  not  be  compared  in  any  way  with 
the  death  of  Nabal.  —  34.  D^'Hrnj]  of  a  pair  of  bronze  fetters  as  in  Jd.  1621.  — 
'?0J3]  is  probably  to  be  pointed  as  a  participle  (Kl.). — 35.  nn^n*?]  cf.  13^. 
The  verb  occurs  only  in  the  document  of  which  this  chapter  is  a  part.  — 
36.  Sdd]  (5  reads  '^a,  making  it  the  subject  of  the  preceding  3'J^ii  and  omitting 
21a  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  This  is  favoured  also  by  Si  and  IL,  and  is 
preferred  by  We.,  who  is  obliged,  however,  to  strike  out  □>n"'?3  >jiy3  also. 
Would  it  not  be  better  to  strike  out  the  whole  half  verse  as  a  gloss?  — 
38.  '?nji]  'f;  for  Snji  -\'V  however,  (S^  has  '^nj  -\z\  For  Ssiro  Si  and  some 
MSS.  of  J§  have  Sxtj"!:.  —  39.  "ji]  the  word  means  tender  in  years,  or  deli- 
cately nurtured.  Gen.  33^^  Dt.  aS''*.  Neither  meaning  is  appropriate  to  David, 
who  was  certainly  a  mature  man  and  who  had  been  brought  up  in  hardship. 
It  is  moreover  difficult  to  connect  the  word  with  what  follows :  tender  though 
anointed  king  is  perhaps  possible,  but  how  does  it  apply  to  the  situation? 
Following  a  suggestion  of  We.,  Bu.  emends  to  iVnD  r\v\  ^^\^^,  too  tender  and 
lowly  for  reigning.  But  it  is  not  likely  that  David  would  openly  express  this, 
even  if  it  were  his  thought.  O'^  makes  the  clause  apply  to  Abner  and  trans- 
lates (ri;77ef^s  koX  KadiaTa/xevos  virh  tov  ^acnXfois,  and  with  this  agree  many 
MSS.  of  6,  only  reading  Kadfara/xevos.    The  original  would  apparently  be 


III.  34-IV.  4  283 

^'?dV  Tpiji  in  Nini,  (hough  he  Tvere  relative  and  officer  of  a  king  {yet  these  sons 
of  Zeruiah  7vere  too  strong  for  him  is  the  continuation,  reading  udd  for  '•jdc). 
For  other  conjectures  see  Kl. 

rV.  1-12.  The  assassination  of  Ishbaal.  —  The  death  of 
Abner  removed  the  main  support  of  the  throne  at  Mahanaim. 
Two  of  the  king's  officers  therefore  seize  an  opportunity,  when 
the  king  is  unguarded,  to  murder  him.  They  bring  his  head 
to  Hebron  in  the  hope  of  reward.  But  David  treats  them  as  he 
had  treated  the  confessed  assassin  of  Saul. 

The  piece  is  an  evident  continuation  of  the  preceding  narrative 
and  is  homogeneous  except  for  a  single  (or  double)  interpola- 
tion, 2"-*. 

1 .  When  the  son  of  Saul  heard  that  Abner  had  died  in  Hebron, 
his  ha?ids  were  limp']  he  lost  courage  ;  and  all  Israel  was  thrown 
into  cotifusion'\  showing  that  Abner  was  not  only  the  stay  of  the 
king,  but  also  the  administrator  of  the  kingdom.  —  2.  Ishbaal  had 
two  captains  of  guerilla  bands  whose  names  were  Baana  and 
Rechab.  The  fact  that  in  ^  they  are  mentioned  in  the  reverse 
order  indicates  that  the  present  clause  is  part  of  the  redactional 
note.  They  are  described  as  S07is  of  Rimmon  the  Beerothite,  of 
the  Benfamites]  Beeroth  was  a  city  of  the  Gibeonites,  Jos.  9^^,  but 
is  reckoned  to  Benjamin  Jos.  18^.  According  to  Robinson  it 
occupied  the  site  of  the  present  El-Bireh,  nine  miles  north  of 
Jerusalem.  An  editor  or  scribe  now  explains  why  a  Beerothite 
should  be  called  a  Benjamite.  But  he  does  not  tell  us  why 
Beeroth  should  not  be  reckoned  to  Benjamin.  The  fact  which 
he  finds  surprising  seems  natural  to  us.  —  3.  The  Beerothitesy?^^ 
to  Gittaint]  also  a  city  of  Benjamin,  Neh.  11^,  and  have  been  cli- 
ents there  until  this  day]  they  did  not  attain  full  citizenship.  If 
the  author  means  that  this  is  the  way  in  which  they  came  to  be 
Benjamites,  he  has  expressed  himself  obscurely.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  he  means  that  though  Benjamites,  they  preferred  clientage 
in  another  clan  to  their  blood  right,  we  must  suppose  this  Gittaim 
to  be  somewhere  else  than  in  Benjamin.  —  4.  The  verse  is  another 
interpolation.  The  design  seems  to  be  to  show  how  reduced  was 
the  house  of  Saul  —  the  heir  to  the  throne  was  a  cripple.  After 
the  battle  of  Gilboa  his  nurse  fled  in  such  trepidation  that  the 


284  2  SAMUEL 

child  fell  from  her  arms  and  became  lame.  The  correct  form  of 
his  name,  preserved  in  Chronicles,  is  Meribbaal.  In  the  text  of 
Samuel  it  has  been  purposely  mutilated  to  Mephibosheth. — 
5.  The  two  assassins  came  to  the  house  of  Ishbaal  while  he  was 
taking  his  noon  sleep  —  the  siesta  which  is  general  in  hot  coun- 
tries. —  6.  As  it  stands  in  ^  the  verse  is  superfluous  and  perplex- 
ing. The  very  different  reading  of  (§  is  now  generally  adopted  : 
And  the  doorkeeper  of  the  palace  was  cleanitig  wheat,  and  she  grew 
drowsy  and  slept ;  so  Rechab  and  Baanah  his  brother  slipped  /'«] 
the  modest  establishment  of  Ishbaal  afforded  only  a  maid  servant 
as  porter,  and  she  was  obliged  to  do  other  work  while  keeping  the 
door.  —  7.  Ishbaal  was  lying  upon  his  bed  in  his  sleeping  roonf^ 
and  therefore  an  easy  victim.  The  murderers  cut  off  his  head 
and,  with  this  evidence,  travelled  the  road  of  the  Arabah  all  night. 
—  8.  They  present  the  head  of  their  murdered  king  to  David 
with  the  remark  :  Yahweh  has  avenged  thee  on  Saul  and  his  seed'] 
the  apparent  hypocrisy  which  made  Yahweh  a  partner  in  their 
bloody  crime  called  forth  the  indignation  of  the  older  expositors. 
But  such  language  is  second  nature  to  an  oriental.  — 9, 10.  David's 
reply  is  a  reference  to  a  precedent :  As  for  the  one  who  told  me, 
saying:  Saul  is  dead — though  I  regarded  him  as  a  bringer  of 
good  tidings  —  /  seized  him  and  slew  him  in  Ziklag  to  give  him  the 
reward  of  good  tidings.  The  sense  is  clear  :  Even  though  the 
tidings  of  Saul's  death  were  welcome  to  David,  that  did  not  hinder 
him  from  punishing  the  messenger.  — 11.  How  much  more  when 
wicked  mefi  have  slain  a  righteous  man  in  his  house  and  upon  his 
bed;  shall  I  not  seek  his  blood  at  your  hand  and  destroy  you  from 
the  land?  Otherwise  the  land  itself  would  suffer  on  account  of 
unavenged  blood.  — 12.  The  murderers  are  put  to  death,  their 
hands  and  their  feet  cut  off  and  hung  up  over  the  pool  at  Hebron, 
where  they  would  be  seen  by  all  the  city,  and  the  head  of  Ishbaal 
is  buried  in  the  tomb  of  Abner  his  relative,  so  that  he  is  joined  to 
his  kin  in  his  burial. 

1.  SiN'j;'-p]  is  proper  without  the  insertion  of  Syars  made  by  ®S.  —  ^J3n] 
the  addition  of  i:"p,  made  by  We.  and  Bu.,  is  not  favoured  by  the  best  MSS. 
of  @.  —  2.  SiNC'"j3]  is  here  impossible  and  we  must  insert  '^;'3C'nS  with  @, 
The  identification  of  Beeroth  and  El  Bireh  is  objected  to  by  Buhl  {Geog. 
p.  173)  on  the  ground  that  Jos.  9I"  indicates  a  place  southwest  of  Gibeon,  and 


IV.  4-V.  285 

that  Eusebius  locates  it  (OS.  p.  233)  on  the  road  to  Nicopolis.  But  cf.  Rob- 
inson, £/i'.  I  p.  452;  Baedeker,  Palestine",  p.  212.  —  "^j?]  is  evidently  for  '^x. 
—  3.  im3''i]  the  meaning  seems  to  be  that  though  the  Beerothites  were  reck- 
oned to  Benjamin,  yet  they  preferred  to  become  clients  at  Gittaim  rather  than 
to  retain  their  blood  rights.  But  as  Benjamites  could  hardly  become  clients 
of  Benjamites  (at  Gittaim),  we  suspect  the  true  state  of  the  case  to  have  been 
that  the  Beerothites,  originally  Canaanites,  sought  protection  at  Gittaim  and 
thus  were  reckoned  to  Benjamin.  Bertholet  (Stellung  d.  Israeliten,  p.  47) 
supposes  the  clientage  sought  l^ecause  of  Saul's  attack  on  the  Gibeonites,  in 
which  case  the  murder  of  Ishbaal  was  an  act  of  revenge. — 4.  The  second 
half  of  the  verse  is  removed  by  Bu.  and  inserted  after  9^,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  belongs  there.  —  nr3''i3c]  the  name  has  been  changed  like  rw^'Z'-'V. 
to  avoid  pronouncing  the  word  Baal.  We  find  '^;'3  3nc,  i  Chr.  8^*  9*"^,  and 
along  with  it  '?;'3"''ic,  9*''.  From  the  analogy  of  Jerubbaal  we  naturally  inter- 
pret '^•;i  3>i",  Baal  is  a  warrior.  This  was  changed  by  the  ingenuity  of  the 
scribes  to  nt'D^ac,  7uho  puffs  at  the  shameful  thing  (We.  TBS.  p.  31;  other 
conjectures  are  cited  by  Nestle,  Israelitische  Eigennamen,  p.  120  f.).  ^^  calls 
him  Me/j.<f>tB6ade,  the  name  which  it  has  also  for  Ishbaal,  whereas  (S^  has 
Mefji(pi0da\.  This  indicates  that  the  name  has  undergone  two  transforma- 
tions; firs,t  it  was  m2ide  Afephidaal  and  then  A/e/>hil>osheth.  —  5.  D''^^s^  odu'd] 
®  has,  curiously,  the  sleep  of  kings.  —  6.  The  opening  word  as  pointed  in  iUl 
is  unintelligible;  the  repetition  of  the  subject  towards  the  close  of  the  verse 
is  unmotived ;  and  the  whole  verse  anticipates  the  following  account.  Wel- 
come relief  is  given  by  (g  which  introduces  an  entirely  new  feature;  «oJ  llov 
7)  dupuiphs  ToD  oXkou  fKadatpeu  irupovs  koL  ivvara^ev  Ka\  iKaOfudeu  (wal  i/Tri'axrei'^). 
This  is  adopted  as  original  by  Ew.,  Th.,  We.,  and  later  commentators,  though 
they  differ  somewhat  in  the  retroversion :  ]■y>^^^  ajpi  □•'On  nVpo  D-'zr^  ni;-;'  njm 
is  given  by  We.  and  adopted  by  Dr.,  Bu.,  whereas  Kl.  rejects  both  texts  and 
constructs  a  new  one  on  conjecture.  —  lu'^cj]  generally  means  to  slip  azvay,  to 
escape.  The  only  analogy  for  the  sense  required  here  is  i  S.  20^9,  and  even 
there  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  writer  had  not  the  usual  meaning  in  mind. — 
7.  The  second  vrNiTN  is  omitted  by  ^^IL.  — 10.  ■•o]  introduces  the  sub- 
stance of  the  oath.  —  rr>'a]  eudwwf  /xou  (3  is  probably  original.  The  point  is 
that  the  Amalekite  was  punished  in  spite  of  the  nature  of  his  tidings. — 
1*7  T\P^  i;'n]  can  be  justified;  but  (since  We.)  t.:'X  is  generally  thought  to  be 
an  erroneous  insertion;  the  clause  is  then  sarcastic.  — 11.  iins'tr^NTu]  is 
unusual  though  not  entirely  without  parallel,  Ex.  2i28  Nu.  21^,  cf.  Davidson, 
Syntax,  72  R.  4,  Ges."-^^  1 17  </.  —  xVn]  is  lacking  in  (5,  but  the  question  is  more 
vigorous  than  the  direct  assertion. 

V.-XXIV.   David's  rule  over  all  Israel. 

V.-Vin.  The  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  —  The  tribes 
make  David  king,  and  he  estabhshes  his  capital  at  Jerusalem. 
He  is  attacked  by  the  PhiHstines  but  conquers  them.     His  next 


286  2  SAMUEL 

step  is  to  bring  the  Ark  from  Baale-Judah.  The  progress  is  inter- 
rupted by  an  untoward  incident,  but  after  some  delay  the  palla- 
dium is  safely  settled  in  a  tent  pitched  for  it.  David  proposes  to 
build  a  house  for  Yahweh  but  is  forbidden,  though  he  receives  a 
promise  for  his  own  house.  The  next  chapter  contains  an  account 
of  several  successful  wars,  closing  with  a  summary  which  evidently 
marks  the  conclusion  of  a  section  of  the  narrative. 

In  this  division  of  the  book  various  hands  are  discernible,  as 
will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  exposition. 

V.  1-5.  David  is  anointed  king  over  all  Israel,  and  the  length 
of  his  reign  is  given.  The  anointing  is  a  natural  sequel  of  the 
preceding  narrative.  But  the  speech  of  vv.^-^  seems  later  than 
the  simple  statement  of  v.^  —  1.  All  the  tribes  of  Israel  came  to 
David'\  by  their  representatives,  claiming  kinship  with  him. — 
2.  Moreover,  they  recognize  that  he  had  been  the  actual  leader 
while  Saul  was  king;  and  further,  Yahweh  had  promised  that 
David  should  shepherd  the  people.  —  3.  All  the  Sheikhs  came  to 
Hebron']  as  they  were  already  there  in  v.^  it  is  probable  that  this 
is  a  different  document.  —  And  the  king  made  an  agreement  with 
them]  cf.  3*^  We  may  conjecture  that  there  was  some  definite 
understanding  of  rights  and  duties  on  both  sides.  —  And  they 
anointed  David  as  king  over  Israel]  the  Chronicler  adds  :  accord- 
ing to  the  tvord  of  Yahweh  by  the  hand  of  Satnuel.  But  this 
agrees  with  v.-  rather  than  v.^.  —  4,  5.  One  of  the  chrono- 
logical data  frequent  in  the  Books  of  Kings.  This  seems  to 
be  late,  as  it  is  not  copied  by  the  Chronicler  who  appropriates  the 
rest  of  the  chapter.  There  is,  however,  no  improbability  in  the 
numbers,  as  David  evidently  had  a  long  reign,  and  the  life  he  led 
would  make  him  an  old  man  at  seventy. 

1-5.  All  that  is  required  by  the  narrative  is  v.^  which  alone  I  suppose  to 
be  from  the  earlier  document.  The  vv.^"^  are  repeated  substantially  in  I  Chr. 
ii^A — 1.  Sntj'i  ^a3';'"'^D  isan]  Chr.  has  ^ns-£>^  ^2  ii'3|"i'i  because  the  people 
were  in  his  view  a  homogeneous  whole.  —  ncs^i]  is  lacking  in  Chr.  and  IL, 
whereas  nosS  is  omitted  by  (5.  —  2.  U'''^;']  lacking  in  Chr.  —  N'SiD  rtn^^ry']  Kt. 
corrected  in  the  margin  to  N''Sicn  n^^n,  which  is  of  course  correct;  notice 
(N)i3nn  which  follows.  — 4.  DV31n]  the  versions  and  17  MSS.  have  O'jJansi. 
—  5.  c'^n  a'"',:''?'.:'  @^  thinks  it  necessary  to  make  the  exact  sum  of  forty  years, 
and  puts  32  years  and  six  months  here. 


V.  1-8  28/ 

Budde  removes  vv/  '■  from  this  position  and  inserts  them  in  connexion 
with  3-"^,  ^is-ifi  after  8'*.  But  it  is  clear  that  this  does  not  restore  a  text  that 
ever  existed.  These  verses  are  a  redactional  insertion,  but  they  never  stood 
in  any  other  connexion  than  their  present  one.  In  fact  they  are  in  place  at 
the  beginning  of  David's  reign  over  Israel. 

6-16.  The  capture  of  Jerusalem.  —  David  captures  the  for- 
tress of  Jerusalem  and  makes  it  his  capital.  His  prosperity  is  evi- 
denced by  the  attention  of  the  king  of  Tyre  and  by  the  increase 
of  David's  harem. 

The  section  is  an  apparent  unit,  but  does  not  fit  well  in  the 
present  context,  for  the  attack  of  the  Philistines,  v.^^  evidently 
came  before  the  capture  of  Jerusalem.  The  union  of  all  Israel 
under  a  single  crown  was  in  fact  sufficient  reason  for  the  Philis- 
tines to  bestir  themselves.  Probably  the  campaign  of  the  Phil- 
istines made  David  feel  the  necessity  of  possessing  Jerusalem. 
While  in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanite,  this  city  really  cut  his  king- 
dom in  two.  When  he  took  it,  it  became  the  natural  capital  of 
the  country,  and  its  strength  in  the  Jebusite  period  was  equally 
marked  after  David  took  possession  of  it. 

6.  The  king  and  his  meji~\  his  regular  soldiers  are  evidently 
intended,  we?it  to  Jerusalem  against  the  Jebusite,  the  inhabitant  of 
the  land~\  the  same  phrase  is  used  elsewhere  of  the  Canaanite 
(Gen.  50")  and  the  Amorite  (Jos.  24'*).  The  remainder  of  the 
verse  is  obscure.  Apparently,  the  Jebusites  say  to  David  :  Tho2i 
shalt  not  cofne  in  hither-  for  the  blind  and  the  latfie  shall  keep  thee 
back"]  but  this  cannot  be  got  out  of  the  present  text,  and  no 
emendation  that  is  convincing  has  yet  been  suggested.  There  is 
no  reason  for  taking  the  blind  and  the  lame  in  any  but  the  proper 
sense.  In  derision,  the  walls  were  manned  by  cripples.  The 
explanatory  clause  :  meatiing  that  David  ca?inot  come  hither,  is 
unnecessary  and  probably  a  later  insertion.  —  7.  David  took  the 
stronghold  of  Ziotf\  undoubtedly  the  eastern  ridge  of  the  two  now 
covered  by  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  —  8.  Another  case  of  corrup- 
tion. As  it  stands,  the  verse  seems  to  give  the  reason  why  the 
blind  and  the  lame  are  shut  out  of  the  sanctuary.  But  this  clause 
is  perhaps  an  afterthought.  Two  theories  are  held  as  to  the  first 
half  of  the  verse.  One  makes  it  give  the  city  over  to  sack,  the 
other  makes  it  a  command  to  spare   the  lame  and   the   blind. 


288  2  SAMUEL 

Neither  is  satisfactory.  From  the  form  of  the  introductory  phrase, 
the  verse  should  contain  a  reflection  of  David  on  his  successful 
capture  of  the  city.  —  9.  David  divelt  in  the  fortress']  which  he 
had  just  taken,  and  built  it  round  about  from  Millo  J  the  fortifica- 
tion or  retaining  wall  mentioned  also  among  the  works  of  Solomon 
I  K.  9^^,  and  rebuilt  by  Hezekiah,  2  Chr.  32^  — 10.  Concluding 
remark  —  David  kept  on  growing  great  and  Yahweh  was  with  him. 

6.  Budde  ingeniously  prefixes  6^  to  this  verse,  and  thus  makes  David  levy 
thirty  thousand  troops  for  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  But  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  any  such  number  was  necessary.  The  Jebusites  confided  in  the 
strength  of  their  citadel,  and  this  was  captured  by  the  bravery  of  a  few  led  by 
Joab.  This  would  indicate  that  David's  band  of  trusty  veterans  did  the  greater 
part  of  the  work.  The  Chronicler  indeed  makes  David  and  all  Israel  the 
subject,  but  this  can  hardly  weigh.  —  oScn^]  here  as  elsewhere  is  made  a  dual 
by  the  punctuators,  with  no  apparent  reason.  The  city  is  named  in  the  Tell- 
el-Amarna  tablets  which  show  that  it  was  a  dependency  of  Egypt  before  the 
Israelite  invasion  of  Palestine;  cf.  Winckler's  edition,  180^*^  183^*.  The 
Jebusites  are  named  as  one  of  the  nations  of  Canaan,  but  seem  to  have  pos- 
sessed no  more  territory  than  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Dni>'n  ■|T'Dn-o.s  •'j  = 
but  the  blind  will  have  removed  thee,  is  inappropriate.  The  tense  is  wrong, 
the  verb  should  be  plural,  and  T'Dn  is  not  used  of  repulsing  an  enemy.  We.'s 
emendation,  li^Di,  meets  two  of  the  objections  but  not  the  third.  It  has  been 
proposed  therefore  to  correct  to  m^Dn  —  the  English  Version  tacitly  does  so 
—  with  the  meaning  except  thou  have  removed  (Kl.),  which  is  faultless  so  far 
as  the  form  of  the  verb  is  concerned,  but  would  naturally  be  followed  by 
the  accusative  sign.  I  suspect  that  the  adversative  dn  ■'D  is  not  original  and 
that  the  conjunction  is  ";.  The  iTDn  on  then  represents  a  verb  with  the 
object  —  say  ^nx  lyjD''  or  ■)jimi"!'';  h,vTiuTt\aa.v  @  would  favour  the  latter. 
The  blind  and  the  lame  are  taken  by  some  of  the  Rabbinical  expositors  to 
mean  the  gods  of  the  Jebusites,  an  interpretation  suggested  by  Ps.  115^'  (on 
the  theory  that  it  was  composed  by  David).  Another  conceit  of  the  same 
kind  sees  in  the  blind  and  the  lame,  images  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  on  which  the 
Jebusites  had  written  the  covenant  made  by  Abraham  with  Abimelech  their 
ancestor  (?),  on  which  covenant  they  relied  for  protection  (so  Levi  ben 
Gerson).  Equally  forcible  is  the  theory  of  a  modern  scholar  that  the  blind 
and  the  lame  "  are  the  dreaded  guardian  spirits,  the  protecting  deities  of  Jeru- 
salem, called  thus  either  by  the  people  or  by  the  late  scribes  of  Judea,  while 
in  fact  they  were  the  '  watchers '  =  nn^j;  and  the  D''nDie,  '  threshold  crossers 
or  leapers'  of  the  Jebusites"  (Kohler  in  Am.  Jour.  Theol.  I.  p.  803).  It  is 
enough  to  notice  that  the  words  must  have  the  same  sense  here  and  in  v.^. 
The  Chronicler  omits  all  after  the  first  T\-\r\,  perhaps  by  homeoteleuton. — 
7.  }vs]  later  a  poetical  name  for  Jerusalem  itself.  Robinson's  identification 
of  Zion  with  the  southwestern  quarter  of  modern  Jerusalem  is  now  generally 


V.  9-i6  289 

given  up.  —  "in  -i^jj  s<>n]  is  superfluous  along  with  v.^'',  —  8.  '03'  njo-Sj] 
naturally  means  whoever  smites  a  Jebusite,  and  we  expect  as  the  apodosis  either 
a  permission  to  take  his  spoil,  or  the  promise  of  a  reward  for  the  deed,  or  the 
threat  of  punishment.  Neither  one  can  be  got  out  of  -njS3  j?J'i,  though  the 
form  of  the  verb  is  correct.  lUX  occurs  in  only  one  other  passage  and  is  not 
certain  even  there.  In  later  Hebrew  the  word  means  a  canal  or  pipCy  and  so 
it  has  been  interpreted  here  of  the  eaves-trough  of  the  citadel,  or  of  the  sewer 
under  the  city,  as  though  David  offered  a  reward  for  whoever  should  smite  the 
Jebusite  and  get  up  to  the  pinnacle  of  the  castle,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  for 
whoever  should  climb  up  through  the  sewer  or  reach  the  moat.  The  precarious 
nature  of  the  proposed  interpretation  is  obvious,  and  is  emphasized  by  the 
fact  that  the  sentence  so  construed  is  left  incomplete,  and  that  the  lame  and 
the  blind  who  follow  are  equally  without  intelligible  connexion.  By  reading 
jjpi  Ewald  makes  the  storming  party  cast  into  the  moat  the  lame  and  the 
blind  who  defended  the  walls.  The  Chronicler  departs  from  the  text  of  this 
verse,  perhaps  because  he  found  it  unintelligible.  Conjectures  of  Th.,  Kl.,  Bu. 
give  no  real  help.  (§  sees  in  -wn  a  dagger,  Aquila  a  watercourse,  and  Sym- 
machus  a  battlement.  —  ixj'i']  for  which  Qre  "'Nja' :  (§^  koX  tovs  ixiaovt/ras.  — 
nian]  @  interprets  correctly  when  it  renders  oIkov  Kvpiov.  —  9.  p^i]  read 
W3M  with  @  (We.).  —  KiSanJ  the  word  occurs  in  the  name  of  a  fortress  (?) 
Beth-Millo,  Jd.  9^.  —  nnoi]  may  be  and  inwards,  Millo  being  the  external 
limit  of  his  building,  or  towards  the  house  which  would  naturally  be  the  sanctu- 
ary, as  in  v.^. 

11.  And  Hiram  king  of  Tyre']  the  prominent  commercial  city 
of  the  Phoenicians ;  sen^  messengers  to  David'\  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  the  Philistines  were  the  common  enemy  of  both 
parties.  The  superiority  of  the  Phoenicians  as  builders  is  well 
known  from  the  history  of  Solomon.  — 12.  David  knew']  appar- 
ently by  the  evidence  of  the  Phoenician  embassy.  The  natural 
conclusion  is  that  the  embassy  came  soon  after  his  occupation  of 
Jerusalem.  The  chronology  makes  it  doubtful  whether  Hiram 
came  so  early  to  the  throne,  but  this  may  be  the  fault  of  the  chro- 
nology.— 13.  The  increase  of  the  harem  increases  the  prestige 
of  an  oriental  ruler.  — 14.  From  the  occurrence  of  the  name  Solo- 
mon, who  was  born  some  years  after  the  occupation  of  Jer.,  we 
conclude  that  this  list  gives  the  name  of  all  David's  sons  known 
to  the  author.  — 16.  Eljada  was  originally  Baaliada,  as  we  discover 
from  the  parallel  in  Chronicles,  and  as  is  indicated  also  by  (§. 

11.  DTn]  probably  a  shortened  form  of  aTHS.  According  to  Josephus 
{Ant.  VIII.  3,  i)  Hiram's  eleventh  year  was  the  year  of  Solomon's  accession, 
which  would  of  course  be  inconsistent  with  an  embassy  early  in  David's  reign. 

u 


290  2  SAMUEL 

i  he  artisans  sent  by  Hiram  were  prohahly  his  slaves.  —  ""pj  lacking  in  (5",  is 
in  fact  superfluous.  — 12.  NU'i]  is  active  —  Yahweh  had  exalUd  his  kingdom. 
TNi-j,  that  is,  a  Niphal,  is  read  by  @  and  Chr.  —  13.  s>i'j-'DJ  omitted  by  C'hr. 
The  action  of  David  shows  no  acquaintance  with  the  Deuteronomic  law,  Dt. 
17^^.  The  Rabbinical  ingenuity  which  interprets  the  law  as  forbidding  more 
than  eighteen  wives,  and  which  shows  that  David  had  just  that  number,  is  set 
forth  in  Schmid,  p.  222.  —  D'?-J'n":]  -n^a  i  Chr.  14^. — 14-16.  The  list  of 
David's  sons  is  repeated  in  i  Chr.  ^^-  and  I4^ff-.  By  duplicating  •j^jj^'^n  and 
inserting  njj  (duplicate  of  jdj)  the  number  is  there  increased  to  thirteen  in- 
stead of  eleven,  yi^^x  is  j,n'''?;*3  in  both  places  in  Chr. ;  BaoA.f lyuafl  ©^  and 
BaoAiAaO  ^^  show  that  the  same  form  was  once  found  in  the  present  passage. 

17-25.  Two  battles  with  the  Philistines.  —  In  two  encounters 
David  defeats  the  Philistines.  The  time  is  before  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem,  so  that  we  have  here  an  insertion  from  another  docu- 
ment. —  17.  The  occasion  was  that  they  had  anointed  David  king 
over  Israel'\  the  Philistines  might  readily  suppose  that  David  was 
growing  too  powerful.  His  behaviour  indicates  that  he  had  not 
given  them  direct  provocation.  —  He  went  dowfi  to  the  stronghold"] 
the  verb  makes  it  sufficiently  plain  that  the  citadel  of  Zion  is  not 
intended.  — 18.  The  Philistines  came  and  plundered  (Jd.  15'')  in 
the  Valley  of  Rephaini]  now  generally  identified  with  the  valley 
that  extends  southwestward  from  Jerusalem.  — 19.  David  asks 
counsel  of  the  oracle  and  receives  a  favourable  answer.  —  20.  Yah- 
weh has  broken  down  7ny  enemies  before  me  like  the  breaking  of 
waters]  through  a  dam.  Baal  Ferazim  is  possibly  referred  to  as 
Mount  Perazim  Is.  28-^  —  21.  They  left  their  gods]  as  we  should 
probably  read,  and  David  and  his  men  carried  them  away. 

17.  missn  Sk  -nii]  although  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem  has  been  called  a 
n-nxo  v.3,  it  cannot  be  intended  here.  If  this  incident  were  later  in  time  than 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  David  would  not  have  needed  to  go  to  that  strong- 
hold, for  he  resided  there.  Usage  does  not  allow  us  to  say,  either,  that  one 
went  dawn  to  Jerusalem.  The  allusion  must  therefore  be  to  one  of  his  earlier 
resorts,  perhaps  Adullam.  — 18.  csfl-in]  tS>v  Ttrdvaiv  <3.  Robinson,  who 
makes  the  identification  (BJi^.  I.  p.  219),  gives  no  reasons  except  the  declara- 
tion of  Josephus.  The  location  however  answers  the  needs  of  Jos.  158  18^^, 
and  would  be  a  natural  route  for  the  Philistines,  cf.  Buhl,  Geog:  p.  91. — 
19.  n'^j'Nn]  confirms  what  was  said  about  the  stronghold.  —  20.  y^D"]  of  the 
breaking  down  of  a  wall,  2  Chr.  24''  Ps.  So^^.  S)J3  frequent  in  the  names  of 
places,  the  town  being  named  from  its  patron  deity,  as  modern  names  are 
often  taken  from  the  patron  saint  or  his  church.  —  21.  Di^xv]  for  which  Chr. 
has  on^n'r'N.     The  latter,  which  was  also  read  by  (S  here,  is  doubtless  original 


V.  I7-VI.  I  291 

A  late  scribe  hesitated  to  call  the  idols  gods.  The  Chronicler  adds  that  David 
burned  them  with  fire,  and  a  similar  addition  is  made  by  (S^.  But  this  seems 
to  have  been  an  addition  to  accord  with  the  views  of  later  times. 

22.  A  similar  situation,  perhaps  a  part  of  the  same  campaign. 

—  23.  In  answer  to  his  inquiry  he  is  directed  not  to  make  a  direct 
attack.  —  Go  about  to  their  rear  and  come  upon  them  opposite  the 
Balsams']  the  word  is  treated  hke  a  proper  name.  —  24.  Specific 
directions  giving  an  omen  :  And  it  shall  be  when  thou  hearest  the 
sound  of  marching  in  the  tops  of  the  balsams,  then  thou  shall  act 
pro)nptly,for  then  Yahweh  will  have  gone  forth  before  thee  to  smite 
the  camp  of  the  Philistines']  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  suppose  that 
the  incident  is  not  based  upon  the  sanctity  of  the  trees  in  ques- 
tion.—  25.  David's  obedience  was  rewarded  with  a  victory  and 
he  smote  the  Philistifiesfrom  Geba~\  the  place  is  doubtful,  to  Gezer] 
in  the  border  of  the  Philistine  territory. 

23.  3Dn]  the  Hiphil  is  uncalled  for  and  we  may  either  read  a  Niphal,  or, 
with  Dr.,  strike  out  the  n  as  erroneous  duplication  from  the  preceding  word. 

—  D'N33]  a''N33n  Chr. :  a^jn  S.  Some  derivative  of  n^a  is  indicated  by  toC 
KXavOfiuvos  <&,  so  that  the  Bochim  of  Jd.  2^  was  in  the  mind  of  both  transla- 
tors. But  the  location  does  not  seem  suitable.  —  24.  ij;di:o]  iJjDrj  is  preferred 
by  Qre.  —  niyx]  the  article  should  probably  be  prefixed  with  Chr.  —  }nnn] 
look  sharp  is  our  colloquial  equivalent.  — 25.  >OJc]  h.ir'b  Va^awv  ©  agrees  with 
\v;im  Chr.  But  both  Geba  and  Gibeon  are  too  far  from  the  valley  of  Rephaim 
for  the  pursuit  to  begin  at  either  one.  The  mention  of  Gibeon  and  Perazim 
together  by  Isaiah  does  not  prove  anything  as  to  these  two  events.  —  nrj]  on 
the  location  cf.  GASmith,  Geog.  p.  215  f. 

VI.  1-23.  The  bringing  up  of  the  Ark.  —  David  attempts  to 
bring  the  Ark  to  the  citadel,  but  an  untoward  incident  prevents 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose  for  a  time.  After  three  months 
a  second  attempt  is  made,  this  time  with  success.  David's  reli- 
gious zeal,  or  its  violent  expression,  brings  upon  him  a  rebuke  from 
his  wife  Michal,  and  this  results  in  a  permanent  estrangement. 

There  seems  no  reason  to  question  that  the  story  belongs  to  the 
main  narrative  of  the  Hfe  of  David.  The  Chronicler,  who  borrows 
it,  makes  considerable  changes  in  the  opening  section,  to  accord 
with  his  point  of  view. 

1.  David  gathered  the  warriors  of  Israel,  thirty  thousand  in 
number.     As  Yahweh  is  a  God  of  War  such  an  escort  is  appropri- 


292  2  SAMUEL 

ate.  Numerical  data  however  are  generally  open  to  suspicion.  — 
2.  They  went  to  Baal  Judah']  the  name  indicates  that  it  was  a 
seat  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh.  The  present  narrative  does  not 
necessarily  presuppose  the  account  of  the  Ark  in  i  S.  The  Ark 
is  described  as  that  which  is  called  by  the  name  of  Yahweh  Sabaoth 
who  thrones  upon  the  Cherubim^  cf.  i  S.  4*.  The  whole  clause 
however  looks  like  a  later  insertion  (We.).  —  3.  They  made  the 
Ark  of  God  ride  on  a  new  cart'\  a  new  cart  so  as  to  avoid  the 
possibility  of  defilement.  The  method  was  evidently  the  same 
used  by  the  Philistines.  The  house  of  Abinadab  from  which  they 
took  it  is  described  as  on  the  hill,  cf.  i  S.  7^  —  And  Uzzah  and 
Ahio  the  sons  of  Abinadab  were  driving  the  cart~\  the  last  word 
of  the  verse,  with  the  first  six  words  of  the  next  verse,  is  erroneous 
duplication. — 4.  The  verse  is  confused  by  the  error  just  noted, 
but  seems  originally  to  have  said  that  Uzzah  walked  by  the  side  of 
the  Ark  while  Ahio  went  before  it.  —  5.  David  and  all  the  house 
of  Israel  were  dancing  before  the  Ark'\  in  religious  exaltation,  with 
all  their  might;  atid  with  songs  and  with  harps  and  with  lyres  and 
with  drums  a?id  with  rattles  and  with  cymbals^  the  instruments 
intended  correspond  approximately  to  those  still  used.*  —  6.  They 
came  to  the  threshing-floor  of  Nachon'\  the  location  is  unknown. — 
And  Uzzah  stretched  out  his  hand  to  the  Ark  of  God  and  took  hold 
of  it  for  the  oxen  stumbled^  or  shook  it  (cf.  (§  below).  The 
stumbling  of  the  oxen  would  shake  the  cart  and  threaten  to  make 
the  Ark  fall  to  the  ground.  —  7.  And  the  wrath  of  Yahweh  was 
kindled  against  Uzzali]  as  though  he  were  affronted  by  the  action, 
and  God  smote  him  there']  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  the 
change  of  the  divine  name,  and  the  text  may  have  been  interpo- 
lated.—  And  he  died  there  in  the  presence  of  God'\  for  the  reading 
see  the  note  below.  The  question  why  Uzzah  should  be  smitten 
was  not  a  puzzle  to  the  older  commentators,  so  much  as  the  ques- 
tion why  everybody  else  was  not  involved  in  the  same  fate.  For 
the  whole  transaction  was  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Law 
which  gives  specific  instructions  for  the  transport  of  the  Ark.  The 
Ark  was  first  to  be  covered  by  the  priests  (Num.  4*'')  ;  it  was  then 

*  Some  ancient  oriental  musical  instruments  are  figured  (from  the  Assyrian 
monuments)  in  Wellhausen's  translation  of  the  Psalms  {SBOT.  N.  Y.,  1898), 
Appendix,  entitled  "  Music  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews." 


VI.  i-io  293- 

to  be  taken  up  and  carried  by  the  Levites  (4^*).  The  palpable 
violation  of  these  provisions  would  seem  to  be  a  reason  why  the 
whole  procession  should  come  to  grief.  But  the  fact  is,  as  now 
generally  conceded,  that  the  method  of  David  shows  his  ignorance 
of  the  Levitical  regulation.  Uzzah  gave  offence  by  his  too  great 
familiarity  in  laying  hold  suddenly  of  the  sacred  emblem.  This 
is  all  that  is  implied  in  the  text.  The  wrath  of  Yahweh  was  but 
momentary,  as  is  evinced  by  his  treatment  of  Obed-Edom. — 
8.  The  temper  of  Yahweh  was  reciprocated  by  David  who  was 
angry  that  Yahweh  had  brought  destruction  upon  Uzzah']  literally, 
had  broken  a  breach,  such  as  gives  a  city  into  the  hands  of  the 
enemy.  —  9.  The  unaccountable  conduct  of  Yahweh  when  David 
was  preparing  him  a  new  residence  and  new  honours,  gave  rise  to 
fear  as  well  as  anger.  David's  question  :  How  shall  the  Ark  of 
Yahweh  come  to  me .?]  is  the  expression  of  his  fear  to  have  it  come 
at  all,  not  an  inquiry  as  to  the  best  way  of  bringing  it.  — 10.  He 
was  not  willing  to  remove  the  Ark  of  Yahweh  to  the  city  of  David] 
to  the  citadel.  It  was  to  all  appearance  already  within  the  town 
of  Jerusalem.  —  He  turned  it  aside  to  the  house  of  Obed-Edom  the 
Gittite  ]  one  of  several  Philistines  in  David's  service. 

1.  Bu.  prefixes  this  verse  to  5^,  making  the  gathering  of  all  Israel  to  be  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  Jerusalem.  He  then  makes  v.2  follow  directly  on  512, 
as  though  David's  bringing  up  of  the  Ark  was  because  he  knew  that  Yahweh 
had  established  him  as  king  over  Israel.  The  present  section  however  reads 
well  as  it  stands,  the  people  of  v.^  referring  evidently  to  the  young  men  of 
Israel  of  v.^.  odm  for  ^Dx^i,  of.  Dr.  and  Schm.  —  ni;j]  is  superfluous  and 
probably  an  erroneous  insertion.  For  30,000  ®  has  70,000.  —  2.  i'?;r3D] 
would  naturally  define  the  people  with  David  as  the  burghers  of  Judah,  and 
is  so  understood  by  (S.  But  in  that  case  we  have  no  indication  of  the  place 
where  they  were  to  find  the  Ark.  That  place  is  called  by  the  Chronicler  nV^ja, 
so  that  it  is  easy  to  correct  here  to  rnin>  S^ra,  the  1  having  been  duplicated 
(We.),  or  to  mini  nS>'3.  Both  l  Chr.  13^  and  Jos.  15  identify  the  place  with 
Kirjath  Jearim.  —  Dtr  Da']  one  of  the  two  words  is  superfluous,  lacking  also  in 
®.  —  3.  n;;3J3  ns's]  is  possibly  corrupt,  as  it  seems  unnecessary  to  describe 
the  location  so  exactly,  and  it  is  omitted  by  Chr.  —  ntj;]  here  is  for  niy.  — 
I'nNi]  is  naturally  read  as  rns  or  vns.  But  it  seems  strange  that  his  brother 
should  not  be  named  as  well  as  Uzzah.  "i^ns",  as  another  form  of  in>nN,  is  a 
possible  proper  name  so  that  I  have  retained  it.  —  nrin  nSjynJ  is  an  obvious 
case  of  disagreement,  and  it  seems  clear  that  the  eye  of  the  scribe  wandered 
from  nSjj?n,  which  he  had  just  written,  to  nSjy  early  in  the  verse  so  that  he 


294  2  SAMUEL 

repeated  njoja  .  .  .  ntinn  before  he  discovered  his  mistake.  —  3'n''Nn  jns  a;*] 
makes  no  sense,  either  with  what  precedes  or  without  it.  We  are  compelled 
to  suppose  that  in  his  confusion  over  his  error  the  scribe  omitted  something. 
What  is  needed  is  simply  an  affirmation  that  Uzzah  walked  by  the  side  of  the 
Ark.  —  5.  O'B'n^  ''X>'  Vja]  is  unintelligible  —  cypress  trees  certainly  have  no 
place  here,  and  to  make  the  words  mean  with  all  manner  of  instruments  made 
of  fir  wood  (EV.)  is  to  insert  the  main  idea  into  the  text.  Nor  is  it  known 
that  fir  (or  cypress)  wood  was  used  in  the  manufacture  of  musical  instruments. 
With  most  recent  editors,  therefore,  we  should  correct  to  the  reading  of  Chr. 
—  Dn^w'3i  ly  'T'ja — the  first  two  words  occur  again  in  v.^^.  ^  has  a  double 
translation,  one  half  of  which  confirms  this  restoration,  the  other  half  consists 
of  the  words  which  represent  TjJ"'?Da  in  v.^*.  D'pjj.'ja  seem  to  be  sistra  (the 
word  is  rendered  (reicrTpois  by  Aq.  and  Sym,  according  to  Field),  instruments 
used  in  the  worship  of  Isis.  —  6.  pjj]  evidently  a  proper  name;  the  endeavour 
of  some  of  the  commentators  to  make  it  mean  indefinitely,  a  certain  threshing- 
floor,  is  not  sustained  by  usage,  nor  is  Th.'s  interpretation  fixed  or  permanent 
in  distinction  from  a  temporary  floor  used  only  for  a  particular  field  or  during 
one  season.  Whether  Nachon  is  the  correct  name,  or  whether  we  should  read 
jn^a  with  Chr.,  or  HaiSdfi  with  ®^,  cannot  be  determined.  @^  reads  Opva  rov 
'le$vaaiov,  an  evident  correction,  intended  to  make  the  Ark  select  its  perma- 
nent abode  thus  early.  —  r^a'ii]  requires  n^  pn  which  is  read  by  all  the 
versions  and  by  Chr.  (which  however  changes  the  order  of  what  follows)  but 
has  accidentally  dropped  out  of  J§.  —  iac""]  is  a  rare  word  and  the  passages 
in  which  it  occurs  throw  little  light  upon  its  meaning  here.  In  2  K.  9^  it  is 
used  transitively  of  throwing  a  person  out  of  a  window.  It  would  be  natural 
to  interpret  here  therefore  t/ie  oxen  cast  it  down.  But  the  object  would  pretty 
certainly  be  expressed  if  this  were  the  meaning.  Another  meaning  of  the 
verb  is  to  release  a  debt,  and  we  might  conjecture  that  the  oxen  slipped,  losing 
their  foothold,  Bochart  {Hierozo.  I.  II.  Cap,  37)  cites  Arabic  analogy  which 
would  make  the  verb  mean  were  mired.  @  irepiiairaaev  avrifv  seems  to  find 
the  object  expressed  —  iantf'  —  and  so  with  ^  vnu^c.  Calcitrabant  IL  seems 
to  be  a  conjecture  only. — rD^n^rxn]  after  the  nin>  expressed  above  is  superflu- 
ous,—  SbttSj;]  is  lacking  in  (5^  and  therefore  suspicious.  There  is  no  Hebrew 
word  Sb"  known  to  us :  eVl  tjj  irpoirereia  ®^ :  super  temeritate  IL :  pro  igno- 
rantia  \ :  ^"t'PU'nt  ^^  2C  seem  to  go  back  to  a  common  source  which  interpreted 
the  word  by  the  Aramaic.  The  present  tendency  (We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.)  is  to 
regard  the  phrase  as  the  mutilated  remains  of  the  words  of  the  Chronicler : 
'NH  Sy  ni  Tt>v  TJ'N  ^•;.  More  likely  they  represent  an  attempt  to  give  the 
exact  location,  now  unintelligible.  Kl.  conjectures  3^i;'n  ^>'  which  he  supposes 
to  mean  on  the  side  beam  of  the  cart  on  which  Uzzah  sat.  But  this  is  pre- 
carious,—  D'hSn  jnK  Djj]  for  which  Chr.  has  D^nSs  ^jjjS  as  has  O^.  The  latter 
is  probably  original,  for  it  would  be  more  likely  to  be  corrected  into  the  other 
phrase.  ©^  combines  the  two  readings. — 8.  xv'i]  must  be  '  impersonal ' 
as  in  similar  instances  —  one  called  the  place,  etc.  — 10.  din"i3>]  the  second 
part  of  the  name  is  probably  the  name  of  a  god,  and  the  whole  corresponds  to 


VI.   II-I6  295 

n<"i3j*.  That  the  man  was  a  Gittite,  and  therefore  a  Philistine,  is  purposely 
ignored  by  the  Chronicler,  who  takes  pains  to  enroll  him  as  a  Levite  and  put 
him  among  the  doorkeepers.  Of  course,  as  a  follower  of  David  and  a  resident 
in  the  land  of  Israel,  he  was  a  worshipper  of  Yahweh. 

11-19.  The  second  attempt. — 11.  During  the  three  months 
of  the  Ark's  sojourn,  Yahweh  blessed  Obed-Edom  and  all  his 
house"]  whether  with  riches  or  with  children  we  are  not  told, 
probably  with  both.  — 12.  The  blessing  conferred  upon  Obed- 
Edom  is  the  reason  why  David  renews  his  effort.  This  is  con- 
cealed by  the  Chronicler,  who  supposes  David  to  have  a  fixed 
purpose  during  all  the  three  months.  (^^  correctly  interprets 
when  it  inserts  :  and  David  said :  I  will  turn  the  blessing  to  my 
house.  —  13.  When  the  bearers  of  the  Ark  had  marched  six  paces'] 
and  it  was  thereby  evident  that  Yahweh  was  willing  to  go,  he 
sacrificed  an  ox  and  a  failing]  David  is  undoubtedly  the  subject. 
The  change  from  the  cart  to  the  shoulders  of  men  was  prompted 
by  the  fact  that  the  cart  had  proved  unfortunate  on  the  previous 
occasion.  This  author  shows  no  suspicion  that  the  former  was 
the  legal,  or  even  the  traditional,  method.  Practical  considera- 
tions may  also  have  weighed,  for  the  ascent  to  the  citadel  was 
probably  steep  and  possibly  winding.  There  is  no  indication  that 
more  than  one  sacrifice  was  made  during  the  progress.  — 14.  And 
David  was  dajicing]  the  word  occurs  only  in  this  passage  and 
seems  to  mean  whirling,  like  the  devotional  dancing  of  the  der- 
vishes. —  Atid  David  was  girded  with  a  linen  ephod]  such  as  the 
priests  wore,  i  S.  2'^  We  should  probably  think  of  this  as  a  strip 
of  cloth  hke  the  izar  of  the  Moslem.  Religious  vestments  are 
survivals  of  earlier  costume.  The  scantiness  of  this  dress,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  long  robe  appropriate  to  a  king,  is  the  ground  of 
Michal's  contempt.  — 15.  The  procession  continued  with  shouting 
and  the  sound  of  trumpet]  as  we  might  say  with  shouting  and 
blare.  Making  a  loud  noise  was  an  act  of  worship  as  late  as  the 
time  of  the  Psalmist.  — 16.  The  verse  is  designed  to  prepare  for 
the  scene  at  home,  v.^-.  As  it  breaks  the  thread  of  the  narrative, 
and  is  introduced  awkwardly,  it  is  perhaps  a  redactional  insertion. 
Correcting  the  opening  word,  the  verse  says  :  And  the  Ark  of 
Yahweh  was  coining  into  the  city  of  David  when  Michal  the 
daughter   of  Saul  looked  through    the   window   and  saw    King 


296  2  SAMUEL 

David  leaping  and  whirling,  and  she  despised  him  in  her  heart~\ 
the  dignity  of  a  king  had  been  no  better  observed  by  Saul  when 
he  lay  down  naked  in  the  company  of  the  prophets.  But  this  she 
chose  to  forget. — 17.  The  successful  conclusion:  They  set  the 
Ark  in  its  place,  in  the  tent  which  David  had  pitched  for  /'/] 
and  the  rites  of  sacrifice  were  observed.  — 18.  At  the  conclusion 
of  the  sacrifices  David  blessed  the  people  in  the  name  of  Yahweh'\ 
that  he  acted  as  priest  seems  evident.  — 19.  David  distributed  to 
the  people  bread,  raisins,  and  (apparently)  other  victuals. 

11.  The  conjectures  of  the  Rabbis  on  the  blessing  of  fruitfulness  conferred 
upon  Obed-Edom  are  given  by  Schm.,  p.  277.  The  Chronicler  inserts  here 
the  account  of  Hiram's  embassy,  of  David's  family,  and  of  the  preparation 
of  the  Levites  for  the  coming  procession.  — 12.  DinSsn]  +  koX  elire  Aou(5 
'E7rt(7Tp6i//w  Ty\v  evKoylav  eis  rhv  oIkov  fiov  (B^  which  is  represented  also  in  I 
(Cod.  Germ.  7  apud  Sabatier,  et  Cod.  Leg.  Goth,  apud  Vercellone),  It  may 
be  original,  having  been  omitted  by  J^  on  account  of  its  frank  egoism. — 
13.  For  the  first  clause  @  has :  and  there  were  with  him  [or  with  thettt]  seven 
bands.  The  reading  seems  to  have  arisen  by  corruption  of  |^.  — 14.  ijioc] 
the  word  occurs  only  here  and  v.^^;  Chr.  omits  it  in  his  reproduction  of  this 
verse  and  substitutes  pnu'C  for  it  at  its  second  occurrence.  It  was  either  obso- 
lete in  his  time,  or  he  thought  it  undignified.  — 15.  no]  is  omitted  by  (@^S 
and  3  MSS.  of  |^.  — 16.  n^ni]  is  certainly  the  wrong  tense,  as  the  Chronicler 
shows  by  correcting  it  to  '•hm.  Even  with  the  correction,  the  verse  reads  awk- 
wardly; it  is  unnecessary  also,  for  Michal's  remarks  are  self-explanatory  and 
the  situation  need  not  be  described  in  advance.  —  ttd":]  this  stem  occurs  here 
only,  the  Qal  in  Gen.  492*  only.  — 19.  ;:'■'}<!:'?]  is  sustained  by  some  analogous 
passages,  i  Chr.  27^8  Ex.  ii'^  Jer.  51*^2.  —  ifjcx]  is  entirely  unknown.  The 
versions  only  conjecture,  as  is  shown  by  Dr.,  and  no  suitable  emendation  has 
yet  been  suggested,  cf.  also  Lag.  Mittheilungen,  I.  p.  213  IT. 

20.  On  David's  return  to  his  house,  his  wife  Michal  greets  him 
with  the  sarcastic  exclamation :  How  glorious  was  the  king  of 
Israel  as  he  exposed  himself  to-day  to  the  eyes  of  his  servants'' 
maids  I  The  comparison  which  follows  indicates  that  it  was  inde- 
cent exposure  which  moved  her  wrath.  —  21,  22.  The  retort  re- 
minds her  of  the  fallen  fortunes  of  her  family  :  Before  Yahweh  I 
was  dancing;  Blessed  be  Yahweh  who  chose  me  above  thy  father 
and  above  all  his  house  !  The  change  in  the  text  will  be  defended 
below.  The  words  to  command  me  as  prince  over  the  people  of 
Yahweh  seem  intended  to  point  the  contrast  between  Abigail's 
appreciation  and  Michal's  contempt.     The  last  clause  of  v.^^  be- 


VI.   I6-VII.  297 

longs  with  the  following  verse  :  And  I  will  sport  before  Yahweh, 
and  will  be  yet  more  lightly  esteemed  than  this,  ajid  will  be  lowly  in 
thine  eyes.  But  of  the  maids  of  whom  thou  hast  spoken  I  shall 
surely  be  held  in  honour']  the  king  trusts  the  sense  of  the  common 
people  to  understand  his  rehgious  zeal.  As  for  Michal's  opinion 
he  does  not  value  it.  —  23.  The  natural  understanding  is  that 
the  estrangement  was  the  reason  for  Michal's  childlessness  —  not 
that  she  was  stricken  with  barrenness  by  Yahweh,  as  some  have 
supposed. 

20.  may  ninoN]  would  be  the  lowest  maidservants,  cf.  the  phrase  a  servant 
of  servants.  —  niSjj  niSjnj]  two  forms  of  the  infinite  construct.  Probably  one 
is  an  erroneous  insertion;  else  conflation  of  two  readings  has  taken  place, — 
D'pin]  is  used  of  wild  and  reckless  men  from  whom,  of  course,  decency  can- 
not be  expected.  @  seems  to  have  read  onp-in,  but  we  have  no  evidence  of 
a  class  of  dancers  in  Israel  who  could  give  point  to  such  a  comparison.  — 
21.  niH''  ^jdS]  needs  to  be  completed  by  an  affirmation  of  some  kind,  which 
we  find  in  @  which  reads :  opxriffofxai  •  fv\oyr}Ths  Kvpios.  If  this  were  original 
we  see  how  the  scribe  omitted  the  words,  his  eye  falling  upon  the  second  r\^r\> 
instead  of  the  first.  It  seems  probable  therefore  that  we  should  restore  the 
whole,  reading  n\n^  ina  ipiD  ^ojn  r\^7\>  >:o^.  The  participle  ipna  seems  the 
most  natural  form.  —  luj  tn  nisS]  cf.  i  S.  25^".  —  22.  "inSpji]  (@  reads  ••nSjji 
which  is  perhaps  original.  —  ■'J"'>'3]  read  with  (§  T'J''>J3,  for  this  alone  gives  the 
appropriate  sense.  —  23.  That  Michal  was  stricken  with  barrenness  by  God  is 
said  by  Schmid  to  be  communis  sententia.  But  there  is  in  the  text  no  indica- 
tion of  a  divine  judgment.  —  i'?'']  the  Orientals  read  nSi. 

VII.  1-29.  The  promise.  —  David  is  exercised  by  the  thought 
that  Yahweh  has  only  a  tent,  while  the  king  himself  dwells  in  a 
house.  He  lays  this  before  Nathan  with  the  evident  purpose  of 
building  a  temple,  if  the  prophet  should  approve.  The  latter  at 
first  consents  but  afterwards  is  directed  to  veto  the  plan.  But  the 
message  is  accompanied  with  a  promise  on  God's  part  to  build 
David  a  house,  that  is,  to  establish  his  dynasty  forever.  The 
conclusion  of  the  account  gives  David's  prayer  of  gratitude,  which 
becomes  a  prayer  of  intercession  for  Israel. 

The  chapter  bears  marks  of  a  comparatively  late  date.  It  shows 
what  we  know  as  the  Messianic  expectation,  which  pictured  the 
perpetual  rule  of  the  house  of  David.  But  this  expectation  was 
not  fully  formulated  until  the  time  of  the  Exile,  when  the  loss  of 
their  dynasty  made  the  pious  Israelites  value  it  the  more.   Various 


298  2  SAMUEL 

expressions  in  the  text  show  at  least  Deuteronomistic  influence,  so 
that  we  are  warranted  in  making  the  chapter  a  part  of  the  Exilic 
redaction. 

VII.  Cornill  (Ezk/^.  p.  104)  contents  himself  with  the  seventh  century  as 
the  date  of  the  chapter,  and  this  is  also  Budde's  idea.  The  former  says :  "  The 
destruction  of  the  people  and  its  dynasty  seems  to  lie  outside  the  horizon." 
But  it  is  a  question  whether  the  Exile  was  ever  regarded  by  believing  Israelites 
as  a  destruction  either  of  people  or  dynasty.  An  unequivocal  allusion  to  the 
capture  of  the  city  is  indeed  not  found.  But  some  expressions  seem  at  least 
to  hint  at  it. 

1,2.  When  David  had  taken  posse ssio7i  of  his  house"]  apparently 
the  new  one  built  by  the  Phoenicians  :  Yahweh  moreover  had 
given  hi?n  rest  round  about  from  all  his  e7iemies~\  the  circumstan- 
tial clause  indicates  that  this  author  did  not  dwell  much  upon  the 
successive  wars  which  filled  the  greater  part  of  David's  reign. 
The  verse  is  continued  immediately  by  the  following,  and  is 
incomplete  without  it  —  then  David  said  to  Nathan]  the  court 
prophet  who  appears  several  times  in  the  history.  —  /  dwell  in  a 
house  of  cedar  while  the  Ark  of  God  dwells  in  a  curtain]  the 
statement  of  the  fact  which  the  king  finds  unbecoming,  is  enough 
to  indicate  the  purpose  he  has  formed.  —  3.  The  prophet  encour- 
ages David  to  do  as  he  has  planned.  —  4.  This  was  however  not 
the  mind  of  God  :  it  came  to  pass  the  same  night  that  the  word  of 
Yahweh  cayne  to  Nathan]  the  revelation  coming  in  the  night  is 
probably  to  be  understood  as  a  dream.  —  5.  The  question  :  Shalt 
thou  build  me  a  house  to  dwell  in  ?]  is  equivalent  to  a  negative. 
It  is  so  reproduced  by  Chr.  (§S.  —  6.  The  reason  is  that  such  a 
procedure  would  be  contrary  to  precedent.  Yahweh  had  never 
dwelt  in  a  house  :  but  I  have  sojourned  in  a  tent  and  in  a  taber- 
nacle] the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  is  not  necessarily  intended.  —  7.  No 
command  had  ever  been  given  for  the  building  of  a  house  nor  had 
one  of  the  Judges  of  Israel  been  reproached  for  not  building  it. 

1.  v3VN-^3n  3'3DD  i^-R^jn]  Dt.  1 21*^  251^  Jos.  23^.  The  Chronicler  omits 
the  second  half  of  the  verse,  possibly  because  he  wishes  to  locate  the  promise 
in  the  early  part  of  David's  reign.  He  also  changes  3!:"'"i3  into  2'Z"'  tj'nd 
with  the  intention  of  making  this  the  immediate  sequel  of  the  bringing  up  of 
the  Ark.  —  2.  |.'^j]  doubtless  a  shortened  form  of  n<j-^j  or  '^njpj,  cf,  also 
^SD"|^J  2  K.  23". — 4.    nin^—\3-i  •'Hm]    i  S.  151°;   the  phrase  is  frequent  in 


VIT.  i-io  299 

Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  —  5.  nr^NnJ  nnx  n*?  Chr,  The  former  is  probably  origi- 
nal because  the  change  from  it  to  the  other  reading  is  more  probable  than  the 
reverse.  —  6.  p-'22i  VnN3]  &  renders  only  p">:'D3.  Chr.  has  Sin  Sx  Shnd 
pa*DCi  which  should  evidently  be  completed  by  adding  pra  Sn.  On  the 
whole,  it  seems  better  to  retain  the  text,  as  it  might  be  expanded  into  the 
reading  of  Chr.,  while  the  reverse  process  is  hardly  likely.  p'i'D  is  used  of 
the  tent  of  Korah,  Num.  i62'*,  and  of  the  dwellings  of  the  Bedawin,  Ezek.  25*. — 
7.  ^mai  lann]  seems  more  vigorous  if  we  point  15^^  —  Aave  I  at  all  spoken  ? 
It  is  so  rendered  by  (S.  —  '■aju']  is  to  be  corrected  to  ■'Qsr  Chr.,  for  it  was  the 
Judges  who  had  been  commanded  to  shepherd  Israel,  cf.  v.". 

8-16.  The  prophet  is  sent  with  a  message  of  promise  to  David, 
prefaced  by  a  recital  of  the  benefits  heretofore  conferred  upon 
him.  The  oracle  shows  traces  of  the  rhythmical  structure  so  fi:e- 
quent  in  prophetic  composition,  though  it  cannot  be  made  strictly 
metrical  without  emending  the  text  in  many  places.  —  8,  9.  First 
the  rehearsal  of  Yahweh's  benefits  : 

Thus  saith  Yahweh  Sebaoth 

I  took  thee  from  the  pasture 

To  be  chief  over  my  people  ; 

And  I  was  with  thee  wherever  thou  didst  go 

To  destroy  thine  enemies  before  thee. 

The  remainder  of  the  verse  does  not  fit  well  in  the  context.  As 
it  stands,  it  begins  the  promise  :  And  I  will  make  thee  a  name,  like 
the  name  of  the  great  in  the  earth.  But  it  seems  more  logical  to 
begin  the  promise  with  the  next  verse.  — 10.  The  verbs  must  refer 
to  the  future  : 

And  I  will  give  a  place  to  my  people  Israel, 

And  will  plant  them  and  they  shall  dzvell  in  their  place  ; 

And  they  shall  no  more  be  disquieted 

And  violent  t?ten  shall  no  more  oppress  them. 

So  far,  we  come  out  fairly  well  with  the  metre.  But  the  two  clauses 
now  added  :  As  in  former  times,  from  the  day  when  I  set  judges 
over  my  people  Israel,  cannot  be  forced  into  a  couplet.  It  does 
not  seem  violent  to  suppose  them  an  addition  to  the  original  text. 
The  author  of  the  verse  ignores  the  fact  that  David  had  already 
been  given  rest  from  his  enemies,  and  we  must  suppose  that  in  his 
time  the  national  existence  was  again  threatened.     According  to 


300  2  SAMUEL 

the  received  text,  the  promise  to  David  now  begins.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  make  sense  of  the  present  wording :  And  I  will  give 
thee  rest  f?'om  all  thine  enemies,  and  Yahweh  will  make  known  to 
thee  that  Yahweh  will  tnake  thee  a  house.  The  objections  to  this 
are  obvious.  The  change  of  person  is  without  motive ;  the  repe- 
tition of  the  name  Yahweh  is  superfluous ;  it  is  to  tell  this  very 
thing  that  the  prophet  has  come.  What  we  expect  is  something 
like  this  :  And  now  thus  saith  Yahweh  :  Thou  shall  not  build  me 
a  house,  but  I  will  build  thee  a  house.  For  this  is  the  point  of  the 
whole  message.  For  various  attempts  to  improve  the  text,  see 
the  critical  note.  — 12.   The  metre  changes  and  the  flow  of  the 

words  is  better : 

And  it  shall  be  when  thy  days  are  filled  out. 
And  thou  shall  lie  down  with  thy  fathers. 
That  I  will  raise  tip  thy  seed  after  thee, 
Which  shall  come  forth  of  thy  body, 
And  I  will  establish  his  kingdom. 

This  explains  the  sense  in  which  Yahweh  is  to  build  a  house  for 
David.  The  filling  out  of  one's  appointed  days  is  parallel  to  Gen. 
29'^  One's  children  cojne  forth  fro7n  his  bowels,  an  expression 
which  is  softened  by  Chr.,  but  which  occurs  Gen.  15*.  — 13.  The 
verse  alludes  to  David's  desire  to  build  a  temple,  and  promises 
that  Solomon  shall  fulfil  that  desire.  But  as  David's  seed  in  the 
preceding  verse  means  his  whole  dynasty,  and  as  the  dynasty  is 
also  the  subject  of  what  follows,  this  verse  distinctly  breaks  the 
connexion  and  must  be  regarded  as  an  interpolation.  — 14.  This 
continues  the  main  thought : 

I  will  be  to  him  a  father. 

And  he  shall  be  to  me  a  son  ; 

When  he  goes  astray 

I  will  correct  him  with  the  rod  of  men. 

And  with  stripes  of  the  sons  of  Adam. 

The  opening  words  are  apphed  to  Solomon  i  Chr.  22'"  28^  But 
the  idea  is  adopted  in  many  Messianic  passages,  as  Ps.  2,  to 
express  the  relation  existing  between  Yahweh  and  the  Messiah. 
The  rod  of  men  is  such  as  men  use  for  each  other  —  not  such  as 
the  divine  anger  would  naturally  choose,  for  that  would  annihilate 


VIT.  10-17  301 

the  object  of  the  chastisement.  — 15.   The  verse  gives  renewed 

assurances  : 

And  my  kindness  will  I  not  turn  from  him. 

As  I  turned  it  from  him  -who  was  before  thee. 

Our  text  inserts  the  name  of  Saul,  but  this  is  an  interpolation. — 
16.  The  promise  is  for  all  time  to  come  : 

Thy  house  and  thy  kingdom  shall  stand  firm, 

Forever  in  my  sight, 

Thy  throne  shall  be  established  forever. 

Cf.  I  S.  2^  25^  I  K,  2''^  — 17.  Up  to  this  point  we  have  heard 
the  commission  which  Nathan  received.  The  present  verse  simply 
adds  that  he  carried  it  out. 

-A  study  of  this  passage  in  its  relation  to  the  general  subject 
of  Messianic  prophecy  is  given  by  Prof.  Briggs  in  his  Messianic 
Prophecy  (1886),  p.  126  ff. 

8.  jNxn  nnND  nijn-|D]  @^  has  simply  e/c  rrjs  fidvSpas  rZv  irpoBaTwv.  For 
-insD  some  MSS.  have  nnvsc.  —  Sxici-Sj;]  we  should  probably  omit  S;?  with 
some  MSS.,  SH.  —  9.  inti'yi]  does  not  fit  in  the  context,  as  it  is  in  the  wrong 
tense.  It  might  be  allowed  however  to  read  the  preceding  verb  as  the  mood 
of  purpose,  pointing  nnnpNi  and  translating:  And  I  was  with  thee  in  order 
to  cut  off  thine  enemies,  and  then  to  make  this  continue  that  construction  — 
and  in  order  to  make  thee  a  7iame.  But  parallels  are  not  frequent,  and  it 
seems  simpler  to  suppose  an  expansion  of  the  original  text. — Snj]  should  be 
stricken  out  with  Chr.  ®^.  — 10.  Svsne"''?]  read  Sxitt'i  with  some  MSS.,  S.  — 
nSi^j-ija]  cf.  3'*.  — 11.  idSi]  read  jdS  with  @b_  For  ^'7  Ew.  proposes  i*?,  and 
to  correspond  makes  liar's  into  r^ix  {GV/^.  III.  p.  179,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  132). 
This  is  accepted  by  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  and  is  necessary  if  the  clause  belongs  with 
what  precedes.  But  in  the  evident  corruption  of  the  rest  of  the  verse,  this  is 
not  certain.  —  nini  ^S  i^jni]  is  difHcult.  It  can  be  understood  only  in  the 
sense :  and  Yahweh  will  tell  thee.  But  the  prophet  is  sent  for  the  purpose 
of  telling  him  now  and  the  future  is  out  of  place.  Chr.  reads  iS  njNi,  which 
(@  saw  to  be  nSiJNi,  and  I  will  magnify  thee.  This  goes  well  enough  with 
what  precedes,  but  the  transition  to  what  follows  is  awkward.  What  we 
expect  is  an  explicit  introduction  of  the  promise  on  the  part  of  the  prophet,  a 
phrase  like  and  now,  thus  saith  Yahiveh.  The  most  plausible  reading  yet  sug- 
gested seems  to  be  Bu.'s  ^S  niJD  "'jjni  with  omission  of  nin\  Even  thus  the  hurl 
seems  only  slightly  healed.  nini  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  corrupted  from  T\'>r^\ 
at  the  opening  of  the  next  verse.  — 12.  n^ni  should  introduce  the  verse  as  in 
Chr.  and  ®.  —  inSd^]  inSd  Chr.  is  equally  good,  and  perhaps  more  likely  to  be 
changed  into  our  reading  than  the  reverse.  — 13.    The  verse  is  regarded  as  a 


302  2  SAMUEL 

later  insertion  by  We.  {Co»ip.  p.  257)  and  Bu.  —  ins'^ci;  ndd]  Chr.  and  (5 
have  1ND3.  — 14.  Tiic  latter  half  of  the  verse  is  omitted  by  Chr.,  who  probably 
applied  it  to  the  Messiah  and  would  not  admit  that  he  could  go  astray.  — 
16.  niDi]  should  be  i^dn  according  to  Chr.,  (SSblL-  —  Ti-iiDn  nrN  hwv  d>'d 
TJdSd]  Chr.  has  simply  yiih  7\^'r\  irNC  and  as  we  can  think  of  no  reason  why 
he  should  hesitate  to  mention  Saul  in  this  connexion,  we  must  suppose  he 
shows  the  text  of  the  passage  as  he  read  it,  and  that  the  present  reading  is 
due  to  scribal  expansion;  @  moreover  found  i-'X":  although  it  has  v'^n^Dn. 
Three  stages  of  the  text  are  therefore  represented  in  Chr.,  @,  |^.  — 16.  ^^o''D01] 
is  supposed  by  Prof.  Briggs  to  be  an  interpolation.  —  I'Jo'^]  cannot  be  right, 
and  should  be  changed  to  ''JdS  with  (BSb  —  Chr.  changes  the  wording  of  the 
whole  verse.  —  INDd]  the  conjunction  is  prefixed  by  SIL  and  also  by  @,  which 
however  reads  his  throne  as  it  does  his  house  and  his  kingdom.  — 17.  jvrn] 
jitn  is  preferred  by  Chr. 

18.  David's  gratitude  is  shown  by  his  appearing  in  the  imme- 
diate presence  of  Yahweh.  Sitting  is  not  the  usual  attitude  of 
prayer  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  has  caused  the  commentators 
some  perplexity.  But  that  the  oriental  mind  does  not  see  anything 
inappropriate  in  it  is  proved  by  the  Mohammedan  ritual  where  it 
is  one  of  several  postures,  as  it  is  in  the  worship  of  some  orders  of 
dervishes,  and  in  that  of  the  Copts,  The  prayer  begins  with  an 
implied  confession  of  unworthiness  :  What  am  I,  and  what  is  my 
house,  that  thou  hast  brought  me  thus  far? — 19.  So  far  as  the 
verse  is  intelligible,  it  says  :  Atid  this  was  little  in  thine  eyes,  my 
Lord  Yahweh,  and  thou  hast  [now]  spoken  concerning  thy  servant 
for  distant  times.  The  remaining  clause  which  reads  :  And  this 
is  the  instruction  of  man,  O  Lord  Yahweh,  gives  no  adequate  sense 
in  the  present  connexion.  It  cannot  mean  :  and  this  is  the  man- 
ner of  man,  or :  and  is  this  the  manner  of  man  ?  Conjectural 
emendation  has  got  no  farther  than  to  show  that  the  original  may 
have  read  and  hast  shown  fne  the  form  .  .  .  .  —  20.  And  what 
shall  David  say  more  to  thee,  seeing  that  thou  knowest  thy  servant, 
O  Lord  Yahweh  ?  The  heart  of  the  worshipper  is  known  to  God 
without  much  speaking.  —  21.  To  glorify  thy  servant  hast  thou 
promised,  and  according  to  thy  heart  hast  thou  done,  in  showing 
thy  servant  all  this  greatness"]  this  translation  is  based  on  a  recon- 
structed text. '—  22.  The  author  glides  into  general  expressions  of 
praise,  not  especially  appropriate  to  David's  situation.  —  Therefore 
thou  art  great]  the  logical  conclusion  from  Yahweh's  dealings  with 


VII.  i8-29  303 

his  people.  —  23.  The  confused  sentence  seems  originally  to  have 
read  :  And  who  is  like  thy  people  Israel;  \_is  there']  another  people 
ifi  the  earth  which  a  god  went  to  redeem  for  himself  as  a  people,  to 
make  Jiimself  a  name,  and  to  do  for  them  great  and  terrible  things, 
in  driving  out  a  people  and  its  gods  before  his  people  ?  As  remarked 
by  Geiger,*  on  whom  later  scholars  depend,  the  scribes  found  even 
the  supposition  that  another  god  could  do  what  Yahweh  had  done, 
offensive  or  unthinkable,  and  so  endeavoured  to  make  the  whole 
refer  to  Israel;  hence  the  confusion.  —  24.  A  contrast  between 
Yahweh  and  the  false  gods  who  had  not  elected  a  people :  But 
thou  didst  establish  thy  people  Israel  as  a  people  for  thyself  forever] 
the  well-known  covenant  relation.  —  25.  Prayer  that  Yahweh 
would  carry  out  the  word  spoken  to  David.  —  26.  That  thy  name 
may  be  great  forever]  that  Yahweh  acts  for  his  name's  sake  is  a 
frequent  thought  in  the  later  books  of  the  canon.  —  In  that  men 
say :  Yahweh  Sebaoth  is  God  over  Israel]  seems  to  be  the  mean- 
ing of  the  next  clause,  which  however  may  be  scribal  expansion. 
—  27.  Because  of  the  revelation  made  to  him,  David  has  found 
coti7-age  to  pray  this  prayer.  —  28,  29.  The  theme  is  repeated  in 
slightly  varying  language,  an  indication  of  how  much  the  heart  of 
the  author  was  concerned  for  the  house  of  David.  —  Thou  art  God 
and  thy  words  are  faithfulness]  the  abstract  noun  for  the  adjective. 

18.  3i:"i]  the  unusual  attitude  has  occasioned  prolix  discussion  on  the  part 
of  the  commentators,  as  may  be  seen  in  Schm.  p.  350  f.  —  Tra  1D1]  cf.  I  S. 
1 818  I  chr.  29I*.  — 19.  prxyrhl  is  used  of  distant  times  in  the  past  2  K.  1926, 
here  of  distant  times  in  the  future.  —  Dixn  mm  rxti]  the  sentence  seems  to 
have  been  unintelligible  to  the  Chronicler,  who  replaces  it  with  iipd  ijn-'Xii 
nS;7Dn  aisn,  which  however  is  equally  obscure.  The  versions  seem  to  have 
no  other  text  unless  %  (Nnn)  reads  nsiD  for  mm.  The  mystery  of  the  incar- 
nation was  found  here  by  Luther :  this  is  the  manner  of  the  man  who  is  God 
the  Lord,  a  rendering  which  is  defended  by  Calov,  but  rejected  by  the  sound 
sense  of  Schm.  The  latter  scholar  however  does  not  succeed  in  his  own  ren- 
dering, nor  can  the  paraphrase  of  Grotius :  familiariter  mectun  agis  quomodo 
homines  hominihus  agere  solent  be  justified  by  Hebrew  usage.  On  the  basis 
of  the  reading  in  Chr.,  Ewald  {GVI^.  III.  p.  180,  E.  Trans.  III.  p.  132)  con- 
jectures the  text  to  have  been  rhych  dinh  iina  'jPNim,  and  hast  made  me  look 
upon  the  ranks  of  men  onwards.  But  iin  in  this  meaning  is  not  found  else- 
where, and  the  author  could  hardly  have  expressed  this  sense  in  wording  so 

*  Urschrift  und  Uebersetzungen,  p.  288. 


304  2  SAMUEL 

obscure.     We.  gets  substantially  the  same  meaning  by  restoring  nm  uN">ri 
D^NH,  and  hast  shown  me  generations  of  men.     But  it  was  not  the  generations 
of  men  that  interested  David  so  much  as  the  generations  of  his  descendants, 
and  this  he  would  have  brought  out  distinctly.     Bu.  adopts  We.'s  conjecture, 
adding  s*^;"?  of  his  own  motion  (suggested  by  n^ycn  Chr.).     Oettli  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Chr.  suggests  oiN  miP3  ''j.-i\s-\i,  und  siehst  mich  an  so  giitig  als 
■wdresl  du   meinesgleichen.     But  would   this  Hebrew  sentence  express  this 
meaning  ?     I  suspect  that  the  corruption  is  beyond  cure,  but  that  ^w-\T^  is  a 
part  of  the  original  and  that  it  was  followed  by  in.",  possibly  with  the  suffix; 
and  hast  shown  me  thy  beauty  Lord  Yahweh  would  be  appropriate  in  the  con- 
text, and  CIS"  may  be  erroneous  duplication  of  the  following  ijin.  —  21.    •\i';i 
131]  Ti3p  -\i-;2  Chr. :  5io  jhv  Sov\6v  aou  @^.     The  originality  of  -[laj,"  seems 
established,  and  Nestle  {Marginalien,  p.  16)  restores  m3i  Tia>'  n^o^?  follow- 
ing an  indication  given  by  Chr.  in  the  verse  preceding.  —  nSnjn]  as  shown  by 
Dr.,  the  word  does  not  fit  in  the  present  position,  and  I  have  adopted  his  trans- 
position  (from  Reifmann),  —  22.    r'?-'j  p"^>]   fueKtv  rod  /x(ya\v6T]vai  at  ©'' 
joined  with  the  preceding  verse.     The  reading  of  ^^  is  at  least  equally  gooii. 
—  □•'hSn  mrf]  Kupi€,  Kvpii  fiov  @  points  to  nim  ijin  which  we  find  elsewhere 
in  this  chapter.  —  23.   "^NTi^o]  "^.sn;;''  Chr.  @.     The  3  comes  from  the  end  of 
the  preceding  words,  ZATIV.  VI.  p.  212.  —  -ihn]  &k\o  ®  evidently  -inN.     For 
id'"'.!  Chr.  has  iSn  confirmed  by  the  following  iS  and  also  by  @^.     ©^  on  the 
other  hand  has  carried  through  an  emendation  reading  rd-^  and  i^. — c>~] 
D>'  Chr.  (S  and  ST.  —  zn-'^y]  cir'?  Chr.  @.  — 1''\  i"^  Chr.  and  @.  —  as^  rii:'>"'i] 
omitted  by  Chr.  —  cj'^]  pn"^  2E  with  which  agrees  IL,  whereas  5  renders  ^-. 
For  n'^njn  read  n'^nj  with  Chr. — ^x-\^<S]  cnj*?  Chr.  and  (B.  —  icy]  although 
the  authorities  agree,  must  be  changed  to  i::>".     The  next  clause  is  contained 
in  the  versions,  but  seems  to  be  an  insertion,  in  the  line  of  the  other  changes 
made.    Still  it  is  possible  that  the  original  author  at  the  end  of  his  long  sentence 
resumed  the  direct  address.  —  vn'^'Ni]   is  omitted  by  the  Chronicler,  to  whom 
the  false  gods  were  naught.     The  extent  of  the  change  made  in  the  verse  is 
shown  by  the  number  of  variants  just  given.     The  original  text  as  we  pick  it 
out  of  this  material  was:    i':'"rinDS  u-rhn  n'^n  -\v»  yina  inN  mj  Snib'^  idj;d  ^T.^ 
vnSsi  'u  iry  *JD2  c-»jS  riN-Mji  m'^ij  an*?  nitt'i'Si  db"  iS  oiu-S  c;*^.  —  24.  -\^  pi^n] 
}nni  Chr.  —  25.   r\z'•;^]  ©^  seems  to  have  read  nnp,  joining  the  clause  to  the 
following  verse.  — 26.   ©^  omits  from  "»cn^.     It  looks  as  if  the  verse  had  been 
expanded,  for  the  first  half  is  optative  while  p3J  n\ii  of  the  last  clause  can 
hardly  be  so  understood.     Is  not  this  a  case  where  the  Chronicler  made  an 
insertion  which  afterwards  affected  the  text  of  Samuel  ?  —  27.    nrN""'3]  is  lack- 
ing in  (5^.  —  n'?".nN]  is  absent  from  Chr.     The  phrase  aSTN  nxc  seems  to 
occur  nowhere  else. — 29.   T^ai  Ssin]  with  coordination  of  the  verbs,  instead 
of  subordination  of  the  second,  the  construction  found  in  i  S.  12--  and  in  the 
parallel  to  the  present  passage,  i  Chr.  172'.     Cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  83. 

Vm.  1-18.    David's  wars.  —  David  conquers  in  succession  the 
Philistines,   Moab,   Zobah,    Damascus,   and    Edom.      The   brief 


VIIT.  i-s  305 

account  of  these  wars  is  supplemented  by  a  list  of  his  officials. 
The  chapter  is  apparently  from  a  document  other  than  the  one 
which  gives  us  Ch.  10,  for  the  wars  here  enumerated  are,  in  part 
at  least,  the  same  recounted  there.  The  tone  of  the  whole  chap- 
ter is  the  tone  of  a  summary  —  the  author  would  give  us  a  brief 
sketch  of  David's  wars  and  pass  on  to  something  more  important. 

1.  David  smote  the  Philistines  and  subdued  theni\  Dt.  9^  Jd.  4^, 
of,  Jd.  3^.  The  author  adds  that  he  took  something  from  the 
hand  of  the  Philistines,  but  what  he  took  cannot  now  be  made  out 
with  certainty.  —  2.  A7id  he  smote  Moab  and  measured  them  off 
with  a  line  making  thetn  lie  down  upon  the  earth"]  two-thirds  (of 
the  males  we  may  suppose)  were  thus  put  to  death.  The  question 
as  to  the  cruelty  of  this  proceeding  seems  to  be  raised  unneces- 
sarily, when  we  consider  how  frequently  the  whole  population  was 
'  devoted '  in  war.  The  Chronicler  however  seems  to  have  had 
some  compunctions  in  this  case,  for  he  leaves  out  the  notice.  The 
tribute  afterwards  exacted  is  disguised  under  the  name  of  a  pres- 
ent, as  so  often  in  oriental  governments.  As  in  the  time  of  Mesha, 
it  probably  consisted  of  sheep  and  wool,  2  K.  3^.  This  writer 
seems  to  have  no  knowledge  of  David's  obligation  to  Moab,  as 
indicated  in  i  S.  2  2'^.  —  3.  The  next  conquest  was  that  of  Hada- 
dezer  son  of  Rehob,  king  of  Zobah]  a  small  Aramaean  kingdom  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Damascus,  cf.  i  S.  14''^  i  K.  n'-''.  Accord- 
ing to  2  S.  lo'^  the  provocation  was  given  by  Hadadezer's  aiding 
the  Ammonites  against  David.  —  When  he  went  to  lay  his  hand 
upon  the  River]  the  phrase  to  lay  hand  upon  recurs  Ezek.  38^^.  The 
River  is,  here  as  elsewhere,  the  Euphrates.  Whether  David  or 
Hadadezer  is  the  subject  is  not  clear,  but  probably  David,  The 
fact  that  David  never  actually  possessed  so  much  territory  does 
not  prove  that  this  author  did  not  believe  him  to  have  possessed 
it.  —  4.  The  original  seems  to  have  said  that  David  captured  a 
thousand  chariots  and  slew  twetity  thousand  footmen.  As  chariots 
were  of  no  use  in  the  hill  country  of  Palestine,  he  hamstrung  the 
chariot  horses,  leaving  only  a  hundred]  for  purposes  of  state  we 
may  suppose.  —  5.  Syria  of  Damascus  for  the  Syrians  of  Damas- 
cus. The  country  north  of  Palestine  seems  to  have  been  cut  up 
into  a  number  of  petty  kingdoms.     Damascus,  a  well-known  city 


306  2  SAMUEL 

of  great  antiquity,  was  always  an  important  place.  The  aid  ot  the 
Damascenes  is  given  to  Zobah  because  they  are  threatened  with  a 
common  danger.  —  6.  David  reduced  them  to  the  position  of 
tributaries,  putting  garrisons  in  their  country.  —  7.  David  took 
the  golden  shields]  the  meaning  is  not  altogether  certain,  which 
were  on  the  officers  of  Hadadezer~\  an  addition  to  the  verse  in  (§ 
identifies  them  with  those  carried  off  by  Shishak  i  K.  14^".  — 
8.  And  from  Tibhath  and  from  Berothai']  places  not  certainly 
known  to  us,  David  took  much  bronze^  copper  mines  seem  to  have 
been  worked  in  the  region  of  Lebanon,  (§  and  Chr.  add  that  this 
bronze  was  used  by  Solomon  for  the  vessels  of  the  Temple  —  an 
addition  to  be  judged  like  that  to  v.^ 

1.  riDNH  jhctin]  the  bridle  of  the  cubit  is  obscure.  From  its  being  taken 
from  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  we  infer  that  it  was  some  tangible  posses- 
sion, probably  a  piece  of  territory,  htij^i  hj  pn  Chr.  would  therefore  be  en- 
tirely in  place.  The  reason  for  suspecting  it,  is  the  difficulty  in  supposing  so 
easy  a  phrase  corrupted  into  the  reading  of  |^.  The  versions  give  no  help : 
^)]v  h.<p(i}pi<Tfxivr\v  (S,  possibly  reading  ttnjDn  or  Viajn;  Thv  xa^'»'^»'  "^ov  vSpayu- 
ylov  Aq.  points  to  the  text  we  have :  r^v  i^ovalav  rov  <p6pov  Sym.  is  the  origi- 
nal oi  frenum  trihuti  (?D3n  j.id)  IL:  npdn  ppn  ST  represents  the  tradition 
known  to  Aq. :  NCJ  PCi  S  seems  to  be  a  proper  name.  The  expositors  have 
generally  felt  it  necessary  to  find  an  equivalent  for  Gath  and  its  dependent 
towns  given  us  by  Chr.  They  have  done  this  by  making  hdn  equivalent  to  dn 
as  sometimes  used  in  Hebrew  for  a  city  {metropolis).  The  Bridle  of  the 
Metropolis  would  then  conceivably  have  been  the  citadel  which  commanded 
the  town  and  so  commanded  the  district.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  so 
figurative  a  phrase  should  be  used  in  a  prose  passage.  On  the  other  hand, 
from  the  fact  of  the  bridle  or  rein  denoting  power  (as  the  leading  string  some- 
times in  English)  some  have  concluded  that  David  is  here  represented  as  tak- 
ing the  suzerainty  from  the  hand  of  the  Philistines,  either  that  he  assumed  the 
supreme  power  over  them  or  else  that  he  threw  off  their  yoke.  Why  this  again 
should  be  so  obscurely  expressed,  it  is  impossible  to  see.  The  older  com- 
mentators are  excerpted  by  Pole.  Among  the  recent  scholars  Ewald  {GVI^. 
p.  202,  E.  Trans.  III.  p.  148)  decides  for  the  Philistine  sovereignty  over  Israel, 
which  David  wrested  from  them.  Keil  supposes  the  metropolis  to  be  meant, 
so  that  the  phrase  is  equivalent  to  Gath,  whose  king  he  supposes  to  be  over- 
lord of  the  Philistines,*  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Erdm.  whose  American 
editor  however  leaves  the  meaning  undecided.  Th.  conjectures  the  border  ; 
We.  retains   the  text,  which   he   supposes   to   mean  the  authority  over  the 

*  Isaaki  discovered  that  the  only  one  of  tlie  Philistine  cities  wjiich  had  a  king 

was  Gath. 


VIII.  5-8  307 

metropolis,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Dr.,  while  Bu.  leaves  a  blank  in  his 
text.  —  2.   ^ini^  is  put  in  the  plural  by  (5^.  —  aj^r-nj  on  the  use  of  the  ad- 
verbial infinitive  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  87.  —  Sann  nSdi]  the  contents  of  one 
line :  ©  gives  the  proportion  tMo  and  tivo,  and  3L  gives  it  one  and  one.  — 
3.  ir>mn]  Chr.  has  irimn  and  0  'ASpoa^op.     Some  MSS.  have  the  same  form 
in  this  chapter.     The  name  is  evidently  similar  to  nrjJiSN,  iTi'^s',  and  "iryv,  and 
the  first  element  is  the  name  of  the  god  Hadad.     That  it  is  Hadad  and  not 
^ao'ar  seems  evident  from  the  names  Benhadad  i  K.  15!^  and  Hadadrimmon 
Zech.  12II,  as  well  as  from  the  Aramaic  and  Assyrian  parallels.     Cf.  BDB. 
and  reff.,  especially  Baethgen,  Beitrdge  ziir  Semit.  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  67  ff., 
also  Schrader  COT.  p.  190  f.     The  god  Hadad  {Addu)  is  met  in  the  Tell-el- 
Amarna  Tablets  (Winckler,  149I*  150''),  in  Arabia  (We,  Siizzen,!!!.  p.  51), 
and  apparently  in  Edom,  Gen.  36^5.  —  am]  <g  'Poa5  QVa6.(p)  reminds  us  of 
Rahab,  Jos.  2^  and  n>2ni,  i  Chr.  23".  —  nais]  known  as  Subit  to  the  Assyri- 
ans according  to  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Altertums,  p.  347,  and  Schrader,  CO  T.  I. 
p.  171.    The  Chronicler  is  probably  mistaken  in  locating  the  battle  at  Hamath 
which  is  too  far  north.  —  it"  3'rn'^]  is  objected  to  by  Th.,  Dr.,  as  meaning 
necessarily  to  bring  back  the  hand  where  it  had  once  been.     But  the  pas- 
sage in  Ezekiel  (3812)  seems  to  show  that  it  may  denote  simply  extending 
one's  power,  for  Gog,  who  is  there  addressed,  had  not  yet  possessed  the  coun- 
tries which  he  was  expecting  to  plunder.     (S  iitia-rriaai  does  not  imply  that 
the  translators  read  a'-sn':'  with  Chr.,  cf.  Is.  i'^^  (g_  —  •\t\ii'\  is  sufficiently  explicit 
without  the  addition  of  mij  (^r^,  Chr.  and  (5).  —  4.   D^'i:nD  niNn-;'ari  r^^'\ 
as  the  chariots  are  alluded  to  immediately  after,  it  is  probable  that  they  were 
mentioned  here.     Chr.  and  @  agree  in  dtia  o^b'?n  nyati'i  aai  ri'?N,  the  first 
part  of  which  meets  the  requirements  of  the  case.     The  7000  horses  or  horse- 
men are  out  of  proportion  to  the  chariots,  so  that  probably  the  text  is  corrupt. 
It  is  surprising  that  if  David  took  the  foot  soldiers  prisoners  we  should  not 
be  told  what  he  did  with  them,  which  is  another  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
original  text  is  lost,     ipv  as  in  Arabic :  he  cut  the  hock  tendon  of  an  animal 
thus  making  it  useless  for  riding.  —  aann]  must  here  mean  the  chariot  horses. 
—  5.    Nam]  the  country  is  thought  of  as  feminine.  —  6.   Diasj]  cf.  i  S.  13^. — 
7.  ^taSa']  x^'ScDx/as  @  would  apparently  make  them  bracelets  or  armlets.    None 
of  the  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs  can  be  said  to  be  decisive,  but  the 
identification  in  @  with  the  D''JJ0  of  i  K.  1426  would  favour  shields.    In  Ez.  27II 
the  same  word  is  rendered  by  (g  quivers  which  Symmachus  has  in  the  present 
text,  whereas  Aquila  has  here  collars,  cf.  Field's  note,  Hexap.   Origenis,  I. 
p.  558.  —  *?«]   read  *?>'.  —  aS^'ni]  -|-  koX  eKaffeu  avra  ^ovaaKelfi  kt\.  nearly  all 
MSS.  of  @  and  I.     The  addition  is  in  line  with  some  other  notes  which  have 
found  their  way  into  the  text  of®,  and  is  probably  not  original.  —  8.   naan] 
Chr.  rnaan :  <S^  MarsSa/c   (of  which  (§B  MaaffaK  is  probably  a  corruption) 
seems  to  confirm  the  reading  of  Chr.  —  •'mam]  pam  Chr. :  «al  e'/c  twv  (k\(ktwv 
©  perhaps  reading  ninani.     The  name  here  reminds  us  of  Beirtit.  —  nsc] 
-I-  -IJI  D'-fiN  nnSr  HB'j?  na  Chr.,  contained  also  substantially  in  ®  and  I.     The 
interest  of  the  Chronicler  in  all  things  that  pertain  to  the  Temple  accounts  for 


308  2  SAMUEL 

lu.s  insertion  of  the  sentence,  ami  it  lias  probalily  come  from  Chronicles  into 
the  Greek  of  Samuel. 

9.  Tou,  king  of  Hamath'\  an  important  city  on  the  Orontes, 
probably  capital  of  the  Hittite  kingdom.  — 10.  Hadoram  his 
son'\  seems  to  be  the  more  probable  form  of  the  name.  The 
dignity  of  the  ambassador  shows  the  degree  of  honour  paid  by  the 
mission.  —  To  greet  David  atid  to  congratulate  him']  for  his  suc- 
cess, for  Hadadezer  had  been  an  enemy  of  Ton]  probably  seeking 
to  establish  an  independent  kingdom  in  a  country  once  tributary 
to  Hamath.  The  ambassador  brought  an  appropriate  present  of 
jewels  and  objects  of  art.  —  11.  These  also  the  king  dedicated  to 
Yahweh']  quite  in  accord  with  antique  custom.  — 12.  Frotn 
Edoni\  is  probably  to  be  read.  The  other  countries  named  in 
the  verse  we  have  already  met. 

9.  V'"']  with  Chr.  we  should  probably  read  i;'p  :  (5^  ®ovov.  Thou  IL;  but 
0oe£  @^  — 10.  onrj  in  which  the  first  element  might  be  the  name  of 
Yahweh.  Chr.. however  has  ainn  and  (5  'USSoupai'  which  confirms  Chr.  to  a 
certain  extent,  for  ©^  has  'iSoupad/j.  in  Chr.  —  lyn  nranSc  B'''n]  cf.  ^.~c^'^a  la'jN 
Is.  41I2  (Ezek.  27^*^  is  different).  — 11.  dj]  indicates  that  other  things  had 
been  spoken  of  as  dedicated,  which  is  not  the  case  in  our  narrative.  It  is  not 
unlikely  therefore  that  this  and  the  following  verse  are  a  late  insertion  (Bu.). 
—  12.  2-ind]  ai-iNC  Chr.  and  @S  besides  11  MSB.  of  |§.  As  Aram  is  covered 
by  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  and  as  Edom  belongs  with  Moab  and  Ammon, 
we  should  correct  the  text  here  accordingly.  The  fact  that  the  conquest  of 
Edom  is  narrated  later,  is  only  another  evidence  that  these  verses  are  an  inser- 
tion from  another  document. 

13.  The  verse  is  obscure,  and  as  the  Chronicler  makes  the  first 
part  of  it  refer  to  Abishai  instead  of  David,  we  cannot  be  sure 
what  he  read.  That  the  account  refers  to  Edom  seems  quite  cer- 
tain. By  slight  emendation  we  may  get :  And  David  made  a 
name  on  returning,  in  that  he  smote  Edom,  in  the  Valley  of  Salt] 
the  location  is  brought  into  connexion  with  Edom  again  in  2  K. 
14"  Ps.  60^.  — 14.  The  treatment  of  Edom  was  the  same  as  that 
of  Aram.  The  remark  that  Yahweh  delivered  David  wherever  he 
went  is  evidently  intended  to  conclude  this  account  of  his  wars. 

13.  iniann  ntio]  but  the  reputation  was  not  made  on  his  return  but  by  the 
smiting.  ®  connects  Dir  in  tt';'ii  with  what  precedes  and  then  goes  on :  koi 
ev  T(f  avaKaniTTtiv  ainhv  iitdra^fi'  =  nan  na'31.  The  difficulty  in  supposing 
this  to  be  original  arises  from  the  simplicity  of  nsn  which  could  hardly  be  cor- 


VIII.  9-i8  309 

rupted  into   iniann.      I  suspect  therefore  that  we  should  read  iniona  ns'J. 
Others  have  conjectured  that  a  clause  has  fallen  out  after  din.     Gratz  {Gesck. 

I.  p.  255)  makes  a  conflate  text  from  this  and  the  Chronicler.     Th.  inserts 
ons  PN  -yy  which  is  adopted  by  Erdm.  and  Keil,  cf.  also  Kohler  {Gesch.  AT. 

II.  p.  288)  who  calls  this  the  common  hypothesis.     We.  adopts  the  reading  of 
®.  —  d-in]  read  anx  with  Chr.  @<S,  6  MSS.  of  |§. 

15-18.  The  administration.  —  David  himself  acted  as  chief 
executive  and  constantly  admitiistered  judgment  and  justice  to  all 
his  people.  In  connexion  with  what  follows  this  can  mean  only 
that  David  acted  as  chief  justice,  and  was  accessible  to  the  people 
as  a  monarch  should  be.  — 16.  Joab  was  over  the  army,  and 
Jehoshaphat  son  of  Ahiludwas  the  Recorder\  hardly  the  Chronicler 
who  wrote  the  annals  of  the  reign ;  more  likely  the  king's  Monitor 
who  kept  him  informed  of  the  course  of  public  business.  — 
17.  The  priests  here  mentioned  are  evidently  regarded  as  officers 
of  the  court.  Zadok  is  not  mentioned  earlier,  but  Abiathar,  whose 
name  we  should  read  in  the  second  place,  was  the  companion  of 
David's  wanderings,  i  S.  22^.  Sousa  seems  to  have  been  the 
name  of  the  scribe.  — 18.  Ajid  Benaiah  son  of  Jehoiada  was  over 
the  Cherethites  and  the  Felethites']  that  is,  the  body-guard.  —  And 
David's  sons  were  priests']  there  seems  no  reason  to  change  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  word. 

16.  noTc]  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  cf.  Jacob,  "  Beitr'dge  zu  einer  Bin- 
leitung  in  die  Psalmen,"  ZATW.  1897,  P-  76.  — 17.  \^m  is  called  here  "p 
aita^ns.  Possibly  the  genealogy  is  based  on  the  succession.  We.'s  conjecture, 
which  leaves  Zadok  without  a  father,  is  not  supported  by  any  document.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  transposition  of  -\n>3N-p  i^Dins  which  however  seems 
necessary,  for  Abiathar  acted  as  priest  until  the  reign  of  Solomon.  —  iSd'-hn] 
I^D^aN  Chr.  is  perhaps  based  on  the  difficulty  just  noted.  —  n>ii:']  'Ao-a  ©B; 
Sapaiay  (gi^ :  N^a*  20^5  (where  we  find  '\y\aovs  (5^ ;  2oi/(ra  ®L)  .  j^^.,.;,  i  c^r. 
18I6.  The  reading  nb-w  accounts  most  naturally  for  all  the  variations.  Per- 
haps we  should  make  the  next  word  nsion.  — 18.  ■'msni]  read  with  the  paral- 
lel •'•?.-\-:,r[  Sj7.  ®  in  order  to  make  sense  inserts  avfx&ovXos.  The  endeavour  to 
retain  the  received  text,  by  taking  1  in  the  sense  of  ay  (Kimchi,  Schm.),  is 
unsuccessful.  The  Cherethites  are  known  to  us  as  Philistines  from  i  S.  30'*. 
The  Pelethites  who  are  mentioned  only  in  connexion  with  the  Cherethites 
cannot  be  certainly  identified.  That  they  constituted  the  body-guard  of  the 
king  is  apparently  the  mind  of  the  Targum  which  translates  archers  and 
slingers.  Cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  VII.  n,  8.  The  Rabbinical  expositors  show  their 
lack  of  historical  sense  when  they  find  here  the  Sanhedrim  or  the  Urim  and 


310  2  SAMUEL 

Thumniim  (Isaaki  ancl  Kimchi  cite  this  from  our  Rabbis  but  do  not  themselves 
approve  it).  More  excusable  is  the  theory  of  Jewish  expositors  that  two  clans 
of  Israelites  are  intended  (Isaaki,  Kimchi,  LbG.).  But  i  S.  30^*  Ezek,  25^^ 
Zeph.  2^  seem  conclusive  as  to  the  Philistines.  We  hear  also  of  Gittites  in 
David's  service,  and  the  custom  of  enlisting  foreigners  for  the  king's  body- 
guard has  prevailed  down  to  recent  times  in  many  countries,  for  obvious 
reasons.  —  aijnj]  the  traditional  exegesis  has  difficulty  in  supposing  David's 
sons  to  be  priests  in  the  proper  sense,  for  by  the  Levitical  code  none  could  be 
priests  except  descendants  of  Aaron.  For  this  reason  the  Chronicler  changes 
his  text,  substituting  "I'^cn  t''?  a■'J!:^s^.-l.  Cf.  also  auAapx"'  <5-  l>iit  there  is  no 
reason  for  departing  from  the  plain  meaning  of  our  text. 

IX.-XX.  David's  court  life.  —  We  come  now  to  a  homogene- 
ous and  continuous  narrative  of  David's  experiences  from  the  time 
when  he  was  firmly  settled  on  the  throne  until  near  the  close  of  his 
life.  The  author  is  evidently  well  informed  and  has  an  interest  in 
presenting  the  history  without  bias.  That  he  was  not  very  remote 
in  time  from  the  events  which  he  narrates  is  evident.  The  unity 
and  integrity  of  the  section,  except  some  minor  interpolations,  is 
generally  conceded. 

IX.  1-13.  David's  fidelity  to  Jonathan.  —  David  inquires 
whether  Jonathan  has  left  any  children.  He  learns  of  one  son 
whom  he  brings  to  court  and  makes  his  companion,  besides  re- 
storing to  him  the  family  property. 

1.  The  opening  of  the  verse  is  lost,  or  misplaced.  Perhaps  it 
should  be  taken  from  7^ :  //  cavie  to  pass  when  David  ivas  estab- 
lished in  his  house,  that  he  said :  Is  there  left  of  the  house  of  Saul 
any  to  whom  I  may  show  kindfiess  for  the  sake  of  Jonathan  ?  The 
question  is  as  appropriate  after  the  death  of  Ishbaal  as  after  the 
revenge  of  the  Gibeonites.  —  2.  Information  is  sought  from  a 
seniant  of  the  house  of  Saul,  apparently  a  feudal  dependent,  whose 
name  was  Ziba.  —  3.  The  king  puts  the  question  even  more  dis- 
tinctly than  at  first :  Is  there  not  a  tnan  belonging  to  the  house  of 
Saul?"]  and  he  avows  his  object  more  distinctly  :  that  I  may  show 
the  kindness  of  God'\  that  to  which  he  was  bound  by  his  solemn 
engagement,  cf.  i  S.  20".  Ziba  informs  him  of  a  son  of  Jonathan 
who  was  lame.  —  4.  To  the  king's  further  question  Ziba  says  that 
he  is  in  the  house  of  Machir  son  of  Atnmiel,  in  Lo- Debar']  a  man 
of  wealth  and  prominence,  as  we  gather  from  i  f'.   The  place  was 


IX.  i-i,?  311 

beyond  the  Jordan,  probably  not  far  from  Mahanaim.  —  5,  6.  In 
response  to  the  king's  command  Meribbaal'\  on  the  name  see  the 
note  on  4*,  came  to  David  and  fell  upon  his  face"]  the  customary 
act  of  obeisance.  —  7.  Meribbaal  has  reason  to  fear,  but  is  re- 
assured by  David,  who  not  only  gives  a  general  promise  of  kind 
treatment,  but  a  specific  one  :  /  will  restore  to  thee  all  the  latid  of 
Saul  thy  father']  whether  this  property  was  in  possession  of  David 
as  successor  in  the  kingdom,  or  whether  it  had  been  seized  by 
some  one  else,  we  are  not  told.  Besides  this,  Meribbaal  was  made 
a  member  of  the  king's  household  :  thou  shall  eat  at  my  table  con- 
tinually'] this  special  mark  of  favour  is  the  more  noteworthy  on 
account  of  Meribbaal's  physical  imperfection.  —  8.  The  recogni- 
tion is  sufficiently  humble  to  satisfy  even  an  oriental :  What  is  thy 
servant  that  thou  shouldst  turn  thy  face  to  a  dead  dog  such  as 
1  am  ?]  the  man  had  doubtless  been  made  to  feel  that  he  was  a 
useless  member  of  the  family,  and  was  all  the  more  grateful  for 
kind  treatment.  —  9,  10.  David  arranges  that  Ziba  shall  cultivate 
the  land  and  bring  its  produce  to  Meribbaal  for  his  support  — 
presence  at  court  would  rather  increase  than  diminish  his  ex- 
penditure. The  extent  of  the  estate  is  indicated  by  the  force 
needed  to  cultivate  it  —  Ziba's  fifteen  sons  and  twenty  servants. — 
11.  Ziba  promises  to  obey  all  that  the  king  commands.  The 
second  half  of  the  verse  cannot  be  correct  as  it  stands.  It  seems 
originally  to  have  been,  in  the  form  preserved  by  @,  the  author's 
concluding  remark  :  So  Meribbaal  ate  at  David'' s  table  like  one 
of  the  sons  of  the  king. 

12,  13.  The  verses  seem  to  be  an  appendix,  giving  further 
information  as  to  the  line  of  Saul.  It  was  represented  by  Merib- 
baal's son  Micha.  The  glossator  feels  that  he  must  again  assure 
us  that  Meribbaal  ate  continually  at  the  king's  table  though  he  was 
lame  in  both  feet. 

1.  By  an  ingenious  conjecture,  Kl.  prefaces  this  chapter  with  21'-",  and 
this  is  adopted  by  Bu.,  so  that  in  his  edition  we  read  the  account  of  the 
famine  and  the  consequent  vengeance  of  the  Gibeonites  on  the  house  of  Saul, 
and  then  the  story  of  David's  remembrance  of  his  obHgation  towards  Jonathan. 
At  first  view  this  seems  natural,  and  the  impression  is  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  an  unusual  p  nnN  at  the  end  of  21^*  which  is  easily  made 
JD  'HN  in>i  and  appropriately  introduces  9I.     But  on  reflection  the  probability 


312  2  SAMUEL 

of  this  being  the  original  order  is  reduced.  It  seems  doubtful  whether  David 
would  wait  until  the  evidently  late  date  of  21  before  making  inquiry  for  the 
family  of  Jonathan.  Budde,  in  order  to  his  theory,  is  obliged  to  strike  out  21^ 
which  otherwise  seems  entirely  in  place.  Finally,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
21I-14  if  it  were  ever  the  prelude  to  this  chapter  came  to  be  dislocated.  For 
these  reasons  it  is  not  safe  to  accept  the  reconstruction  here  in  mind;  and  we 
are  compelled  to  seek  another  connexion  for  this  chapter.  By  striking  out 
the  insertions  from  another  document  we  find  g^  following  immediately  on 
623.  At  the  first  blush  this  seems  not  to  be  appropriate.  David's  quarrel  with 
Michal  would  seem  to  stir  up  any  but  good  thoughts  towards  the  house  of 
Saul.  On  the  other  hand  we  must  remember  that  the  author  may  have  in- 
tended to  show  that  the  foolish  words  of  a  woman  could  not  make  David 
forget  his  obligations  to  Jonathan.  And  it  would  be  psychologically  probable 
that  the  unsympathetic  behaviour  of  Michal  should  recall  the  contrasted  char- 
acter of  Jonathan  her  brother,  and  so  put  David  on  the  thought  of  Jonathan's 
family.  If  this  be  the  original  order,  it  is  probable  that  the  opening  phrase 
of  7,  inoa  i^cn  3!^^  13  in^i  once  formed  the  introduction  to  the  present  sec- 
tion. —  2.   Ti3y]  it  is  not  necessary  to  add  the  pronoun,  as  is  done  by  (§^.  — 

3.  o^hSn  iDn]  cf.  niH'  ion  i  S.  2oi'*.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  the  meaning  to 
be  kindness  such  as  God  shoius.  More  probably,  it  is  the  kindness  imposed  by 
God  in  the  obligation  of  the  oath.  At  the  end  of  this  verse,  Bu.  inserts  4*'' 
which  gives  the  cause  of  the  lameness.  It  is  doubtful  however  whether  the 
verse  ever  stood  here,  as  the  brevity  of  Ziba's  answers  seems  characteristic.  — 

4.  13T  1*?]  Aa5a;8ap  ^,  is  called  in  17-'  13t  n'^  and  (as  it  appears)  in  Jos. 
132'' is  called  ■\3i'^.  —  6.  nr3i£30]  4*.  The  mutilation  of  the  name  has  been 
already  commented  on.  —  mptr-ii]  in  (g^  placed  before  '?i3n.  —  8.  ^jn'^r]  i  S. 
20^^  cf.  Jud.  i''  and  Moore's  note.  — 10.  T'J^N'p'?]  eis  rhv  oIkov  tov  Kvpiov 
ffov  (3^  is  an  attractive  emendation;  with  it  goes  kuI  (fidyovTai  for  i^DvSi.  By 
adopting  this  we  avoid  the  awkwardness  of  |^.  That  the  family  of  Meribbaal 
should  eat  of  the  produce  of  his  land  is  quite  in  order.  — 11.  The  sentence 
ui  nsra'DOi  is  entirely  unintelligible  as  a  part  of  Ziba's  response  to  the  king. 

The  change  of  •'V^Z'  to  mensam  tuam  made  by  some  MSS.  of  IL  would  allow 
us  to  interpret  it  as  a  part  of  Ziba's  answer.  But  in  his  mouth  it  is  wholly 
superfluous.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  restore  the  reading  of  ©^^  s'n-l  r^y 
TpaiT{(r]s  AavflS  (toi)  ^acriXeuis  <3^),  and  regard  the  sentence  as  a  remark  of  the 
author.  Such  a  remark  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  the  account,  and  what  fol- 
lows must  be  an  afterthought.  — 12.  no-'d]  the  spelling  makes  it  difficult  to 
suppose  the  name  contracted  from  in^oT.  It  seems  to  be  of  the  same  form 
with  t<3'i  V.2,  cf.  also  n-cj?  2o2S.  Jastrow  (/BL.  XIII.  p.  112)  cites  Jerome's 
suggestion  that  the  name  signifies  humilitas,  from  •\^r:.  — 13.  -\  ^r^Z'  noo  Nini] 
the  fact  that  we  have  a  change  from  o^Sjt  n^j  of  v.^  is  additional  evidence  that 
these  two  verses  are  a  later  addition. 

X.-XII.    The  Ammonite  war   and   David's   adultery.  —  On 

occasion  of  a  change  in  the  throne  of  Ammon,  David  sends  an 


X.  1-4  313 

embassy  to  the  new  monarch.  Their  reception  is  anything  but 
agreeable,  and  the  insult  offered  in  the  ambassadors  to  their 
monarch  is  naturally  followed  by  war.  The  war  is  made  more 
serious  by  the  engagement  of  the  Syrians  on  the  side  of  Ammon. 
Joab  successfully  repulses  the  Syrians  and  lays  siege  to  Rabbath 
Ammon.  David  remains  in  Jerusalem,  where,  under  sudden 
temptation,  he  commits  adultery  with  the  wife  of  Uriah,  one  of 
the  knights  of  his  army.  In  order  to  conceal  his  crime  he 
sends  for  Uriah,  and  after  consulting  him  about  the  state  of  the 
army,  sends  him  to  his  house.  Uriah  however  refuses  to  indulge 
in  luxuries  not  suited  to  a  soldier,  and  twice  spends  the  night  in 
the  open  air.  The  straits  into  which  David  is  brought  lead  him 
to  order  the  indirect  murder  of  Uriah.  His  commands  are  car- 
ried out  by  Joab,  and  he  takes  Bathsheba  as  his  wife.  The  birth 
of  her  son  is  followed  by  a  visit  from  the  prophet  Nathan,  who 
rebukes  David  for  his  sin  and  announces  the  punishment.  In 
truth  the  son  born  of  adultery  is  taken  ill,  lingers  awhile  and  dies. 
The  author  also  tells  us  of  the  birth  of  Solomon  from  the  same 
mother.     The  siege  of  Rabba  is  concluded  by  David  in  person. 

The  section  is  suspected  of  expansion  in  the  Nathan  speeches, 
and  shows  some  indications  of  compilation  from  two  sources. 

X.  1-5.  The  insult. — '^a\\2ii\\,  king  of  the  Children  of  Amman, 
is  the  same  we  have  met  above,  i  S.  1 1^  As  we  do  not  know  the 
length  of  Saul's  reign,  nor  at  what  time  in  the  reign  of  David  his 
death  took  place,  it  is  impossible  to  predicate  extraordinary  length 
of  his  life.  —  2.  David,  recognizing  what  Nahash  had  done  for 
him,  sent  to  condole  with  Hanun  concerning  his  father.  Possibly 
Nahash,  as  an  enemy  of  Saul,  had  given  aid  to  David  in  his  early 
struggles.  —  3.  The  princes  of  Ammon,  with  Bedawish  scorn  for 
the  peasant  king,  provoke  the  suspicions  of  their  chief:  Dosf  thou 
think  that  David  is  honouring  thy  father  that  he  has  sent  bearers 
of  condolence  ?  The  interested  motive  is  found  in  the  office  of 
these  messengers  as  spies.  David's  treatment  of  Moab  and  Edom 
gave  colour  at  least  to  the  suspicion  of  his  ambitious  designs.  — 
4.  With  the  lack  of  seriousness  so  often  seen  in  a  youthful  prince 
(as  in  the  case  of  Rehoboam)  Hanun  was  ready  to  act  upon  these 
suspicions.     He  took  the  vcitssQngQxs  and  shaved  half  their  beard'\ 


314  2  SAMUEL 

the  person  of  an  ambassador  should  be  inviolate.  Moreover  the 
beard  is  held  in  especial  honour  in  the  East :  and  cut  their  robes 
in  tivo  to  their  buttocks'}  the  long  flowing  robes  of  the  ambassa- 
dors were  thus  reduced  to  less  than  decency  required.  —  5.  The 
news  reached  David  and  he  judiciously  advised  them  to  remain  at 
Jericho,  the  frontier  city,  until  the  growth  of  their  beards  should 
allow  them  to  return  without  being  subject  to  annoyance. 

1.  pnj;  ''ja  iSd]  the  Chronicler  prefixes  vm  which  we  should  certainly 
expect  at  the  beginning  of  the  account.  Chr.  (19^)  on  the  other  hand  omits 
pjn.  It  seems  to  me  the  name  is  required  in  both  cases.  (5  however  has  the 
same  text  with  J^.  —  2.  ti3N-'?n]  r^N  S^' Chr.  is  more  in  accord  with  usage, 
cf.  Jer.  16'^.  —  3.  Is  David  honouring  thy  father  in  thine  eyes  P'\  the  meaning 
is :  Does  it  seem  to  thee  that  David  is  doing  this  for  his  alleged  purpose  ?  On 
the  participle,  Dr.  Tenses^,  §  135,  4. —  ivn-.-ix  ipn  •\^T;2']  as  the  fortified 
city  was  of  great  importance,  it  is  here  put  in  the  foreground.  Chr.  makes  a 
general  reference  to  the  land. — 4.  Instead  of  half  their  beards,  ®  puts  their 
beards.  —  animnfip]  the  shameful  nakedness  of  captives  is  described  in  the 
term  ns'"ii3it:'n  Is.  20*.  —  5.  onjiyi]  the  regular  consecution  after  the  impera- 
tive, Davidson,  Syntax,  §  55  a. 

6-14.  The  opening  of  the  war.  —  The  Ammonites  saw  that 
they  had  made  themselves  of  bad  odour  with  David']  as  we  readily 
conceive.  —  They  therefore  hired  the  Syrians  of  Beth  Rehob]  a 
city  in  the  Lebanon  (Antilebanon)  region,  Num.  13^^,  near  Dan 
Jd.  18^.  Zobah  is  known  to  us  from  8^  It  is  possible  that 
Hadadezer  was  originally  mentioned  in  this  verse  as  he  is  there. 
Maacah  another  small  kingdom  in  the  same  region,  Dt.  3"  Jos. 
13".  Tob  is  probably  the  country  mentioned  in  Jd.  11^,  but  has 
not  been  identified. — 8.  The  Ammonites  formed  their  order  of 
battle  before  the  gate  —  we  naturally  suppose  the  gate  of  Rabbah 
—  while  the  Syrians  drew  up  by  themselves  ifi  the  open  country'] 
Joab  was  thus  between  two  fires.  —  9.  Discovering  this,  he  felt 
that  the  defeat  of  the  Syrians  was  the  important  point,  and  with  a 
picked  force  he  threw  himself  upon  them.  — 10.  The  bulk  of  the 
army  he  put  under  the  command  of  Abishai,  and  they  drew  up 
facing  the  Children  of  Ammon.  — 11,  12.  Joab  encourages  his 
brother  with  the  promise  of  mutual  help,  and  exhorts  him  to  show 
himself  strong  for  the  sake  of  our  people  and  for  the  cities  of  our 
God]    the  latter  phrase  is  unusual.  — 13,  14.   The  plan  was  that 


X.  4-14  315 

Joab  should  make  the  first  attack  while  Abishai  held  the  Ammon- 
ites in  check.  The  onset  was  successful ;  the  Syrians  fled  :  The 
Ammonites  saw  that  the  Syrians  had  fled,  and  they  fled  and 
entered  the  city']  they  had  kept  a  place  of  retreat  open.  The 
conclusion  of  the  verse  :  A7id  Joab  returned  from  the  Ammonites 
and  came  to  Jerusalem]  marks  the  close  of  this  campaign. 

6.  •^^\•^^y  wn^j]  cf.  i  S.  13^.  i  Chr.  196  substitutes  im-i  a;?  lU'Nann.  Moore 
{Judges,  p.  399)  conjecturally  identifies  Belh  Rehob  with  Paneas.  The  fact 
that  Hadadezer  is  mentioned  in  v.^^  without  any  introduction  favours  Budde's 
theory  {RS.  p.  250)  that  he  was  originally  named  in  this  verse,  and  further 
probabihty  is  given  by  the  mention  of  the  king  ol  Maacah.  —  31a]  can  hardly 
be  Taiyyibeh  in  Gilead  (GASmith  and  Buhl).  The  small  number  of  troops 
sent  from  Maacah  leads  We.  to  suppose  t:"N  qSx  to  be  an  interpolation  and 
he  thus  gets  the  king  of  Maacah  ajid  hhtob.  Kl.  makes  a  further  change  by 
striking  out  the  conjunction,  and  so  finds  the  name  of  the  king  to  be  Ishtob, 
There  seems  however  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  text.  The 
Chronicler  makes  the  unheard-of  force  of  32,000  chariots  and  the  king  of 
Maacah  and  his  people.  He  also  adds  that  the  allies  came  and  camped  before 
Medeba  which  is  adopted  without  sufficient  reason  by  Kl. ;  v.^  is  decidedly 
against  it.  —  7.  anajn  Nasn"'?^]  we  might  perhaps  allow  the  apposition  :  the 
army,  the  heroes.  But  this  is  an  unusual  construction,  and  here  especially 
suspicious  because  all  the  army  naturally  means  the  militia  in  distinction  from 
the  veteran  force  of  an^J.  Chr.  has  annjn  sax  Sd  which  is  evidently  intended 
for  all  the  army  of  heroes,  though  the  punctuators  perversely  read  N3X.  ©^  also 
has  irag-ai'  rrjv  <npaTia.v  rwv  Swaruv  with  which  agree  SCIL.  I  suspect  how- 
ever that  either  N3xn  or  an^jn  is  a  later  insertion.  Gratz  conjectures  N3xn 
Qn3jni.  The  subsequent  account  shows  that  more  than  the  standing  army 
was  engaged.  —  8.  lyii-n  nns]  •\'';ri  nno  Chr.  (3^.  Such  substitutions  are  not 
uncommon. — 9.  '?Niu'''a  nina]  the  construct  before  a  preposition  undoubt- 
edly occurs,  Davidson,  Syntax,  28,  R.  i,  but  as  the  Chronicler  has  Ssnii'ij  tina 
it  seems  proper  to  correct  our  text  accordingly.  (S^  seems  to  point  to  •'J3  ima 
'?Nia'i  whereas  ©^  renders  Snii:'^  mn3.  — 10.  i'.ion]  here  only,  in  Samuel. — 
Ti^jm]  the  plural  is  found  in  Chr.  and  (S^,  but  is  not  necessary.  It  would 
be  proper  in  English  also  to  say  Abishai  drezv  up  before  the  Ammonites. — 
12.  irn-x  nj,']  occurs  nowhere  else  and  is  inappropriate  here,  for  the  cities  of 
Yahweh  were  not  in  danger.  There  is  ground  therefore  for  Kl.'s  conjecture 
(adopted  by  Bu.)  that  the  Ark  of  our  God  originally  stood  here.  The  Ark 
went  with  the  army  on  a  subsequent  campaign  as  we  know.  — 13,  14.  The 
account  is  very  brief  and  was  probably  once  fuller. 

15-19.  A  second  campaign.  —  Our  present  text  contains  the 
account  of  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Syrians  to  retrieve  them- 
selves.    The  paragraph  breaks  the  sequence  of  the  narrative  how- 


3l6  2  SAMUEL 

ever,  and  is  possibly  from  another  source.  There  seems  no  room 
for  it  in  the  time  at  our  disposition,  and  the  bringing  in  of  the 
Syrians  ff-om  beyond  the  river  shows  a  conception  of  the  situation 
different  from  anything  we  have  met  above. 

15,  16,  The  consciousness  of  defeat  caused  the  Syrians  to  take 
joint  measures  —  they  gathered  together,  and  Hadadezer  sent  and 
brought  out  the  Syrians  beyond  the  River']  the  Euphrates  is  meant. 
The  face  of  the  narrative  indicates  that  his  authority  extended 
into  Assyria,  unless  we  suppose  that  he  simply  applied  for  assist- 
ance to  the  king  of  that  country.  —  They  cafne  to  Helam]  the 
place,  which  is  mentioned  again  in  the  next  verse,  is  unknown.  — 
17.  David  musters  all  Israel  and  takes  the  offensive.  — 18,  The 
result  was  a  decisive  defeat  for  the  Syrians.  It  is  difificult  to 
suppose  that  the  clause  he  slew  seven  hundred  chariots  is  original, 
though  perhaps  it  may  be  justified  by  the  analogy  of  8*  where 
David  is  said  to  have  hamstrung  all  the  chariots.  The  enormous 
number  of  40,000  horsemen  is  suspicious,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  this  author  does  not  speak  of  footmen  at  all,  while  Chr. 
has  7000  chariots  and  40,000  footmen.  — 19.  This  verse,  by  speak- 
ing of  all  the  kings,  servants  of  Hadadezer,  implies  that  Hadadezer 
was  chief  ruler,  having  subject  monarchs.  This  is  in  contradiction 
to  8*  where  his  sovereignty  is  limited  by  the  kingdom  of  Hamath. 
—  They  ?nade  peace  with  Israel]  cf.  Jos.  10^ 


u.  4 


15-19.  The  later  insertion  of  the  paragraph  is  affirmed  by  Winckler  (  Gesck. 
Israels,  p.  139).  More  exactly,  he  believes  that  \}^^  joins  directly  to  v.^*. — 
16.  The  presence  of  Hadadezer,  which  has  not  been  intimated  before,  is 
another  argument  for  the  separate  origin  of  the  paragraph.  The  current 
editions  of  the  text  have  Hadarezer  here,  as  in  Chr.  But  the  Mantua  edition 
of  1742  (with  the  Minchath  Skai),  Baer,  and  Ginsburg  have  Hadadezer  as 
elsewhere  in  Samuel.  —  aSin]  rendered  their  army  by  Thenius  is  doubtless  the 
same  proper  name  which  occurs  just  below  —  so  @SE.  If  Cornill  is  correct 
in  restoring  the  same  name  in  Ezek.  471'',  it  was  on  the  boundary  line  between 
the  territories  of  Hamath  and  Damascus.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
identified  by  Hoffmann  {Ph'dn.  Inschriften,  p.  39)  with  Aleppo  (Haleb).  For 
nair  Chr.  has  •\t,yi.\  — 17.  hdnSh]  a  different  spelling  of  the  name.  It  is 
omitted  by  Chr.  — 18.  jidm]  the  objects  of  this  verb  seem  always  to  be  things 
that  have  life  —  the  vine  Ps.  78*^  is  no  exception.  The  7000  chariots  of  the 
Chronicler  are  in  line  with  some  other  exaggerations  of  his.  —  ^s-\r'"nN  ic'^B'ii] 
as  in  Jos.  lo^  •*,  whereas  Chr.  substitutes  oy  for  hn,  like  i  K.  22*^.     The  clause 


X.  15-XI.  5  317 

and  they  feared  to  deliver  the  Ammonites  seems  superfluous  after  the  Syrians 
have  become  subject  to  Israel,  and  was  possibly  the  original  conclusion  of  v.i*. 

XI.  1-5.  David's  sin.  —  The  author  has  enclosed  the  account 
of  David's  sin  between  portions  of  the  history  of  the  Ammonite 
war,  1 1*  being  continued  by  12-^  The  time  and  the  circumstances 
agree  so  well,  that  we  must  suppose  him  to  follow  the  actual  order 
of  events. — 1.  The  time  seems  to  be  fixed  at  a  year  after  the 
embassy  to  Hanun.  The  return  of  the  season  was  a  fitting  time 
to  refresh  the  king's  memory  of  the  insult.  Joab  and  the  army 
therefore  laid  waste  the  Ammonites  in  the  well-known  method  of 
oriental  warfare,  where  the  growing  crops  are  eaten  off  by  the 
invaders.  The  campaign  in  this  case  was  more  than  a  raid,  for 
the  Israelites  laid  siege  to  Rabba  the  chief  city  of  Ammon.  The 
ruins  (or  town,  it  has  recently  received  a  Circassian  colony,  ac- 
cording to  GASmith,  Geog.  p.  20)  still  bear  the  name  Am?nan  ; 
cf.  Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria,  p.  356  ;  Baedeker,  Palestine^, 
p.  185  f  The  site  is  about  twenty  miles  east  of  the  Jordan,  east 
by  north  from  Jericho.  The  siege  of  a  walled  town  was  a  tedious 
matter,  so  that  David  can  hardly  be  blamed  for  remaining  at 
Jerusalem.  —  2.  One  afternoon  David  aj-ose  from  his  siesta  and 
ivalked  on  the  roof  of  the  palace']  which,  being  on  the  highest 
point  of  the  city,  commanded  a  view  of  the  courts  of  the  sur- 
rounding houses.  Thence  he  saw  a  woman  bathing.  —  3.  To  his 
inquiry  ofie  said :  Is  not  this  Bathsheba,  daughter  of  Eliam']  ac- 
cording to  23^*  he  was  a  son  of  the  well-known  Ahitophel ;  the 
wife  of  Uriah  the  Hittite'\  one  of  the  foreigners  in  David's  service. 
—  4.  David  sends  for  her  and  gratifies  his  passion,  _/^r  j^^  was 
cleansed  frojn  her  impurity\  the  remark  is  added  to  show  why 
conception  followed.  —  5.  She  relied  upon  the  king  to  find  a  way 
out  of  the  difficulty, 

1.  a^aNScn]  is  vocalized  as  though  it  were  DiD'^Dn  and  so  read  by  Chr. 
(i  Chr.  20^)  and  the  versions.  The  clause  is  then  supposed  to  mean  eo 
tempore  quo  sclent  reges  ad  bella  procedere  IL.  But  if  this  be  the  meaning,  it 
is  obscurely  expressed,  for  the  ad  bella,  which  gives  the  point,  is  not  repre- 
sented in  ^.  The  interpretation  seems  especially  unfortunate,  in  that  the 
example  of  David  shows  that  kings  did  not  regularly  go  out  to  war,  but  some- 
times sent  their  armies.  We  might  suppose  indeed  that  there  is  a  covert  con- 
demnation of  David  for  not  doing  as  kings  (on  this  theory)  usually  do.    But  this 


3l8  2  SAMUEL 

seems  far  fetched.  The  supposition  of  Kimchi  therefore  claims  attention  which 
is  that  the  time  designated  is  the  season  of  the  year  when  the  kings  [of  Syria  J 
made  their  invasion.  If  however  we  go  so  far,  it  is  better  to  accept  the  Kiib 
a'3N'?Dn  and  understand  at  the  season  of  the  year  when  the  messengers  of  David 
first  went  forth.  This  interpretation  was  suggested  by  Gratz  Q  Gesch.  d.  fuden, 
I,  p.  254)  and  is  adopted  by  Kl.  —  2.  nstt'D  "?>•):]  it  is  assumed  that  he  usually 
took  an  afternoon  sleep.  —  ■i'?nnM]  Gen.  3*.  —  Bathsheba  is  called  in  i  Chroni- 
cles, 3^  Sn'-dp  r\i  Vi8'"n3,  where  the  3  has  been  softened  into  1,*  and  the  two 
elements  of  the  name  Z'p^v.  have  been  transposed.  —  nniN]  we  naturally 
interpret  the  name  as  meaning  Yahweh  is  my  light.  If  that  be  the  sense,  we 
may  suppose  that  the  Hittite  adopted  a  new  name  or  modified  his  old  one,  on 
entering  David's  service.  On  such  names,  cf.  Jastrow,  fBL.  XIII.  p.  122. — 
4.  npNCDO  ncipna  n^ti]  cannot  mean  and  she  purified  herself  by  ablution  after 
coition,  which  would  require  'V-\pT\^^^.  The  participle  indicates  what  had  just 
been  accomplished  by  the  bath  at  her  house  —  ritual  cleansing  after  the  peri- 
odic sickness  (Isaaki,  Kimchi),  That  such  a  time  was  favourable  to  concep- 
tion was  known  to  the  Arabs  at  an  early  day,  cf.  WRSmith,  Kinship,  p,  276. 
The  conceit  of  the  Rabbis  that  David's  men  divorced  their  wives  before  going 
on  a  campaign,  is  a  device  to  minimize  David's  guilt. 

6-13.  The  attempt  at  concealment.  —  David  sent  to  the  army 
for  Uriah.  —  7.  And  when  Uriah  came,  David  asked  about  Joab 
and  the  army  and  the  war,  as  if  he  had  sent  for  him  in  order 
to  be  informed  about  the  campaign.  —  8.  At  the  end  of  the 
interview,  David  commands  :  Go  to  thy  house  and  wash  thy  feet'] 
refresh  thyself  after  thy  journey.  —  And  there  followed  him  a  por- 
tion from  the  king]  Gen.  43''^.  —  9.  But  Uriah  lodged  at  the  gate 
of  the  palace  with  his  lord's  servants,  that  is,  the  body-guard. — 
10,  11.  Uriah,  on  being  questioned,  gives  the  chivalrous  answer : 
The  Ark  and  fsrael  and  Judah  are  camping  in  booths,  and  my 
lord  Joab  and  my  lord's  servants  are  camping  in  the  open  fields, 
and  I  should  go  to  my  house  to  eat  and  to  drink  and  to  lie  tvith  my 
wife!  The  statement  of  the  supposition  is  enough  to  show  its 
absurdity.  But  he  adds  his  oath.  It  is  altogether  probable  that 
women  were  taboo  to  soldiers  in  active  service,  1  S.  21^  This  is 
the  only  intimation  that  the  Ark  was  carried  in  David's  campaigns, 
but  from  the  fact  that  the  priests  start  to  carry  it  in  the  train  which 

*  On  the  other  hand  it  is  possible  that  pic,  which  we  find  in  some  other  proper 
names,  is  the  original  form  ;  notice  Shua,  Abishua,  Elishua,  and  fehoshua.    These  . 
names  seem  to  indicate  that  >'iir  was  the  name  of  a  divinity,  and  this  would  account 
for  the  change. 


XI.  6-21  3^0 

leaves  Jerusalem  at  Absalom's  invasion,  taken  in  connexion  with 
this  passage,  we  may  infer  that  the  practice  was  not  uncommon.  — 
12.  Another  attempt  must  be  made,  so  Uriah  is  kept  another  day. 
— 13.  This  time  the  king  invited  him  and  he  ate  in  his  presence 
and  drank,  so  that  he  tnade  him  drunk^  in  the  hope  that  the  wine 
would  cause  him  to  forget  his  resolution.  But  the  sturdy  soldier 
was  not  so  to  be  overcome  :  In  the  evening  he  went  out  to  lie  on 
his  couch  with  the  sohiiers']  egregius  sane  miles  et  constantissimus 
(Schm.). 

6.  After  3nv~Ss  ©  inserts  -i::nS  perhaps  correctly,  though  the  presumption 
is  in  favour  of  the  shorter  text.  —  7.  ncnVcn  D1'7^^'S1]  seems  a  little  odd.  But  it 
shows  how  Di^tr  had  taken  a  very  wide  meaning.  —  8.  iScn  nscc]  the  king^s 
present  in  this  case  was,  no  doubt,  a  dish  from  the  royal  table.  —  9.  '^ii]  lack- 
ing in  ©^,  is  superfluous.  — 10.  Uriah's  house  lay  at  a  lower  level  than  that 
of  the  king,  hence  his  going  down  to  it  is  spoken  of.  — 11.  pidd]  are  rude 
shelters,  huts  or  booths,  made  of  branches  of  trees.  For  an  instance  of  devo- 
tion among  Mohammed's  followers  similar  to  that  of  Uriah,  1  may  be  allowed 
to  refer  to  my  Bible  and  Islam,  p.  19.  —  itrflj  ■'m  I'n]  is  tautological,  and 
perhaps  one  of  the  phrases  is  an  error  for  nn>  ^n. —  12.  mncci]  is  by  most 
recent  expositors  connected  with  what  follows,  in  agreement  with  @k  But  I 
cannot  see  the  necessity.  Only  two  nights  are  spoken  of.  The  principal 
meal  was  in  the  evening,  as  we  gather  from  v.^.  There  is  no  reason  why 
David  should  not  invite  Uriah  that  day.  — 13.  n1|->m]  continues  the  narrative 
without  pause:    Uriah  remained  ...  and  the  kiitg  invited  him. 

14-27.  The  murder.  —  Despairing  of  accomplishing  his  object, 
David  plans  the  death  of  Uriah.  — 14,  15.  He  writes  a  letter  in 
which  he  commands  Joab  :  Set  Uriah  in  face  of  the  heaviest  fight- 
ing and  retreat,  leaving  him  in  the  lurch,  that  he  may  he  smitten 
and  die.  — 16.  Joab,  in  posting  the  besiegers,  set  Uriah  where  he 
knezv  there  were  valiant  men']  according  to  the  command  given. 
— 17.  A  sortie  was  made  and  there  fell  sotne  of  the  soldiers  of 
David,  and  Uriah  the  Hittite  died  also]  the  device  was  successful 
at  the  first  attempt.  — 18,  19.  Joab  sends  a  verbal  report.  He 
anticipates  that  the  general  news  will  not  be  pleasing  to  the  king. 
Possibly  the  king's  prudence  had  before  this  come  into  conflict 
with  Joab's  rashness.  —  20,  21.  Joab  is  made  to  put  a  somewhat 
extended  speech  in  the  mouth  of  David,  which  reflects  the  opinion 
of  the  narrator  rather  than  that  of  Joab  or  of  David.  There 
seems  no  reason  to  suppose  however  that  the  verse  is  a  later  inter- 


320  2  SAMUEL 

polation.  Our  author  may  well  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
story  of  Abimelech,  which  belongs  to  one  of  our  oldest  documents. 
The  example  of  his  death  may  have  been  proverbial  among  He- 
brew soldiers,  and  have  given  a  rule  concerning  the  attack  on 
walled  towns.  These  are  only  possibilities,  but,  so  far  as  they  go, 
they  favour  the  originality  of  *'*.  Did  not  a  woman  throw  a  mill- 
stone upon  him  from  the  wall?  cf.  Jd.  9^.  Joab  realizes  that  the 
news  of  Uriah's  death  will  appease  the  king  and,  according  to  ^, 
takes  no  special  care  to  disguise  the  fact  from  the  messenger.  (©^ 
has  here  the  whole  of  the  messenger's  reply  as  given  in  ^'^  which 
does  in  fact  disguise  the  main  point ;  see  the  critical  note.  — ■ 
22.  The  text  of  ^  has  been  shortened  to  avoid  repetition.  This 
is  in  accordance  with  the  taste  of  a  later  time.  The  older  writers 
did  not  hesitate  to  repeat  themselves.  Restore  therefore  in  accord- 
ance with  #  :  And  the  messenger  of  Joab  went  to  the  king  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  came  and  told  David  all  that  Joab  commafided  him,  all 
the  7iews  of  the  war.  And  David'' s  anger  burned  against  Joab, 
and  he  said'\  there  follow  the  exact  words  anticipated  by  Joab, 
which  need  not  be  repeated.  —  23.  The  reply  of  the  messenger: 
The  men  were  bold  against  us  and  came  out  to  us  in  the  f  eld,  and 
we  drove  them  back  to  the  entrafice  of  the  gate.  —  24.  Continuation 
of  the  account :  The  soldiers  of  David  in  the  heat  of  the  pursuit 
came  within  range  of  the  archers  on  the  wall,  and  there  died  of 
the  king's  servants  about  eighteen  tnen,  atid  also  thy  servajit  Uriah 
the  Hitfite  is  dead"]  thus  expressed,  the  mention  of  Uriah  comes 
quite  naturally,  as  he  was  a  prominent  soldier.  The  eighteen  men 
are  given  in  only  one  recension  of  (§,  but  seem  to  be  original.  — 
25.  David  is  relieved  by  this  statement,  and  he  commands  the 
messenger  to  encourage  Joab  :  Let  not  this  7natier  displease  thee, 
for  the  sword  devours  thus  and  thus'\  so  we  must  translate  on  the 
ground  of  Jd.  18*  i  K.  14^.  The  meaning  seems  to  be  :  now  one 
afid  now  another  falls,  so  that  this  is  only  the  common  experience. 
At  the  end  of  the  verse  the  received  text  has  and  strengthen  him, 
that  is,  eticourage  Joab.  The  word  is  possibly  a  scribe's  after- 
thought.—  26.  The  woman  observed  the  usual  period  of  mourn- 
ing for  her  husband.*  —  27.   As  soon  as  this  was  over,  David  sent 

*  Seven  days  according  to  Schwnllv,  7.4  TW.  i8q2   t:;3. 


XI.  2I-XII.  321 

and  brought  her  to  his  house,  and  she  became  his  wife.  Marriage 
very  soon  after  the  death  of  a  consort  is  common  m  the  East,  so 
that  this  haste  did  not  violate  the  conventions.  The  case  of  Abi- 
gail is  similar.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  :  But  the  thing  which 
David  had  done  was  evil  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh  belongs  with  what 
follows. 

16.  i3n]  here  apparently  used  like  ijp.  But  the  original  may  have  been 
Nan  (Kl.)  :  eiffd-yaye  @^.  —  16.  niDB'j]  not  in  observing  the  city,  but  itt  keep- 
ing guard  over  it,  which  \iz.%  the  work  of  the  besiegers.  We  hear  nothing 
of  battering-rams  or  mines,  so  that  we  conclude  the  city  was  to  be  reduced  by 
starvation.  —  n^pn'^N]  i^jnTiN  which  is  found  in  some  MSS.  seems  better,  but 
'H-Sy  would  be  better  still.  —  21.  ncai^J  another  instance  of  the  mutilation 
of  a  name  because  it  contained  the  word  Baal.  ©^  has  'lepo0od\  which 
©2  has  corrupted  to  'Upo^od/x.  —  msNi]  Instead  of  the  brief  reply  Uriah  also 
is  dead,  (S^  inserts  here  the  whole  explanation  of  the  situation  as  given  in 
-•^-  2< :  (he  tnen  -were  bold  against  us,  etc.  The  case  is  similar  to  that  in  v.-^, 
where  (S  inserts  David's  speech  as  Joab  expected  him  to  make  it.  The  argu- 
ments for  the  originality  of  the  phis  here  seem  to  be  the  same  as  there,  except 
that  the  outward  attestation  is  weaker.  On  the  whole  the  probability  seems 
to  be  on  the  side  of  ^^.  —  22.  For  ix'^sn  :  6  ^1776^0?  '\wh.&  nphs  rov  ^acrtAta 
(Is  'IfpovffaKrifj.  @.  —  2Nv]  irdura  ra  prt/xara  tov  iro\e/j.ou.  Kal  fdv/iaidri  AaudS 
wpbs  'ludB  kt\.  (3.  The  genuineness  of  this  additional  matter  is  recognized 
by  Th.,  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Kl.,  Ki. — 23.  ir'?;?  nai]  can  hardly  be  so  strong  as 
prevailed  over  us.  The  garrison  had  made  a  sally.  That  they  had  mustered 
up  courage  to  do  this  is  the  point  of  the  story.  —  3^^'^;?  nvnji]  seems  to  mean 
we  drove  them  back  :  trvvrjAdaafjiev  (3^\  Possibly  the  original  reading  was  dif- 
ferent, but  if  so  it  cannot  certainly  be  recovered.  We  should  expect  at  least 
onnnN.  —  24.  o^N-^icn  in"im]  confusion  of  nt  and  n-c,  cf.  Ges.  ^6,  75  rr. — 
"]?Dn  na>r:]  @^  adds  iffti  dySpes  Se/ca  Kal  oktic.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  any 
one  should  insert  the  words  if  they  were  not  original,  while  a  scribe  who  was 
concerned  with  the  fate  of  Uriah  alone  might  leave  them  out.  —  25.  -13it?n] 
grammatically  the  nominative  to  ;j-i^ ;  but  the  speaker  has  in  mind  the  logical 
force  of  the  phrase,  in  which  -i3in  is  the  object  of  the  emotion  indicated  in 
the  verb,  Ges.  26,  117/,  Davidson,  Syntax,  72  7?  4.  —  inprmj  comes  in  awk- 
wardly after  the  command  to  Joab,  and  is  lacking  in  iS^^  as  well  as  a  number 
of  MSS. 

XII.  l-15a.  The  rebuke  of  Nathan.  —  The  prophet,  being  sent 
to  David  by  Yahweh,  puts  his  conduct  before  him  by  recounting  a 
feigned  case  of  trespass.  David  is  convicted  of  sin  and  professes 
repentance.  He  is  assured  of  forgiveness,  but  at  the  same  time 
the  evils  which  are  to  come  upon  him  for  his  sin  are  predicted. 


322  2  SAMUEL 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  piece  is  of  the  same  origin  with  what 
precedes  and  follows.  If  we  leave  it  out,  we  get  a  very  good  con- 
nexion, joining  ii^''  directly  to  la^***:  The  thing  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  Yahweh,  and  Yahweh  smote  the  child  which  the  wife  of 
Uriah  bore  to  David.  There  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  supposing 
that  the  early  narrative  was  content  with  pointing  out  that  the 
anger  of  Yahweh  was  evidenced  by  the  death  of  the  child.  A  later 
writer  was  not  satisfied  with  this,  but  felt  that  there  must  be  a 
specific  rebuke  by  a  direct  revelation.  It  is  possible  also  that  the 
incident  of  Nathan  has  itself  been  worked  over,  as  will  be  seen  in 
the  course  of  the  exposition. 

1.  Nathan  appears  ostensibly  with  a  case  for  the  king's  judg- 
ment, a  flagrant  case  of  oppression  of  the  poor  by  the  rich.  — 
2,  3.  The  rich  man  had  many  sheep  and  cattle,  but  the  poor  man 
had  nothing  but  one  little  ewe  lamb  which  he  had  bought;  he  fed 
it  and  it  grew  up  with  him  and  with  his  children']  such  pet  lambs 
are  frequently  seen  in  the  houses  of  the  poor  in  Syria.  //  used  to 
eat  of  his  morsel  and  drink  of  his  cup  and  lie  in  his  bosom]  the 
preciousness  of  the  single  pet  made  it,  in  fact,  like  a  daughter.  — 
4.  The  occasion  of  the  tragedy  was  the  coming  of  a  traveller. 
The  duty  of  hospitality  is  imperative.  But  the  rich  man  spared 
his  own,  and  took  the  lamb  of  the  poor  man  and  prepared  it  for 
the  man  who  had  just  come]  similar  cases  were  doubtless  common 
enough,  and  a  part  of  the  king's  work  is  to  judge  the  cause  of  the 
oppressed.  —  5.  The  statement  of  the  case  was  enough  :  By  the 
life  of  Yahweh  the  man  that  did  this  is  worthy  of  death]  it  does 
not  appear  that  David  would  actually  sentence  him  to  death,  i  S. 
20^^  26'^  —  6.  And  he  shall  restore  the  lamb  sevenfold]  reading 
with  (§». 

1.  pj]  ^S  and  3  MSS.  of  |^  add  NOjn.  The  insertion  of  such  explicative 
words  is  generally  secondary,  but  at  the  opening  of  this  section  the  word 
seems  necessary.  After  i*^  ©^^  adds :  'A7ra776iAoi'  8?)  /toi  t^v  Kpiaiv  ravTtji', 
which  is  represented  also  in  I,  whence  it  passed  over  into  many  MSS.  of  IL. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  the  sense  (as  is  affirmed  by  Kl.)  and  can  be  explained 
as  a  scribe's  insertion,  though  it  is  adopted  by  Ew.  and  Kl.  —  ii'N"»]  another 
case  of  irregular  insertion  of  s. — 2.  i^ry'^]  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  for 
this  punctuation;  the  article  is  necessary  to  the  sense,  as  we  see  from  C'l";:!  of 
the  next  verse.  —  3.  n»nM]  as  in  Is.  7^1.  —  'tonh]  the  tense  in  this  and  the  two 
following  verbs  expresses  customary  action. — 4.    l^n]  as  We.  points  out,  the 


XII.  I-I4  323 

parallel  is  close  to  the  use  of  our  word  vtsU —  there  came  a  visit  to  the  rich 
man.  — -\^Z'■;T^  iv^n-']  there  are  cases  enough  of  the  anarthrous  noun  in  such 
a  phrase  to  justify  the  punctuation.  —  nii';-'?]  the  same  verb  is  used  of  Abra- 
ham's preparing  a  calf  for  his  guests,  Gen.  i8^.  —  6.  D\ij?a"\N]  tTrr airXaaiova 
(gB  al._  jhe  change  to  |^  was  made  to  bring  David's  ruling  into  line  with  the 
law  of  theft,  Ex.  2i3^  (Th.).  — Sdh-nS  itt-N  "^i'l]  Schill  proposes  (ZATIF.  XI. 
p.  318)  to  change  n'?  to  ^'^,  making  the  sense:  and  spared  his  own.  The 
received  text  however  seems  to  make  fairly  good  sense. 

7.  The  application  :  Thou  art  the  mati]  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
tinctness (§  adds  who  has  done  this.  But  the  shorter  text  is  more 
vigorous.  The  following  speech  sets  forth  the  obligation  imposed 
by  Yahweh's  benefits.  David  was  the  rich  man.  —  8.  I  gave  thee 
thy  master's  house  and  thy  master's  ivives  into  thy  bosom']  we  have 
no  other  indication  that  David  possessed  the  harem  of  Saul.  But, 
according  to  the  law  of  succession,  they  were  his  by  right.  And 
if  this  were  too  little  I  would  add  as  much  again]  the  reference  is 
evidently  to  the  wives,  first  from  the  form  of  the  pronoun,  secondly 
because  it  was  the  abundance  in  wives  which  formed  the  contrast 
between  David's  wealth  and  Uriah's  poverty.  —  9,  10.  Why  hast 
thou  despised  Yahweh]  the  giver  of  so  much  good,  in  doing  that 
which  was  evil  in  his  eyes]  Yahweh  is  the  protector  of  the  op- 
pressed. The  logical  ending  of  the  question  is  the  last  clause  of 
v.^" :  and  hast  taken  the  wife  of  Uriah  the  Hittite  to  be  thy  wife  ? 
This  is  the  crime  that  is  set  forth  in  the  parable.  The  present 
text  has  been  expanded  by  a  double  reference  to  the  murder 
of  Uriah,  and  by  the  threat  that  the  sword  shall  not  turn  from 
David's  house  forever,  an  inappropriate  prediction.  — 11.  The 
prophetic  discourse  takes  a  fresh  start,  denouncing  a  punishment 
in  kind  :  /  will  take  thy  7vives  before  thine  eyes  and  will  give  them 
to  thy  neighbour]  the  evident  reference  is  to  Absalom's  conduct 
in  taking  possession  of  his  father's  concubines.  — 12.  The  pun- 
ishment should  be  as  public  as  the  crime  had  been  secret. — 

13.  David,  convicted  by  the  prophet's  presentation,  confesses  his 
guilt.  He  is  assured  :  Yahweh  has  ca^ised  thy  sin  to  pass  away] 
it  is  misleading  to  translate  has  forgiven.  The  sin  rested  upon 
David  and  would  work  death  for  him.  Yahweh  took  it  away  so 
that  he  should  not  die,  but  it  wrought  the  death  of  the  child. — 

14.  Nevertheless,  because  thou  hast  scorned  Yahweh  in  this  thing, 


324  2  SAMUEL 

the  child  that  is  born  to  thee  shall  surely  die  J  the  text  has  been 
altered  to  avoid  reading  an  offensive  expression.  — 15*.  The 
visit  of  Nathan,  or  rather  the  account  of  it,  is  concluded. 

7.  B"Nn]  5  Ttoiijaas  tovto  is  added  by  ®.  —  nin>  iCN-nj]  Bu.  supposes  these 
words  with  what  follows  to  the  word  uv^  in  v.^,  to  be  a  later  expansion,  so 
that  the  original  connexion  was :  TAou  art  the  man  !  Uriah  the  Hittite  hast 
thou  slain.  But  this  spoils  the  parable.  It  was  not  the  murder  that  was  the 
point  of  the  parable,  but  the  rape  of  the  neighbour's  darling.  It  is  indeed 
explicable  that  this  should  be  lost  sight  of  in  a  measure  when  the  author  inter- 
poses a  rehearsal  of  Yahweh's  benefits.  Had  he  proceeded  at  once  to  the 
specification  of  the  crime,  he  would  have  put  the  adultery  in  the  foreground. 
But  while  this  accounts  for  the  order  of  the  clauses  in  the  text,  it  would  not 
justify  omission  of  the  adultery  from  the  accusation.  —  8.  "IU"»n  potn]  to. 
irdvra  tov  Kvpiov  aov  (5^:  ^nn  PJ3  S.  It  is  possible  that  there  was  originally 
a  reference  to  Michal,  the  daughter  of  Saul,  as  is  supposed  by  Kl.  —  no"nx 
miHM  "jNTi"]  as  njn^  at  the  end  of  the  verse  palpably  refers  to  the  wives  of 
David,  there  is  strong  reason  to  think  that  ^  has  here  preserved  the  original 
reading,  the  daughters  of  Israel  and  Judah.  David  had  not  been  slow  to  take 
of  these  as  wives  and  concubines.  Geiger  classes  this  among  the  intentional 
changes  of  the  scribes,  and  We.'s  protest  seems  to  be  based  on  modern  rather 
than  ancient  feeling.  —  9.  '"  13t  pn]  probably  we  should  read  '"  pn  with  ©^ 
and  Theodotion  (Nestle).  At  the  conclusion  of  the  speech  we  expect  the 
crime  which  is  set  forth  in  the  parable  to  be  most  prominently  mentioned. 
The  received  text  gives  however :  Uriah  thou  hast  slain  with  the  s%vord,  his 
wife  thou  hast  taken  as  thy  wife,  and  him  thou  hast  slain  with  the  sword  of 
the  Ammonites.  This  is  confusing  from  its  double  mention  of  the  murder,  as 
well  as  its  reversal  of  the  true  order.  As  the  next  verse  comes  back  to  the 
crime  with  the  emphasis  upon  the  rape,  I  suspect  that  verse  to  have  preserved 
to  us  the  original  ending  of  this  one  in  the  words  'iJi  r^'^r^^,  which  would  be  the 
proper  continuation  of  v.^  after  iji>'3.  — 11,  12.  The  punishment  here  threat- 
ened does  not  seem  to  be  within  the  plan  of  the  original  author  of  this  section. 
He  saw  the  punishment  of  David's  sin  in  the  death  of  the  child.  This  was 
inflicted  even  after  David's  repentance.  It  is  surprising  therefore  that  after 
the  repentance  this  punishment  (Absalom's  insult)  should  not  be  alluded  to. 
Either  it  also  should  be  made  a  part  of  the  exemplary  chastisement,  or  it 
should  be  remitted.  The  inconsistency  of  the  present  recension  is  obvious, 
and  I  suspect  that  vv.i^-  ^^  are  a  later  insertion.  The  original  train  of  thought 
dealt  somewhat  mildly  with  David :  he  had  indeed  taken  his  neighbour's 
wife,  and  by  his  own  judgment  deserved  death;  but  his  repentance  secured  his 
reprieve;  the  sentence  was  commuted  to  the  death  of  the  child.  This  was  too 
mild  for  a  later  editor,  who  worked  over  ^^'^  as  already  shown.  — 14.  psnj 
piH'  "jwpn]  The  verb  nowhere  means  cause  to  blaspheme.  The  only  sense 
appropriate  here  is  indicated  by  the  •'jpra  of  v.i'\     The  insertion  of  ow  was 


XII.  14-24  325 

made  to  prevent  repetition  of  an  apparently  blasphemous  phrase  in  the  public 
reading   (Geiger,  L'tschrift,  p.  267),  cf.  a  similar  instance  i  S.  Z'^. 

15^-25.  The  death  of  the  child.  —  The  well-known  account 
needs  but  little  comment.  As  already  indicated,  the  half  verse  ^^"^ 
seems  to  have  joined  originally  to  i  \"  :  Yahvveh  was  displeased 
with  the  thing  which  David  had  done,  and  striate  the  child  .  .  . 
and  it  becaine  sick.  — 16.  David  does  not  show  any  indication 
that  the  doom  of  the  child  had  been  pronounced  by  the  prophet : 
David  besought  God  for  the  boy  arid  fasted  strictly]  the  afflicting 
oneself  was  to  move  the  pity  of  Yahweh.  During  all  the  time  of 
the  illness,  he  came  in  cund  lay  on  the  earth]  we  naturally  suppose 
in  sackcloth  as  (§^  reads,  and  we  naturally  suppose  also  that  it  was 
before  Yahweh,  though  this  is  rendered  doubtful  by  v.-**.  17.  His 
courtiers,  the  elders  of  his  house,  stood  over  hitn  as  he  lay  on  the 
ground  to  raise  him  up]  the  Sheikhs  of  the  family  naturally  had 
large  influence  with  the  king.  —  18.  On  the  seventh  day  the  crisis 
of  the  disease  was  reached,  and  the  child  died.  —  And  the  officers 
of  David  were  afraid  to  tell  him]  by  a  very  natural  course  of 
reasoning  :  how  shall  we  say :  the  child  is  dead,  so  that  he  will 
do  some  harm  ?]  something  desperate,  as  we  may  paraphrase.  — 
19.  The  effect  was  not  what  they  anticipated  :  David  saw  that  his 
courtiers  were  whispering  together  and  perceived  that  the  child  was 
dead. — 20.  The  fact  that  he  came  to  the  house  of  Yahweh  and 
worshipped  after  changing  his  clothes  indicates  that  his  fasting 
had  not  been  there.  —  21.  The  officers  find  his  conduct  strange  : 
While  the  child  was  yet  alive  thou  didst  fast  and  weep,  but  when 
the  child  died  thou  didst  rise  up  and  eat  bread]  the  fullest  expres- 
sion of  grief  (fasting  and  weeping)  generally  comes  when  death 
has  occurred.  — 22.  The  explanation  is  that  by  fasting  and  weep- 
ing he  hoped  to  move  Yahweh  :  Who  knoweth  whether  Yahweh 
will  have  mercy  and  so  the  child  will  live  ?]  where  we  should  say 
in  English  :  whether  Yahweh  may  not  have  mercy. — 23.  But  the 
event  has  declared  itself:  Why  is  it  that  I  should  fast  ?  Am  I 
able  to  bring  him  back  ?  I  am  journeying  to  him,  but  he  will  not 
return  to  me]  some  sort  of  continued  existence  in  Sheol  seems  to 
be  implied.  —  24.  Bathsheba  bears  a  second  child  who  receives 
the  name  Solomon.     Whether  the  name  means  the  peaceful  is  im- 


326  2  SAMUEL 

possible  to  say.  From  this  narrative  we  should  rather  conjecture 
recompense,  the   child   which   replaces   the   one    taken   away. — 

25.  The  verse  should  include  the  last  two  words  of  v.^ :  And 
Yahweh  loved  him  and  sent  by  the  hand  of  Nathan  the  prophet 
and  called  his  name  Jedidiah'\  that  is  :  the  Beloved  of  Yahweh. 
The  phrase  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  probably  to  be  corrected 
to  :  by  the  word  of  Yahweh. 

16.  N31]  the  tense  indicates  his  constant  custom  during  this  period.  — 
asiyi  jSi]  ®s  has  only  one  of  the  two  verbs,  whereas  ©^  (with  a  number  of 
Greek  MSS.)  has  kixX  iKdd(vS(u  iv  aaKKtp  =  pz'2  p\.  The  same  reading  is 
probably  that  of  I  because  Ambrose  gives  in  cilicio  jacuit  (cited  by  Sabatier), 
and  the  Codex  Legionensis  has  et  dormivit  in  cilicio.  This  ancient  attesta- 
tion makes  the  reading  important,  and  its  internal  probability  is  evident.  — 
21.  ''n  i^M  "*n>3]  is  retained  by  Dr.  who  translates  on  account  of  the  child 
when  alive.  We.  had  however  acutely  conjectured  that  the  original  reading 
was  'D  -ii>-3,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  (5^  and  ST,  as  well  as  by  the  following 
verse.  —  22.  ■<j:n']  the  correction  of  the  Qre  ('jjni)  is  unnecessary,  as  re- 
marked by  Dr. —  24.  NipMJ  Nipn  ^ri?  is  unnecessary.  —  25.  ht  -\ia;'3]  can 
hardly  be  correct.  We  must  read  hi.t  njna  with  ©^  and  one  Hebrew  edition 
(Cappel,  Critica  Sacra,  p.  265).     SiL  add  uhn, 

26-31.   The   account   of  the   siege   of  Rabba  is  resumed. — 

26.  Joab  takes  the  zvater  city']  apparently  a  fortification  built  to 
protect  the  fountain  which  still  flows  at  Amman.  —  27,  28.  Joab, 
in  sending  the  news,  prefers  that  his  king  should  have  the  glory : 
Gather  the  rest  of  the  people  and  camp  against  the  city  and  take  it, 
lest  I  take  the  city  and  it  be  called  by  f?iy  name]  as  Jerusalem  had 
received  the  name  City  of  David.  —  29.  The  advice  is  carried 
out,  and  David  captures  the  city.  —  30.  And  he  took  the  crown 
of  Milcom]  the  chief  god  of  the  Ammonites,  from  his  head,  and 
the  weight  of  it  was  a  talent  of  gold]  the  weight  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  it  could  be  worn  only  by  a  statue.  — And  upon  it  was  a 
precious  stone  and  it  (the  stone)  came  upon  David's  head]  a  par- 
allel in  the  crown  of  the  Delian  Apollo  is  cited  by  Nestle  {Mar- 
ginalien,  p.  17).  The  name  of  the  god  is  disguised  by  the 
punctuators  partly  from  reluctance  even  to  pronounce  the  name 
of  the  abomination,  partly  from  unwiUingness  to  admit  that 
David's  jewel  had  once  been  contaminated  by  contact  with  the 
idol.  —  31.  There  has  been  some  controversy  over  this  verse,  the 
question  being  whether  David  tortured  his  captives,  or  whether 


XII.  24-XIII.  I  327 

he  put  them  at  hard  labour.  For  the  former  might  be  argued 
that  he  had  received  special  provocation,  both  in  the  insult  offered 
his  ambassadors  and  in  the  obstinate  resistance  to  the  siege.  But 
the  theory  cannot  be  consistently  carried  through  without  straining 
the  meaning  of  the  words.  The  most  probable  interpretation  is 
that  he  brought  out  the  people  and  set  them  at  the  saws  and  the 
picks  and  the  axes  and  made  them  work  at  the  brick-moulds']  their 
lot,  which  could  be  compared  to  that  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt, 
was  to  the  Bedawy,  and  scarcely  less  so  to  the  peasant,  the  most 
wretched  that  could  be  conceived. 

26.  nji'^DH  T^v]  is  called  just  below  D''Dn  ti^,  which  should  be  restored 
here.  Rabba  itself  was  the  royal  city.  On  the  interchange  of  djSd  and  did 
of.  We.  Cheyne  conjectures  doSd  -\iy  meaning  the  citadel,  Ex.  Times,  1898, 
p.  144.  —  30.  ddSd]  is  vocalized  as  though  it  meant  their  king.  But  the 
crown  of  130  pounds'  weight  could  never  have  been  worn  by  a  man,  and  the 
king  would  certainly  not  have  sat  in  state  while  David  approached  and  took 
the  crown.  It  seems  quite  certain  therefore  that  the  idol  of  the  Ammonites  is 
meant,  whose  name  is  given  as  ti^-q  i  K.  1 1*.  @  has  here  MeAx"'^*  MeAxo'/i, 
MoA-x'^-"  a"d  other  forms,  in  the  various  MSS.,  while  ^^  conforms  to  the  read- 
ing of  the  punctuators.  —  pNi]  Chr.  has  px  nji  which  I  have  adopted,  as  it  is 
confirmed  by  SiST  here.  The  received  text  would  assert  that  the  whole  crown 
was  placed  on  David's  head.  —  31.  zv^<\  i  Chr.  20*  has  -\tt'M  which  means  he 
sau'ed  them.  But  while  he  might  saw  them  with  saws,  the  other  instruments 
here  mentioned  would  be  without  an  appropriate  verb.  The  reading  has  crept 
into  ®L.  —  p'^ca  oniN  novni]  is  unintelligible.  The  Ktib  is  probably  right  in 
reading  pSc3.  The  I^Sd  is  however  not  the  brick  kiln  but  the  wooden  form 
in  which  the  clay  is  pressed  into  shape.  We  are  compelled  in  accordance 
with  this  to  change  noyn  into  Tayn  with  Chr.  So  Gratz  {Gesch.  I.  p.  256), 
and  Hoffmann,  ZATW.  II.  p.  53 ff. 

XIII.  1-XIV.  33.  The  violation  of  Tamar  and  the  conse- 
quences.— The  story  is  well  known  ;  the  violation  of  his  sister  is 
avenged  by  Absalom  and  he  is  obliged  to  flee  the  country.  By  a 
device  of  Joab  the  king  is  induced  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  his 
recall.  The  history  throws  much  light  upon  the  social  condition 
of  the  people.  It  is  from  the  old  and  good  source  from  which  we 
have  so  much  of  David's  history,  and  it  has  suffered  comparatively 
little  in  transmission. 

1-7.  A  stratagem  is  suggested  by  Jonadab  whereby  Tamar  will 
be  brought  into  the  power  of  her  brother.  —  1.   Tamar,  own  sister 


338  2  SAMUEL 

to  Absalom,  was  beautiful  like  her  brother.  —  And  Atnnon  son 
of  David'\  the  author  so  describes  him  to  show  that  he  was  only 
a  half  brother  to  Tamar.  From  3^  we  learn  that  he  was  the  oldest 
son.  —  2.  And  Atnnofi  was  so  distressed  that  he  grew  sick\  on 
account  of  the  apparent  hopelessness  of  his  passion  — for  she  was 
a  virgin']  so  that  he  thought  it  impossible  to  make  any  approaches. 

—  3.  Jonadab  his  cousin  and  intimate  friend  was  a  very  wise  man, 
though  in  this  case  his  wisdom  was  put  to  base  uses. — 4.  The 
inquiry :  Why  art  thou  thus  weak,  O  Prince,  morning  by  morn- 
ing? On  hearing  the  cause  the  adviser  has  a  device  ready. — 
5.  Amnon  was  to  feign  himself  sick  and  when  the  king  should 
visit  him,  to  say :  Let  Tamar  tny  sister  come  and  give  tne  to  eat 
and  prepare  the  food  in  my  sight,  that  I  may  see  it  and  eat  from 
her  hand'\  the  sick  fancy  was  likely  to  be  indulged  by  the  king. 

—  6.  At  the  visit  Amnon  asks  specifically  that  Tamar  may  make 
two  cakes  for  him.  —  7.  The  expected  result  came  about.  David 
commanded  Tamar  :  Go  to  the  house  of  thy  brother  Amnon  and 
prepare  him  food'\  we  suppose  that  each  of  the  adult  sons  of  the 
king  had  his  own  establishment ;  Amnon's  house  and  servant  are 
mentioned  in  this  account. 

1.  pjDN]  proper  names  not  infrequently  end  in  p;  Gideon,  Abdon,  Eglon, 
and  others  are  examples,  cf.  Konig,  Lehrgebdude,  II.  p.  153.  2.  niSnnn'?]  is 
•  used  just  below  in  the  sense  oi  feigning  oneself  sick.  It  is  therefore  strange 
to  find  it  used  here  in  another  meaning,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  text  has 
suffered.  Ew.  proposes  to  read  niSinn'?  =  to  grow  weak,  and  Kl.  '^SnnnS  =  to 
become  insane.  The  latter  is  attractive.  The  reason  given  why  Amnon 
despaired  of  any  attempt  is  that  she  w^as  a  virgin;  the  implication  being  that 
the  virgin  had  less  freedom  than  the  married  woman  or  widow.  —  3.  It  is 
somewhat  surprising  to  find  Jonadab  called  a  wise  man.  —  3ijv]  <S^  calls  him 
Jonathan  which  is  the  name  of  another  son  of  Shimeah,  ai^i.  —  5.  Snnni]  it 
is  not  necessary  in  this  passage  to  read  SSnnm  (Kl.) ;  the  capricious  appetite 
of  a  sick  man  would  claim  the  indulgence  of  the  king  quite  as  readily  as  the 
delirium  of  one  who  feigned  himself  mad.  —  6.  The  request  for  two  heart- 
shaped  cakes  is  not  intended  as  a  play  on  the  situation. 

8.  Tamar  came  to  the  house,  and  took  dough  and  kneaded  it 
and  made  cakes  as  he  looked  on,  and  baked  the  cakes']  all  as 
Amnon  had  desired.  —  9.  The  verse  interrupts  the  narrative  and 
makes  insoluble  difficulties.  It  is  probably  therefore  an  interpo- 
lation.— 10.   At  Amnon's  command  she  brings  the  food  to  him 


XTTT.  I-2I  329 

in  the  inner  room.  The  house  probably  had  only  a  public  room 
and  a  chamber. — 11.  He  solicits  her  to  unchastity.  — 12.  She 
refuses  :  Do  not  force  me,  my  brother']  Jd.  i<)^,/or  it  is  not  so  done 
in  Israel']  the  implication  is  that  such  practices  were  known 
among  the  Canaanites.  — 13.  The  clear-minded  maiden  sees  the 
character  of  the  deed,  and  its  consequences  both  to  herself  and 
to  him  :  As  for  me,  whither  could  I  carry  my  shame  ?  And  thou 
shouldst  become  as  one  of  the  fools  !  And  yet  she  would  not  refuse 
an  honourable  life  with  him  :  Now  speak  to  the  king,  for  he  will 
not  withhold  me  from  thee]  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  is 
a  subterfuge,  an  attempt  to  gain  time.  It  must  have  plausibility 
even  if  it  were  only  that.  We  are  forced  to  conclude  that  marriage 
with  a  half-sister  was  allowed  in  Israel  at  this  time,  as  is  indeed 
evident  from  Ezek.  22",  cf.  what  was  said  above,  on  3^  — 14.  He 
overpowered  her  and  accomplished  his  purpose. —  15.  The  deed 
was  followed  by  a  revulsion  of  feeling :  the  hatred  with  which  he 
hated  her  was  greater  than  the  love  with  which  he  had  loved  her] 
he  therefore  bids  her  begone.  — 16.  The  sense  has  been  best  pre- 
served to  us  in  <3^  which  reads  :  And  she  said  :  No,  my  brother; 
for  greater  is  the  second  wrong  than  the  first  which  thou  didst  me, 
in  sending  me  away.  The  received  text  can  be  translated  only  by 
violence.  — 17.  The  sentence  begins  with  the  last  words  of  '® : 
A7id  he  would  not  listen  to  her,  but  called  his  lad  that  served  him 
and  said :  Put  this  wench  forth  from  my  presence]  the  language  is 
the  language  of  contempt  and  injury.  — 18.  The  verse  originally 
told  only  that  the  servant  obeyed  the  order.  — 19.  Ta mar  put 
ashes  on  her  head  and  rent  the  long-sleeved  tunic  which  she  wore, 
and  put  her  hand  upon  her  head]  all  signs  of  intense  grief,  cf. 
Est.  4*  2  K.  5^  Jer.  2^''.  —  20.  Absalom  meets  her  and  perceives 
the  trouble  :  Has  Amnon  thy  brother  been  with  thee  ?]  possibly 
Amnon's  reputation  was  not  of  the  best.  The  family  ties  how- 
ever prevent  summary  vengeance  ;  there  is  nothing  for  it  but 
silence  :  Now,  my  sister,  be  silent,  for  he  is  thy  brother ;  do  not  lay 
this  thing  to  heart!  The  sooner  we  can  forget  the  family  dis- 
grace, the  better.  So  Tamar  dwelt,  a  desolate  woman,  in  the 
house  of  Absalom  her  brother.  —  21.  Although  David  was  angry, 
yet  he  did  not  vex  the  soul  of  Amnon  his  son  [by  chastisement], 
for  he  loved  him,  because  he  was  his  first-born]   the  sentence. 


330  2  SAMUEL 

which  is  necessary  to  the  sense,  must  be  completed  from  i3,  a 
part  having  fallen  out  of  ^.  —  22.  Absalom,  though  filled  with 
hatred  for  Amnon  from  that  time  on,  did  not  betray  his  feeling  in 
any  way. 

8.  Saoni]  the  verb  generally  means /o  fozV.  —  9.  mrnn]  occurs  only  here. 
Kl.  followed  by  Bu.  proposes  to  read  mu'Dn-pN  N-\pni,  and  she  called  the 
servant,  cf.  v.^^.  But  in  any  case,  there  is  a  contradiction*  between  this  and 
the  following  verse.  Whoever  placed  the  cakes  before  Amnon,  it  is  clear 
that  if  they  were  already  there  he  could  not  command  them  to  be  brought  to 
him.  That  he  himself  (the  sick  man)  moved  into  the  chamber  after  they  had 
once  been  put  before  him  is  improbable,  and  is  not  intimated  in  the  text. 
The  simplest  supposition  is  that  this  verse  has  been  inserted  by  some  one  who 
supposed  that  it  was  necessary  to  clear  the  room.  — 12.  r\z<-p'\  Gen.  34^;  the 
tense  indicates  customary  action.  Sins  of  this  kind  are  elsewhere  called  r^aj 
as  here.  — 14.  'D  pmM  cf.  i  S.  17^''.  —  hpn]  should  be  pointed  nnx:  nny 
3  MSS. :  yuer'  out^s  (5.  — 16.  miN'Sx]  is  not  found  elsewhere.  miN  by 
occurs  with  the  meaning  because  of.  But  this  requires  to  be  completed  by 
the  following  words;  and  while  we  might  suppose  such  a  sentence  as:  and 
she  said  to  him  because  of  this  great  evil,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  continue.  There 
seems  no  doubt  therefore  that  the  text  is  corrupt  and  that  we  should  restore 
o  ^ns  "?«  with  OH  (We.,  Dr.,  Bu.).  The  presumption  being  thus  in  favour 
of  (S^  we  should  probably  adopt  its  further  reading :  fieyaXri  t)  naKia  tj  forxdrrj 
virep  tV  irpaiTttv,  though  some  propose  to  read  mnsD  nNrn  7\y-\T]  nSnj  which 
is  a  little  nearer  ||J.  — 17.  im^'D  n>':"riN]  as  the  verb  which  follows  is  plural 
it  is  not  improbable  that  we  should  read  v^>j :  @  has  rh  traihapiov  ainov 
rhv  icpoeffTTiKSTa  rov  oUov.  ns'r  is  contemptuous  and  iSyc  intimates  that  her 
presence  was  burdensome  to  him.  —  18.  The  first  half  verse  is  explanatory  of 
the  term  d^dd  njn^  in  v.^^.  It  interrupts  the  narrative  here,  and  is  probably  a 
marginal  gloss  which  has  been  inserted  in  the  wrong  place.  —  dS^jjd]  should 
be  D'7iyD  (We.).  The  whole  verse  is  lacking  in  S.  ^^i"^  is  incorrect,  it  should 
be  '?j;j''1.  — 19.  ids]  for  putting  on  the  head  in  grief  nsjy  is  more  common,  cf. 
Ez.  27^°.  D^Dijn  njn3  is  here  rendered  rhv  x''''<S''«  ^hv  Kap-ir<Dr6v  by  (S^,  but 
these  words  are  given  as  the  rendering  of  Aq.  by  Theod. :  t.  x-  t.  affrpayaKwrov 
(§^  seems  to  be  the  true  reading  of  (5.  Josephus  combines  the  two :  having 
sleeves  and  reaching  down  to  the  ankles.  —  20.  pj"'CN  which  occurs  nowhere 
else  has  been  conjectured  to  be  a  diminutive  of  contempt.  The  analogies  in 
Hebrew  are  so  uncertain  that  it  seems  safer  to  assume  a  mere  clerical  error. 
Kl.  conjectures  aj?:Nn :  has  indeed  thy  brother  been  with  thee.  —  nccifi] 
XVpsvouaa  (S^  seems  to  omit  the  conjunction,  <S^  has  a  duplicate  translation. 
—  21.  The  verse  is  incomplete  in  |^,  while  (S  has  an  apt  conclusion:  Ka\  ovk 
i\vTr7i(Te  rh  Trvfvfia  'Afxvwi'  rov  viov  aiirov,  '6tl  ayiira  avrSv,  on  irpcoroTOKOs  avrov 

*  As  pointed  out  by  Stade,  ThLZ.  21,  6. 


XIII.  21-31  331 

fiv,  adopted  by  Th.  and  others.  The  occasion  of  its  omission  is  its  beginning 
with  N71  like  the  next  verse. — 22.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  mention  uf 
Absalom's  hate  belongs  here.  His  motive  for  silence  would  seem  to  be  rather 
a  desire  that  his  designs  should  not  be  suspected. 

23-29.  Absalom  avenges  his  sister's  wrong.  —  23.  Two  years 
later,  Absalom  had  shearers;  the  sheep  shearing  was  a  time  of 
feasting,  cf.  i  S.  25* ;  tn  Baal  Hazor  near  Ephraim']  the  place 
has  been  identified  with  some  probabihty  about  20  miles  north  of 
Jerusalem.  To  the  festival  he  inviied  all  the  sons  of  the  king.  — 
24.   The  invitation  is  made  to  include  the  king  and  his  officers. 

—  25.  The  king  declines,  lest  the  multitude  be  burdensome  to 
Absalom,  and  on  being  urged  gives  him  his  blessing  as  an  indica- 
tion that  enough  has  been  said.  —  26.  Then  if  not,  let  Amnon  my 
brother  go  with  iis'\  the  request  seems  to  have  aroused  some  sus- 
picion. —  27.  On  further  urging,  all  the  princes  were  allowed  to 
go.  —  28.  Absalom  made  a  feast  like  the  feast  of  a  king\  a  clause 
accidentally  lost  from  ^.  The  servants  were  ordered  to  kill 
Amnon  as  soon  as  he  was  under  the  influence  of  the  wine. — 
29.  The  order  was  carried  out,  and  all  the  king's  sons  rose  and 
each  mounted  his  mule  and  fled.  That  Absalom  intended  to 
secure  the  throne  for  himself  by  massacring  all  competitors 
would  be  a  not  remote  inference. 

23.  -\nr\  Sv3,  cf.  Buhl,  Geog.^.  177.  —  ansN-op]  the  preposition  indicates 
that  a  place  is  intended  and  not  the  tribe.  (S^  ro<ppa.tfj.  indicates  that  the  first 
letter  should  be  >.  And  as  we  know  of  an  Ephron  in  Benjamin,  we  may 
restore  it  here.  —  24.  The  invitation  is  here  made  more  extensive  than  is  inti- 
mated in  the  preceding  verse.  This,  with  the  almost  incredible  naivete  with 
which  Absalom  insists  upon  the  presence  of  Amnon,  makes  me  suspect  that 
VV.2+-27  are  a  later  expansion  of  the  account.  —  25.   y-iDii]  i  S.  28^*  (Bu.  nxoM). 

—  injijM]  can  be  intended  only  as  a  termination  of  the  interview,  which  is 
prolonged  only  because  Absalom  modifies  his  request.  —  26.  nVi]  is  to  be 
understood  as  in  2  K.  5I".  Similar  construction  in  the  affirmative  form  (i:"i) 
are  Jd.  6^'  2  K.  lo^^  (We.).  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  point  nS^,  though 
that  also  would  make  good  sense  (Th.).  The  mention  of  Amnon  alone  here, 
when  in  fact  all  the  sons  went,  emphasizes  the  incongruity  of  these  verses  with 
the  main  narrative.  —  28.  We  must  insert  with  (@  ■|'7Dn  Tsrwa'i  nna'D  oi'jB'aK  rj?>i 
(Th.).     The  words  have  been  lost  by  homeoteleuton. 

30.  Rumour  exaggerated  the  calamity,  reporting  that  Absalom 
had  slain  all  the  princes,  without  exception.  —  31.    The  king  rent 


332  2  SAMUEL 

his  clothes  and  threw  himself  on  the  ground,  and  all  his  officers  who 
ivere  standing  by  him  rent  their  clothes^  lor  the  slight  emendation 
of  the  text  see  the  critical  note.  —  32.  Jonadab  was  in  the  coun- 
sel of  Absalom,  or  else  shrewd  enough  to  suspect  the  true  state  of 
the  case  :  Let  not  my  Lord  think  they  have  slain  all  the  young  men, 
the  king's  sons,  for  Amnon  alone  is  dead~\  this  he  was  able  to 
conclude  from  Absalom's  mien,  from  the  day  of  the  violation  of 
Tamar.  —  33.  The  conclusion  drawn  by  Jonadab  is  that  Atnnon 
alone  is  dead.  —  34.  The  opening  words  are  corrupt  beyond  res- 
toration. What  we  expect  is  a  temporal  phrase  such  as :  While 
Jonadab  was  yet  speaking,  continued  by  the  statement :  the  watch- 
man lifted  up  his  eyes.  The  rest  of  the  verse  has  in  |^  lost  a  sen- 
tence which  is  preserved  in  ^.  Restoring  it  we  read :  The 
watchman  lifted  tip  his  eyes  and  saw,  aiid  behold,  ?nuch  people 
were  coming  [oti  the  Beth-Horon  road,  on  the  descent ;  arid  the 
watchman  came  and  told  the  king,  saying :  I  see  men  coming"]  from 
the  Beth-Horon  road  on  the  side  of  the  hill]  the  words  in  brackets 
were  omitted  by  a  scribe,  owing  to  similarity  of  ending  to  what 
precedes.  The  watchman  being  on  the  tower,  it  is  necessary 
that  he  should  come  and  tell  the  king.  —  35.  Jonadab  sees  in  this 
the  confirmation  of  what  he  has  said. — 36.  The  arriving  party 
and  those  who  had  been  looking  for  them  join  in  loud  lamenta- 
tion, cf.  Jd.  21^ — 37,  38.  The  text  is  confused.  First,  we  have 
a  statement  of  Absalom's  flight,  then  we  are  told  that  the  king 
mourned  for  his  son  continually,  then  we  are  told  again  of  Absa- 
lom's flight.  Besides  this,  a  perpetual  mourning  is  contradicted 
by  v.^^  which  speaks  of  David's  being  comforted.  The  accepted 
solution  of  the  difficulty  is  to  throw  out  ^^  as  a  later  insertion  and 
arrange  the  rest  in  the  following  order  :  And  he  tnourtied  for  his 
son  continually.  But  Absalom  fled  and  went  to  Talmai,  son  of 
Ammihud,  king  of  Geshur,  and  was  there  three  years']  the  emenda- 
tion originated  with  Bottcher  and  is  adopted  by  We.,  Dr.,  "Bu. 
On  the  other  hand,  Kl.  supposes  the  continually  \all  the  days]  to 
refer  to  the  three  years  of  Absalom's  banishment  and  therefore 
puts  :  and  the  king  mourned  for  his  son  all  that  time  after  v.^. 
It  is  possible  that  neither  conjecture  has  restored  the  original. 
Absalom's  mother  was  a  daughter  of  Talmai,  3^.  —  39.  The  verse 
forms  the  transition  to  what  follows.     Emending  by  &'  we  read  : 


XIII.  31-39  333 

And  the  spirit  of  the  king  longed  to  go  out  to  Absalom  his  son,  for 
he  was  comforted  for  the  death  of  his  son  Amnon. 

31.  onj3  ^ytp  aoxj  via^J'S^i]  means:  7vhile  all  his  servants  stood  with  rent 
clothes.  But  as  pointed  out  by  Th.  (We.,  Dr.)  this  is  not  to  the  point.  (S^ 
renders  on^ua  nx  iyi|"'  v*?;?  a''2s:n  may'^oi  which  fits  the  rest  of  the  verse. — 
32.  i'7Dn-i:3]  is  superfluous  and  probably  an  insertion.  —  'r\T^^'r\  -3N  ''d"S;;-i3 
HD'B']  is  obscure  :  for  on  the  mouth  of  Absalom  it  was  set — his  death  is  to  be 
supphed  if  we  retain  the  text.  But  Absalom  had  not  betrayed  his  intention  in 
speech,  even  if  we  can  accept  noT  as  a  passive  participle.  It  seems  more 
likely  that  nn'!:'  is  a  noun  meaning  a  scowl  (as  argued  by  We.,  Dr.),  or  that  it 
is  a  corruption.  Ginsburg  reads  nciii'.  Ew.  proposes  nna-i' :  — enmity.  Even 
in  this  case  we  should  expect  'jd"':'^  instead  of  "iD"Sj?.  According  to  oriental 
custom  Absalom  would  show  his  anger  in  his  face,  even  when  trying  to  avoid 
an  open  quarrel.  —  34.  diSb'^n  m^ii]  confirmed  by  @,  is  nevertheless  difficult 
to  place.  The  most  plausible  thing  to  do  if  the  words  are  to  be  retained  is  to 
make  them  the  conclusion  of  Jonadab's  address :  Amnon  alone  is  dead  and 
Absalom  has  fled  (so  that  he  will  not  inflict  further  damage).  But  even  thus 
the  statement  is  unnecessary.  The  words  may  have  crept  in  by  a  simply  stupid 
error  of  a  scribe  whose  thought  anticipated  v.^.  But  it  is  more  probable  that 
they  are  a  corruption  of  something  which  can  only  be  conjectured.  A  plausi- 
ble conjecture  is  that  of  Kl.,  adopted  by  Bu.  in  the  shape  diSb'  vr\n  nn''i.  My 
own  conjecture  is  that  the  author  wrote  -i5-]p  ii>'  Nim  or  something  equivalent. 
The  report  of  the  murder  cannot  have  long  preceded  the  coming  of  the 
princes.  —  ooSn]  after  this  word,  ®  has  preserved  for  us  a  line,  also  originally 
ending  with  oidSh  which  has  fallen  out  of  |§.  It  is  restored  by  Th.,  We.,  Dr., 
Bu.,  Kl.,  in  substantially  the  same  form,  to  wit :  7\D-i7\  N3n  1-1102  nijin  nma 
D^jS.-i  u^z'iii.  Tr'Ni  ■iDN''i  ISC'?  -\>^'^.  The  second  D''3Sn  is  not  represented  in  (§, 
but  it  was  probably  in  the  original  |§  because  without  it  the  following  •\-\-\'a  is 
harsh,  and  its  presence  alone  fully  explains  the  error  of  the  scribe.  For  T^D 
innN  it  is  evident  that  <§  had  □■'nn  '\-\-\'!:,  (§^  e'/t  ttjs  o^ov  rris  'Clpaiv-nv  (^wpdi/j. 
(S^).  The  Beth-Horon  road  comes  down  from  the  north.  —  37,  38.  On  the 
restoration  cf.  Dr.  who  (following  We.)  supposes  that  a  scribe  erroneously 
began  the  paragraph  with  im'j  .  .  .  Di':'i:'a>si  and  then  discovered  that  he  had 
omitted  ui  SaNOM.  He  inserted  the  omitted  words,  and  then  to  get  a  proper 
connexion  repeated  27*  in  a  shortened  form.*  ■nn''Dy  Ji^t.  is  made  nimo;;  Qre, 
which  is  favoured  by  @.  —  39.  ^'?D^  in  Soni]  cannot  be  construed.  (3^  evi- 
dently read  "r'^Dn  nn  Srni.  For  nSo  in  the  sense  to  be  consumed  with  desire, 
cf.  Ps.  84^  143^.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  necessary  to  change  pnsS  (Bu.  reads 
PNi'?,  Kl.  TNir'S)  —  for  the  king's  longing  might  easily  be  described  as  a  long- 
ing to  go  out  to  Absalom,  though  his  pride  would  not  let  him  go. 


*  If  is  possible  that  originally  David  was  said  to  mourn  over  both  his  sons      tlie 
dead  and  the  banished. 


334  2  SAMUEL 

XIV.  1-11.   Joab  devises  a  fictitious  case  by  which  to  appeal  to 
the  king.     He  knew  that  the  king's  heart  was  towards  Absalom. 

—  2.  He  sent  to  Tekoah,  a  town  in  Judah,  and  took  thence  a  ivisc 
7i>flman'\  probably  one  already  known  to  him  by  reputation.  He 
directs  her  to  play  the  mourner :  Put  on  mourning  garments,  atid 
do  not  anoint  thyself,  and  become  like  a  woman  now  many  days 
mourning  for  one  dead.  —  3.  In  this  plight  she  was  to  present 
herself  as  a  suppliant  for  justice  before  the  king.  —  4.  And  the 
Tekoite  woman  came,  and  after  the  customary  prostration  cried  : 
Help,  O  king,  help  I  —  5.  To  the  king's  question  :  What  ails  thee? 
she  replies  :  Verily  I  am  a  widoiv,  and  my  husba7id  is  dead'\  a 
pleonasm  which  may  well  be  excused  in  the  circumstances.  — 
6.  The  case  is  this :  the  family  being  reduced  to  two  brothers, 
these  two  quan-elled  in  the  field  when  there  was  no  one  to  interfere 
and  one  smote  the  other  and  killed  him.  —  7.  The  result  is  the 
probable  extirpation  of  the  family,  for  :  TJie  whole  clan  has  risen 
up  against  thy  servant  and  say:  Deliver  up  the  smiter  of  his 
brother,  that  ive  inay  slay  him  for  the  life  of  his  brother  whom  he 
has  killed,  and  we  will  destroy  the  [only]  heir.  In  the  flow  of  her 
speech  the  woman  gives  the  result  as  part  of  the  purpose  of  the 
avengers.  The  procedure  is  quite  in  accordance  with  clan  cus- 
tom, and  yet  the  result  will  be  a  calamity :  They  will  quetich  my 
ronaining  coal  so  as  7iot  to  leave  jny  husband  name  or  remnant 
on  the  face  of  the  ground.  Extremum  jus  extrema  injuria.  The 
extinction  of  a  family  is  dreaded  as  one  of  the  chief  misfortunes. 

—  8.  David  gives  a  promise  to  see  that  the  woman  and  her  son 
are  protected.  —  9.  She  is  not  satisfied  with  this :  Upon  me,  my 
lord  the  king,  be  the  guilt  and  upon  my  father's  house ;  and  the 
king  and  his  throne  shall  be  innocent'\  the  insinuation  is  that  David 
has  simply  put  her  off  with  a  promise,  because  he  does  not  wish 
to  involve  himself —  his  defence  of  the  guilty  son  would  make  him 
partaker  of  the  guilt.  — 10.  David  makes  a  more  distinct  decree, 
empowering  the  woman  to  bring  her  prosecutors  into  the  royal 
presence  :  Him  that  speaks  to  thee,  bring  before  me  and  he  shall 
not  touch  thee  again. — 11.  This  is  enough  if  only  it  can  be  made 
sure,  and  the  petitioner  therefore  asks  an  oath  :  Let  the  king  name 
Yahweh  thy  God,  not  to  let  the  avenger  of  blood  destroy,  and  they 
shall  not  exterminate  my  son.     The  king  swears  accordingly  :   By 


XIV.  r-i5  335 

the  itfe  of  Yahweh  a  hair  of  thy  son  shall  not  fall  to  the  ground  \ 
the  object  of  this  importunity  is  to  make  sure  that  David's  mind 
is  fully  made  up,  before  the  application  is  made  to  the  case  of 
Absalom. 

1.  DiSraN"':]:]  the  interchange  of  "?;'  and  Sx  has  already  been  remarked. 
With  Vy  we  should  expect  a  verb;  reading  Ss  we  get  a  tolerable  sense. — 
2.  n>'ipri]  the  location  was  recovered  by  Robinson  (^BR?  I.  p.  486),  two 
hours  south  of  Bethlehem.  —  4.  icnpi]  of  most  editions  is  a  careless  scribe's 
mistake  for  x^ni,  which  is  found  in  40  MSS.  of  |^,  as  in  (SSSTil.  At  the  end 
of  the  verse  (5  adds  a  second  nj;^'i'in,  which  seems  original  (Th.).  —  5.  S^n] 
as  in  I  K.  i*^.  —  6.  iom]  ought  of  course  to  be  the  singular.  A  scribe  had  in 
mind  the  phrase  they  strove  one  with  another,  in  which  case  the  plural  would 
be  allowable.  —  nnsn'nN]  t}sv  aSe\<t>hu  aiirov  ^^'  is  attractive  and  perhaps 
original.  —  7.  n-ocs-ji]  for  which  &  renders  as  though  it  found  n^cr^i,  is  sup- 
ported by  @  and  is  probably  correct  (We.,  Dr.  al.).  —  10.  inNjni]  for  mnxom, 
and  therefore  to  be  read  vnxjm  (We.).  — 11.  i^h'^n]  dehv  ainov  @B_  -phg 
more  difficult  is  to  be  preferred.  — pi^iid]  the  pointing  is  difficult  to  account 
for.     Kl.  conjectures  Nfl-\no,  which  fits  the  sense. 

12-20.  The  application.  —  The  woman  first  asks  and  receives 
permission  to  say  a  word.  — 13.  Her  rebuke  of  the  king  is  ex- 
pressed in  a  question  :  And  why  dost  thou  devise  against  the  people 
of  God  a  thifig  like  this  —  and  the  king  in  speaking  this  word  is  as 
one  guilty  —  in  order  that  the  king  may  not  bring  back  his  ban- 
ished? The  people  of  God  are  in  her  own  case ;  the  heir  is  likely 
to  be  cut  off.  David  in  his  treatment  of  Absalom  is  devising 
against  them  just  what  the  Thekoites  were  devising  against  the 
plaintiff  in  the  case  alleged.  — 14.  The  first  half  of  the  verse  is 
plain  :  For  we  die  and  are  as  water  spilled  upon  the  ground  which 
cannot  be  gathered"]  the  point  is  that  Amnon  is  dead  and  cannot 
be  brought  back  by  any  harshness  towards  Absalom.  The  rest  of 
the  verse  is  entirely  obscure.  Conjecturally  the  conclusion  is  an 
exhortation  to  the  king  not  to  keep  his  bafiished  son  in  perpetual 
banishment.  The  conjecture  of  Ew.,  accepted  by  most  recent 
scholars,  makes  the  whole  second  half  of  the  verse  mean  :  And 
God  will  not  take  away  the  life  of  him  who  devises  plaits  not  to 
banish  from  him  a  banished  one.  But  it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
this  is  much  encouragement  to  David.  — 15.  The  woman  excuses 
herself  for  appearing  before  the  king :  For  the  people  made  me 
afraid.     She  still  talks  as  though  her  suit  were  the  main  purpose 


33^  '  2  SAMUEL 

of  her  visit.  — 16.  For  the  king  will  hear,  to  deliver  his  servant 
from  the  hand  of  the  man  who  seeks  to  destroy  me  and  mv  son 
from  the  heritage  of  Yahweh']  this  is  a  part  of  the  reflection  which 
induced  her  to  come  before  the  king.  — 17.  The  woman  con- 
cludes her  speech  :  The  word  of  my  lord  the  king  will  be  a  com- 
fort'] Hterally,  a  resting  place.  The  reason  is  the  wisdom  of  the 
king  :  for  like  the  angel  of  God  is  my  lord  the  king  to  hear  good 
and  evil]  and  to  discern  between  them,  is  of  course  impHed.  — 
And  Yahweh  thy  God  be  with  thee]  is  evidently  her  parting  bless- 
ing.— 18.  The  king  does  not  let  her  go  until  his  curiosity  is  satis- 
fied on  one  point,  and  so  asks  her  not  to  conceal  that  one  thing. — 
19.  The  question  concerns  the  agency  of  Joab,  and  the  answer  is 
an  admiring  testimony  to  the  king's  shrewdness  :  By  thy  life,  my 
lord  the  king,  I  cannot  turn  to  the  right  or  the  left  from  all  that 
my  lord  the  kifig  has  spoken.  His  question  contains  an  affirmation, 
and  the  affirmation  is  correct.  —  20.  In  order  to  change  the  face 
of  the  affair]  that  is,  the  affair  of  Absalom  —  did  thy  servant  foab 
this  thing]  an  excuse  for  Joab  and  his  instrument.  The  final 
compliment  to  the  wisdom  of  the  king  is  intended  to  say  that  his 
decision  is  certain  to  be  right. 

13.  13-iDi]  pointed  as  though  a  Hithpael,  with  assimilation  of  the  n,  Gas.*'', 
§  54  f.  The  last  clause  is  explanatory  of  p.st;:  (We.,  Dr.),  which  refers  to  the 
case  of  the  woman  herself  as  just  alleged.  ©^  (following  Theodotion)  had  a 
different  text,  which  however  cannot  be  restored  with  certainty.  — 14.  nic"''^ 
nicj]  @^  makes  the  point  more  plain  by  rendering  on  Tfdvr]K(v  6  vl6s  aov, 
meaning  Amnon.  —  y-n  D^^'^N  Nti'^-N':'i]  the  clause  as  it  stands  is  incompre- 
hensible. Taken  with  what  follows,  it  might  be  forced  to  mean :  aftd  God 
does  not  take  away  life,  but  devises  plans  that  his  banished  be  not  banished  frovi 
him  (so  substantially  RV.).  In  this  case  the  long  suffering  of  God,  in  not 
taking  away  the  sinner  until  he  has  had  opportunity  to  repent,  would  be  set 
forth  as  an  example  to  David.  The  objections  are  obvious.  The  assertion 
that  God  does  not  take  a^vay  a  life  before  doing  so  and  so  is  entirely  too  sweep- 
ing. Common  observation  shows  that  this  is  not  hie  rule.  Moreover,  the 
statement  that  God  devises  devices  that  his  banished  be  not  banished  is  obscure 
and  without  Old  Testament  analogy.  The  most  obvious  conjecture  is  to  read 
3".;'ni  for  2Z'^\^  and,  joining  it  with  the  preceding,  render  And  God  does  not 
take  azvay  a  soul  and  then  return  it,  that  is :  death  is  irrevocable.  We  are 
then  left  without  a  connexion  for  what  follows.  <S^  omits  n^  :  koX  ATj/uif'fToi 
o  Otos  yf/uxvf,  Kai  Koyi^o/x^vos  rov  f^uxrat  ott'  aiirov  f^e<u(T fievov,  which  does  not 
give  any  help.     (§'■  which  seems  to  have  the  translation  uf  Theodotion  (Field) 


XIV.  16-24  337 

gives  us :  «al  ovk  i\wl((i  eir'  ainc^  ^"XV,  which  connects  well  with  what  pre- 
cedes—  and  no  one  hopes  for  it  (?  the  water,  some  MSS.  have  a,inu>v).  This 
evidently  substitutes  dhiSm  or  vVn  for  the  c^n'^.s  of  |^  and  makes  t'flj  the  subject 
of  the  verb.  In  view  of  the  difficulty  we  find  in  understanding  the  received 
text,  this  seems  acceptable.  On  the  same  authority  the  last  clause  means : 
Yet  the  king  devises  a  plan  to  keep  away  from  him  one  banished !  (The  excla- 
mation is  an  intimation  that  this  ought  not  to  be),  reading  i^cn  for  •<T\^dh,  and 
mj'?  for  n-i\  We.  objects  to  the  phrase  banish  a  banished  one,  but  it  does  not 
seem  difficult.  Ew.  changes  as'ni  in  the  received  text  to  aj'in,  and  is  followed 
by  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Ki.  — 15.  -wi^]  omitted  by  two  MSS.  of  |§,  is  in  fact 
redundant.  But  the  author  is  reproducing  the  speech  of  a  woman  of  the 
people.  —  'nx  I'^nn]  is  not  the  usual  order  and  ■'jin  is  lacking  in  (g^. — 
16.  l^'■'N^]  add  B-paDn  with  @  (Th.  al.).  —  o^nSx]  ©^31  seem  to  have  read 
ni.T,  which  is  better.  — 17.  innoi:']  restore  ntrND  with  @^,  for  this  is  evidently 
the  concluding  part  of  the  woman's  speech.  —  nnjn^]  a  resting  place,  some- 
thing in  which  one  may  feel  secure.  —  a^nS^n  in'^sj]  we  find  the  same  com- 
parison in  1928,  where  also  the  point  is  the  ability  to  discern  the  right,  cf.  v.^" 
njjnS.  — 19.  B'N"bn]  usually  taken  to  be  for  S'i"dn  in  the  meaning  it  is  not 
possible.  The  form  however  is  unusual  —  the  text  is  suspicious  in  the  only 
other  case  of  its  occurrence,  Mic.  6^^.  The  conjecture  of  Perles  (Analekten 
zur  Textkritik  des  A/ten  Testamentes,  p.  30)  is  therefore  plausible,  that  we 
should  read  aiB*!*,  for  which  also  %  n'DD  may  be  cited. 

21-24.  Absalom  is  brought  back  but  not  received  at  court.  — 

21.  Joab,  as  a  high  officer  of  the  court,  was  standing  by  the  king 
during  the  woman's  plea.  David  turns  to  him  and  says :  BeJiohi 
I  have  done  this  thing]  the  thing  asked  is  granted,  and  so  in  pur- 
pose is  already  accomplished.  —  22.  Joab  expresses  his  thanks  in 
language  that  shows  how  much  the  matter  lies  on  his  heart.  ^Vhy 
Joab  should  have  such  an  interest  in  Absalom  is  not  apparent.  — 
23,  24.  Joab  brings  Absalom  back,  but  the  king  commands  :  Lei 
him  turn  aside  to  his  otvn  house,  arid  my  face  he  shall  not  see]  the 
return  was  therefore  not  a  restoration  to  the  favour  of  the  king. 

21.  ^n>i:'>']  the  Qre  in  some  editions  is  p^rj?  and  so  20  codd.  in  DeRossi. 
But  the  best  editions  point  according  to  the  consonantal  text.  — 22.  ^•'T•'\  the 
Qre  perversely  commands  "|"i3y,  which  is  found  in  16  codd.,  but  not  sustained 
by  the  versions. 

25-27.    The  author  or  the  redactor  inserts  a  panegyric  of  Absa- 
lom's personal  beauty,  and  an  account  of  his  family.     The  latter 
contradicts  18^*,  and  the  whole  breaks  the  connexion  of  the  narra- 
tive.    There  seems  no  reason  however  to  put  the  paragraph  at  a 
z 


•> 


38  2  SAMUEL 


very  late  date,  unless  it  be  the  mention  of  the  standard  weight  as 
the  royal  weight ;  and  this  seems  difficult  to  date  exactly.  The 
fact  of  Absalom's  personal  beauty  may  have  been  a  matter  of  early 
tradition.  The  author  emphasizes  a  similar  fact  in  the  case  of 
Adonijah  i  K.  i®.  —  25.  No  man  in  Israel  was  so  praiseworthy 
as  Absalom  ;  from  the  sole  of  his  foot  to  his  crown  there  was  no 
blemish  in  him']  David  also  seems  to  have  had  great  personal 
beauty.  —  26.  The  main  sentence  is  :  and  when  he  shaved  his 
head,  he  would  weigh  his  hair,  two  hundred  shekels  by  the  king's 
weight~\  the  shaving  of  the  head  had  some  religious  signification, 
as  we  see  in  the  Nazirites.  The  specification  of  the  king's  weight 
points  to  a  time  when  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  measures  had  begun 
to  be  used  in  Palestine  (We.).  The  main  sentence  is  interrupted 
by  a  parenthesis  telling  that  the  shaving  of  the  head  took  place 
once  a  year.  —  27.  The  verse  gives  Absalom  three  sons  and  a 
daughter.  The  harmony  of  this  with  i8'*  is  secured  by  supposing 
that  all  the  sons  died  in  infancy.  But  if  this  were  so,  the  author 
would  have  mentioned  it  here.  (§  adds  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
that  Tamar  became  the  wife  of  Rehoboam,  the  son  of  Solomon,  and 
bore  to  him  Abia  (Abiathar,  in  &^). 

25.  n£3'  is  omitted  by  <5^,  and  '^3  by  &^,  while  S  omits  both.  As  the 
shorter  text  has  the  presumption  in  its  favour  and  as  'r'VnS  SN-it:"3  sj^n  gives  a 
perfectly  good  sense  we  should  probably  read  so,  throwing  out  both  the 
inserted  words.  —  S'^n'^]  in  the  sense  to  be  praised  is  good  Hebrew,  of.  Dav. 
Syntax  ^()T,.  (S  however  may  have  found '?'7n!:,  which  it  read  S|^np. — 26.  On 
the  construction  see  Dr.  Notes.  For  200  shekels,  Th.,  followed  by  Koehler 
{Bibl.  Gesch.  des  A.  T.  II.  p.  345),  conjectures  twenty;  ©^  has  100.  —  27.  ->Drij 
Moaxa  <@^ I  (Cod.  Leg.)..  The  addition  at  the  end  of  the  verse  is  found  in 
nearly  all  MSS.  of  @  and  in  I.  It  apparently  comes  from  i  K.  152,  where 
Abijah's  mother  is  called  Maacah  daughter  of  Absalom. 

28-33.  Absalom  secures  recognition  at  court.  —  After  dwelling 
in  Jerusalem  two  years  without  seeing  the  face  of  the  king,  Absa- 
lom sent  for  Joab  to  send  him  to  the  king]  evidently  to  expostulate 
concerning  the  situation.  Joab,  however,  was  not  willing  to  come 
even  after  a  second  summons.  He  probably  felt  that  he  had  done 
enough  in  procuring  Absalom's  recall.  —  30.  Absalom's  imperious 
temper  shows  itself  in  the  means  taken  to  secure  Joab's  attention. 
He  said  to  his  servants  :   see  Joab's  field  next  to  me  where  he  has 


XIV.  25-xv.  I  339 

barley ;  go  and  set  it  on  fire]  the  standing  grain  when  fully  ripe 
burns  readily,  as  is  seen  in  the  experiment  of  Samson  with  the 
foxes.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  (or  at  the  beginning  of  the  next) 
(©I  insert :  And  the  servants  of  Joab  came  to  hwt  with  rent  clothes 
and  said :  the  servants  of  Absalom  have  set  the  field  on  fire.  The 
sentence  may  be  original.  —  31,  32.  To  Joab's  question,  Absalom 
thinks  it  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  he  had  sent  for  him.  The 
king's  son  treats  Joab  as  a  servant.  He  will  send  to  the  king  the 
message  :  Why  have  I  come  from  Geshur?  It  would  be  better 
for  me  still  to  be  there]  the  half  recognition  which  he  has  received 
is  more  galling  than  exile.  Without  further  explanation  of  his 
arson,  he  goes  on  :  And  now  let  me  see  the  face  of  the  king,  and 
if  there  be  guilt  in  me,  let  him  kill  me.  —  33.  The  appeal  made  by 
Joab  was  successful,  and  Absalom  was  received  by  his  father,  who 
kissed  him  in  token  of  full  reconciliation. 

30.  n'nxim]  for  which  the  Qre  commands  mn^xni.  The  form  n^xin  seems 
to  occur  nowhere  else,  so  that  the  KHb  here  is  most  easily  accounted  for  by 
supposing  it  to  be  the  blunder  of  a  scribe,  cf.  Ges.^"  §  71.  The  insertion  of 
^l  is  accepted  by  Th.,  Kl. ;  rejected  by  We.,  Bu.  The  transition  is  abrupt 
without  it,  and  its  omission  may  be  accounted  for  by  homeoteleuton,  so  that 
the  probability  is  rather  in  its  favour. 

XV.  l.-XIX.  44.  The  usurpation  of  Absalom.  —  After  due 
preparation,  Absalom  has  himself  anointed  king  at  Hebron.  At 
his  approach  to  the  capital,  David  retires  to  the  Jordan  valley. 
Absalom  is  for  some  time  in  possession  of  the  capital,  while  David 
finds  support  in  transjordanic  Israel.  By  a  decisive  battle,  the 
cause  of  Absalom  is  lost,  he  himself  being  slain.  The  grief  of  the 
king  at  the  loss  of  his  son  is  as  great  as  if  he  had  lost  his  king- 
dom. The  feeling  between  Judah  and  Israel  breaks  out  again  in 
the  return  of  the  monarch,  and  the  sequel  is  the  rebellion  of 
Sheba  ben  Bichri. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  vivid  pieces  of  narrative  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  evidently  belongs  to  an  old  and  well  informed  source. 
This  source  is  apparently  the  same  from  which  we  have  had  the 
account  of  Aranon  and  Absalom  which  immediately  precedes. 

XV.  1-6.  Absalom  plays  the  demagogue.  —  First  he  assumes 
the  state  befitting  the  heir  apparent :  He  procured  a  chariot  and 


340  a  SAMUEL 

horses  and  fifty  men  to  run  before  hwi\  the  chariot  was  an  unac- 
customed luxury.  The  fifty  retainers  would  form  a  body-guard 
for  the  young  prince.  In  the  absence  of  precedent  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  throne,  such  preparations  indicated  that  the  prince 
was  putting  himself  forward  with  a  claim  to  the  succession.  We 
have  no  evidence  that  David  had  as  yet  made  any  provision  in 
favour  of  Solomon.  Primogeniture  has  never  been  the  rule  in  the 
East,  and  Absalom,  being  of  royal  blood  on  both  sides,  may  well 
have  regarded  himself  as  the  best  fitted  for  the  throne.  —  2.  Ab- 
salom now  made  it  his  habit  to  rise  early  and  stand  at  the  gate"] 
of  the  city,  the  place  of  public  concourse.  —  And  every  man  that 
had  a  case  to  come  be/ore  the  king  for  judgment  Absalofti  would 
call  to  himself]  and  show  interest  in  him,  first  by  asking  him 
about  his  home.  —  3.  Then  came  an  insinuation  that  the  king 
was  careless  about  the  administration  of  justice  :  Thy  pleadings 
are  good  and  right,  but  there  is  no  one  to  hear  thee  on  the  part  of 
the  king'\  we  may  suppose  that  the  man  was  encouraged  to  state 
his  case  before  this  was  said.  —  4.  Suggestion  that  Absalom  him- 
self had  the  interest  of  justice  at  heart :  Oh,  that  o?ie  would  make 
me  judge  in  the  land,  and  to  me  should  come  every  man  who  has  a 
case,  and  I  would  give  him  justice  I  The  public  good  is  repre- 
sented as  his  main  interest.  —  5.  He  would  not  allow  the  custom- 
ary obeisance,  but  would  place  men  on  the  level  of  friendship  : 
When  a  mati  came  near  to  do  obeisance  he  would  put  out  his  hand 
and  take  hold  of  him  and  kiss  him.  —  6.  The  result  is  not  surpris- 
ing :  He  stole  the  understanding  of  the  men  of  Israel^  he  deceived 
them,  cf.  Gen.  31^. 

1.  vjb'^  D'ii]  such  runners  formed  a  part  of  royal  state  in  very  early  limes, 
and  have  continued  to  the  present  in  the  East.  —  2.  !;-\xn-^3]  should  probably 
be  t:"N  ^3:  ttSs  kv-np  ®.  The  answers  of  the  men  would  be  different;  the 
author  puts  a  general  answer  for  the  different  specific  ones :  Thy  servant  is 
from  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel ;  as  if  he  had  said:  the  man  answered :  I  am 
from  this  or  that  tribe. — 4.  "j-:;:""^::]  cf.  the  expression  jr^"":  also  expressing 
a  wish,  Jer.  S-^. — aom]  is  lacking  in  ^'^IL.  —  6.  3'^-PN  'x  3jri]  cannot 
mean  he  won  their  affection,  but  must  be  interpreted  by  the  similar  phrase. 
Gen.  31^,  where  the  only  meaning  allowable  is  Jacob  deceived  Laban.  So 
Absalom  stole  the  brain  of  Israel,  befooled  them.  The  heart  is  the  seat  of  the 
intellect,  cf.  BDB.  s.v.  33*^  and  o'',  and  especially  Delitzsch,  System  dtr  Bibl. 
Psychologie"^  (1861),  p.  248  f  where  the  parallels  are  cited. 


XV.  i-iJ 


341 


7-12.  The  usurpation.  —  The  site  chosen  is  Hebron  where  we 
may  suppose  there  was  more  or  less  dissatisfaction  at  the  removal 
of  the  capital  to  Jerusalem.  The  time  seems  to  be  four  years 
after  Absalom's  restoration  to  favour.  The  pretext  was  a  vow 
made  to  the  Yahweh  of  Hebron.  —  8.  For  thy  servant  vowed  a 
vow  when  I  dwelt  in  Geshur  in  Aram  saying :  If  Yahweh  bring 
me  back  to  Jerusalem,  I  will  serve  Yahweh  in  Hebron']  the  near- 
est parallel  seems  to  be  the  vow  of  Jacob  Gen,  28^^  (E),  and 
like  that,  this  vow  calls  for  personal  appearance  before  God  with 
sacrifice,  Gen.  35^''.  It  is  evident,  as  in  the  case  of  Baal,  that  the 
Yahweh  of  a  particular  place  assumed  a  distinct  personality  in  the 
common  apprehension.  Although  the  Ark  was  at  Jerusalem,  David 
did  not  find  it  strange  that  Absalom  should  want  to  worship  at 
Hebron.  The  Yahweh  of  Hebron  would  be  the  special  God  of 
Judah.  —  9.  David  gives  the  desired  permission.  — 10.  At  the 
time  of  his  departure  Absalom  sent  emissaries  into  all  the  tribes 
0/  Israel,  saying :  When  you  hear  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  then 
say:  Absalom  has  become  king  in  Hebroji.  It  is  evident  that 
much  more  elaborate  preparation  was  made  than  appears  on 
the  surface  of  this  concise  narrative.  The  signal  was  expected 
to  go  from  village  to  village,  and  enough  men  were  distributed  to 
declare  the  coronation  an  accomplished  fact.  — 11.  Besides  his 
own  party,  Absalom  took  two  hundred  77ien  from  Jerusalem  who 
were  invited]  as  guests  to  the  festival.  —  These  went  in  their  in- 
nocence] being  ignorant  of  the  plan.  But  as  members  (we  may 
suppose)  of  the  leading  famihes  they  would  be  hostages  in  Absa- 
lom's hands,  or  if  convinced,  as  they  might  easily  be  at  Hebron, 
that  Absalom's  cause  was  the  winning  one,  they  would  exert  a 
powerful  influence  in  his  favour.  — 12.  As  it  stands,  the  verse 
does  not  fit  the  context.  It  says  that  Absalom  sent  Ahithophel 
from  his  city,  but  whither  (which  is  here  the  most  important 
point)  we  are  not  told.  There  is  authority  for  correcting  to  : 
Absalom  sent  for  Ahithophel,  or  to:  Absalom  sent  and  brought 
Ahithophel.  But  from  the  later  narrative  we  conclude  that  Ahith- 
ophel was  the  soul  of  the  rebellion,  and  we  have  reason  to  suspect 
therefore  that  the  original  text  contained  something  to  the  effect 
that  Ahithophel  fomented  the  conspiracy  from  Giloh,  while  Absa- 
lom was  carrying  on  the  sacrificial  feast  at  Hebron.     This  alone 


342  2  SAMUEL 

would  account  for  the  fact  that  the  conspiracy  was  strotig  and  the 
people  with  Absalom  kept  increasing  in  nufnber. 

7.  njB'  0'j?31n]  has  given  the  scholars  trouble.  The  Rabbinical  expositors 
count  from  the  time  when  the  Israelites  demanded  a  king  (Isaaki,  Kimchi), 
or  from  David's  first  anointing  by  Samuel  (LbG.\  or  again  from  the  slaying 
of  the  priests  at  Nob  (Pseudo-Hier.),  as  though  the  rebellion  were  a  punish- 
ment for  David's  deception.  The  natural  reckoning  would  be  from  the  coro- 
nation of  David  at  Hebron  (Cler.),  but  it  is  unlikely  that  the  usurpation  took 
place  in  the  last  year  of  David's  life,  The  most  obvious  way  out  of  the  diffi- 
culty is  to  correct  \ht  forty  Xofour,  which  is  favoured  by  O^,  Josephus,  Theod., 
and,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  MSS.  of  IL,  also  by  I.  —  8.  aT']  is  erroneous 
duplication  of  the  verb  which  follows.  The  punctuators  try  to  make  the  best 
of  it  by  reading  2rz'\  which  however  cannot  be  the  adverbial  infinitive  of  oir. 
For  the  latter,  which  is  read  by  (S,  we  must  restore  yvr\  or  Jir  (Th.  al.).  At 
the  end  of  the  verse  (@^  adds  iv  XfBpwf,  which  seems  necessary  (adopted  by 
Kl.,  Bu.),  and  which  may  have  been  left  out  because  it  emphasizes  the  dis- 
tinctness of  the  Yahweh  of  Hebron.  — 10.  D'Sjn::]  generally  s/ies,  but  here  a 
little  broader  in  meaning.  — 11.  naT'i'j  iy-i>  n^i]  a  strong  expression  —  (Aey 
did  not  know  atiything  of  the  matter.  —  12.  'vS"nx  □I'^r^vS  nS;:"i]  it  is  evident 
that  this  is  wrong.  The  only  emendation  suggested  by  the  versions  is  to  read 
'3X  NipM  or  Nnpii  'as  n'?s'''i  which  are  supported  by  various  Greek  Codices; 
or  else  to  insert  inN3M  with  ;S.  Neither  one  seems  to  go  far  enough,  for  it 
remains  inexplicable  that  Ahithophel  should  not  be  invited  until  the  very  last 
moment.  The  reconstruction  of  Kl.  lacks  probability.  —  •'jS^jn]  from  n'^'j  like 
■•jS'iyn  from  r\^^Z'.  Gilo  is  enumerated  among  the  towns  of  the  hill  country 
of  Judah.  It  is  not  yet  certainly  identified,  but  a  Beit  Jala  and  &/ala  exist 
in  the  vicinity  of  Bethlehem,  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  165. 

13-16.  David,  taken  by  surprise,  flees  the  city.  The  first  news 
he  receives  is  that  the  heart  of  the  men  of  Israel  has  gone  after 
Absaloni]  there  must  have  been  widespread  dissatisfaction  to 
justify  the  report,  or  even  to  make  it  plausible  to  David. — 
14.  The  citadel  in  which  he  had  established  himself  could  not 
protect  him  —  evidently  he  feared  disaffection  in  his  household. 
It  is  perhaps  not  without  reason  that  (©^  reads :  lest  the  people 
come  upon  us.  That  David  wished  to  spare  the  city  the  horrors 
of  a  siege  (Kl.)  is  not  indicated  in  the  text.  It  seems  rather  that 
he  was  convinced  that  his  only  safety  was  in  flight.  — 15.  The 
officials  of  the  court  consent.  — 16.  So  the  king  went  out  and  all 
his  household  with  hini]  literally,  at  his  feet.  The  only  exception 
was  ten  concubines  who  were  left  in  charge  of  the  house. 


XV.  12-22  343 

14.  -ina-i  jd]  nil  (pedffiy  6  \a6s  <&^.  —  15.  nnajj  run']  is  sustained  by  6, 
though  we  rather  look  for  a  verb;  S  adds  in3>'. 

17,  18.  The  text  has  suffered,  but  we  are  able  to  make  out  that 
^/le  king  and  all  the  people  who  followed  him  went  out  and  stood  at 
Beth  Merhak']  a  place  otherwise  unknown,  possibly  the  last  house 
on  the  Jerusalem  side  of  the  Kidron  wadi.  The  reason  for  the 
king's  making  a  halt  here  is  that  he  might  inspect  his  party. 
They  defile  before  him  :  all  his  officers  and  the  Cherethites  and  the 
Pelethites']  the  veteran  body-guard.  With  them  was  a  recent  re- 
cruit, Ittai  the  Gittite,  who  was  apparently  once  mentioned  here, 
as  he  is  addressed  by  David  in  the  next  verse.  He  was,  we  may 
judge,  a  soldier  of  fortune  who  had  just  enlisted  in  David's  service 
with  a  band  of  followers.  There  is  no  analogy  in  Hebrew  antiq- 
uity for  regarding  him  as  a  Phihstine  hostage.*  — 19.  David  gen- 
erously advises  Ittai  to  seek  his  fortune  with  the  new  king,  rather 
than  with  himself  (who  could  hardly  offer  much  in  the  way  of  pro- 
motion) :  Why  wilt  thou  also  go  with  us  ?  Return  and  dwell  with 
the  king,  for  thou  art  a  stranger  and  an  exile  from  thy  place']  one 
seeking  a  home  and  who  thought  he  had  found  it.  —  20.  Yesterday 
was  thy  coming,  and  to-day  shall  I  make  thee  7vander  with  us  ? 
The  question,  which  is  indicated  by  the  inflection  of  voice,  is  rhe- 
torical. The  hardship  of  such  a  course  is  indicated  in  the  circum- 
stantial clause  which  follows  :  when  I  am  going  hither  and  yonder"] 
literally;  wheti  I  am  going  where  I  am  going;  David  himself  did 
not  know  where,  cf.  i  S.  23^^  He  therefore  advises  :  Return  and 
take  thy  brethren  with  thee,  and  Yahweh  show  thee  kindness  and 
faithfulness]  David's  thoughtfulness  for  others  shows  itself  in  this 
incident,  at  a  time  when  he  might  be  excused  for  consulting  his 
own  interest.  —  21.  Ittai  solemnly  declares:  Wherever  my  lord 
the  king  shall  be,  whether  for  death  or  /or  life,  there  will  thy  ser- 
vant be  /  —  22.  At  this  protestation  of  fidelity  David  commands 
him  to  march  on,  so  he  marched  by  with  a  train  which  embraced 
his  men  and  their  families. 

17.  Djn]  two  codd.  have  may  and  this  is  also  the  reading  of  ®^.  The 
original  seems  to  be  |^  which  means  the  people  of  the  household.  — pman  no] 
the  house  of  Distance  might  possibly  be  the  furthest  house  from  the  centre 

•  Which  is  Thenius'  hypothesis,  retained  by  LOhr,  Th^,  p.  ^^i, 


344  *  SAMUEL  -v^ 

of  the  city.  But  this  is  precarious.  The  reading  of  (5  seems  to  have  been 
■ia-\r:n  nn,  which  however  has  been  corrected  in  the  chief  MSS.,  cf.  Field, 
Hex.  Orig.  I.  p.  569.  — 18.  The  text  of  (S  has  suffered  l^y  conflation  but  its 
fulness  does  not  help  to  restore  the  true  reading.  The  difficulty  with  |§  is 
that  it  makes  all  the  Gittites  to  have  followed  David  from  Gath.  Had  the 
author  meant  to  say  that  the  troops  were  those  who  had  followed  David  from 
Ziklag  he  would  have  said  so.  The  sudden  introduction  of  Ittai  in  the  next 
verse  seems  to  prove  that  he  was  once  mentioned  here,  and  the  consequence 
is  easily  drawn,  that  these  Gittites  were  his  men.  For  D'njn-Sji  therefore,  Bu. 
with  Kl.,  Ki.,  following  a  hint  of  We.,  proposes  to  read  ^njn  ^nx  •'B'jn  '?-y\. 
The  objection  to  this  is  that  it  makes  these  Gittites  a  force  of  six  hundred  men. 
But  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites  were  only  six  hundred  in  number,  and  it  is 
unlikely  that  a  fresh  band  of  the  same  size  would  be  enlisted  while  the  veterans 
were  faithful.  Ew.  {GVT^.  III.  p.  243,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  179)  changes  D^njn  into 
a''-»3jn  which  does  not  relieve  the  sudden  introduction  of  Ittai  in  the  next  verse. 

—  19.  IcipoS]  might  perhaps  stand :  an  exile  as  to  thy  place  ;  but  the  versions 
seem  to  have  read  iDipnc,  @SIL  and  one  Hebr.  cod.,  whereas  2^  inserts  Sr^N. 

—  20.  <Si^  has  a  double  translation  of  the  opening  part  of  the  verse.  One 
part  of  this  seems  to  have  read  with  the  interrogative  nxa  Sinnn.  ijjun  Kt., 
is  doubtless  to  be  corrected  to  the  Qre. :  ly^jx,  unless  we  go  further  and  read 
TT'JN.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  pcxi  -ion  are  unattached  and  we  should  doubt- 
less insert  with  (5  -\vy  db'^i  mn'i  which  fell  out  after  the  preceding  -idj?  (Th.). 

—  21.  DN  ■'3  is  not  in  place,  nor  is  the  dn  alone,  which  in  an  oath  has  a  nega- 
tive force.     Nothing  is  left  to  us  but  to  suppose  that  a  scribe  made  a  blunder 

—  as  was  already  discovered  by  the  punctuators.  —  22.  i^^j  cf.  Ex.  lo*".  &^ 
inserts  the  kinghtve  through  a  misapprehension  of  Ittai's  position  (as  leader). 

23.  The  condition  of  things  at  the  particular  moment  when  the 
Ark  appeared  was  this  :  All  the  people  were  weeping  with  a  loud 
voice,  while  the  kitig  stood  in  the  Kidron  wadi,  and  the  people  passed 
by  before  him  on  the  road  of  the  Wilderness  Olive']  the  Kidron  is 
the  well  known  valley  east  of  Jerusalem.  The  road  taken  was 
probably  the  one  on  the  south  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  the 
same  which  is  still  travelled  to  Jericho  and  the  Jordan  valley.  — 
And  behold  Zadok  .  .  .  bearing  the  Ark  of  God]  the  present  text 
inserts  and  all  the  Levites  with  him.  But  as  the  Levites  are  un- 
known to  the  Books  of  Samuel,  this  is  obviously  a  late  insertion. 
Probably  the  original  was  Zadok  and  Abiathar.  They  now  set 
down  the  Ark  to  allow  the  people  to  pass  by.  As  the  Ark  went 
on  the  campaigns  of  David,  it  was  a  natural  thought  to  take  it  at 
this  time.  — ^25.  The  king  commands  the  Ark  to  be  taken  back  : 
Jf  I  find  favour  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh,  he  will  bring  me  back  and 


XV.  23-^  345 

will  show  me  it  and  his  dwelling.  —  26.  If  on  the  other  hand 
Yahweh  has  no  pleasure  in  him,  he  resigns  himself  to  the  divine 
will.  —  27,  28,  At  the  same  time,  David  is  not  unmindful  of  the 
advantage  of  having  friends  in  the  city  :  Thou  art  returning  to  the 
city  in  peace  and  with  you  are  your  two  sons,  Ahimaaz  thy  son  and 
Jonathan  the  son  of  Abiathar ;  see,  I  am  going  to  delay  at  the  fords 
of  the  Wilderness  until  word  comes  from  you  to  inform  me.  — 
29.   The  Ark  is  accordingly  returned  to  its  place. 

23.  The  text  has  suffered.  The  central  point  seems  to  be  Snj3  loy  which 
is  suspicious,  for  the  road  did  not  (probably)  follow  the  course  of  the  wadi, 
but  crossed  it.  In  the  following,  also,  the  king  seems  to  be  still  reviewing  his 
company.  We.'s  conjecture  that  we  should  read  "rnja  id;?  is  therefore  gener- 
ally adopted  and  has  much  to  recommend  it.  We  have  further  two  assertions 
that  the  people  were  passing  along,  one  of  which  is  superfluous,  and  I  have 
therefore  stricken  out  the  first  onay  Dj?n-'?Di.  Again,  for  'jd"'^];  we  should 
read  rjo  """i  with  (5^,  and  finally  n^ncn'ON  nm  is  an  impossible  expression  and 
must  have  been  "ia"'cn  nn  Tn :  koto  ttjv  65bi'  rfjy  f\aias  ttjs  fv  tt)  epi\iitf  G^' 
probably  represents  this,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  reconstruct  literally  t>t 
■\3nc3  -\Z'H  rvn  as  is  done  by  Dr.,  Bu. — 24.  i.~n  D''i'?n  '?di]  is  easily  accounted 
for,  as  the  insertion  of  a  later  scribe,  whose  point  of  view  was  that  of  the 
Chronicler.  A  similar  insertion  is  nna  which  betrays  itself  by  its  difference 
of  position  in  the  MSS.  of  ©.  —  cn^sn]  Kvpiov  ®^  which  also  adds  onrb  Batddp 
which  if  original  can  only  represent  in''jc.  The  verb  ip^''^  is  probably  for 
^3^'^s^^.  The  enigmatical  inoN  '?j?'i  may  possibly  mean  and  Abiathar  offered 
(sacrifices)  as  David  had  done  on  another  journey  of  the  Ark.  But  we  should 
expect  the  object  to  be  expressed,  and  as  the  words  are  omitted  by  (5^^,  they 
are  probably  due  to  an  attempt  to  readmit  the  displaced  Abiathar  into  the 
text.  —  25.  ->^>'n]  @L  adds  iDpna  ytfy  adopted  by  Bu.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  the  sense,  and  insertion  is  more  likely  than  omission.  —  ''j>s-ini]  6\l/ofj.ai  (3^- 
—  27.  nxnn]  is  obscure.  It  is  taken  by  Ew.  as  an  address  to  Zadok,  as  if  he 
were  a  si'er,  which  does  not  appear  to  be  the  fact.  @^  reads  ini  which  is  sus- 
picious from  its  recurrence  at  the  beginning  of  v.'^^.  We.  supposes  an  insertion 
a/{<-\rt  ]noi  which  has  been  corrupted  into  the  present  text.  It  is  impossible  to 
decide  with  certainty.  For  njc,  I  am  inclined  to  read  Jir  (the  participle)  — 
the  n  having  come  from  the  following  word.  —  28.  laicn  nn^ya]  is  probably 
correct.  The  Qre  substitutes  'cn  maiya  which  is  tautological.  (5^  finds  a 
reference  to  the  same  IVUderness  Olive  mentioned  above.  —  29.  i2!r^i]  prob- 
ably aiVM  <S^,  the  Ark  being  the  subject. 

30.  David  now  takes  up  his  march,  going  up  the  ascent  of 
Olivet  with  his  head  covered  and  his  feet  bare,  both  signs  of  grief. 
The  people  also  covered  their  heads  and  went  up,  weeping  as  they 


346  2  SAMUEL 

went.  —  31.  On  hearing  of  the  defection  of  Ahithophel,  David 
prays  :  Tiirn  the  counsel  of  Ahithophel  to  foolishness,  O  Yahweh  ! 
As  remarked  above,  Ahithophel,  the  grandfather  of  Bathsheba, 
had  a  special  reason  to  seek  the  destruction  of  David.  —  32.  As 
David  was  corning  to  the  hill  top  where  one  worships  God'\  sanctu- 
aries on  the  hills  are  too  well  known  to  need  remark. —  There 
met  him  Hushai  the  Arkite  the  friend  of  David,  with  his  tunic 
rent  and  earth  upon  his  head'\  the  place  or  family  from  which  he 
got  his  name  is  unknown.  —  33,  34.  David  sees  in  Hushai  an 
instrument  for  counteracting  the  influence  of  Ahithophel :  If  thou 
go  with  me,  thou  shall  be  a  burden  to  rne  ;  but  if  thou  return  to  the 
city  and  say  to  Absalo/n  :  I  am  thy  servant,  O  king  .  .  .  then  thou 
canst  bring  to  nought  for  tne  the  counsel  of  Ahithophel']  the  sen- 
tence is  a  little  complicated  by  the  length  of  the  speech  which 
Hushai  is  to  make  to  Absalom.  The  apparent  sense  of  it  is  :  Thy 
servant  will  I  be,  O  king ;  thy  father'' s  serva?it  was  I  formerly, 
and  noiv  I  am  thy  servant.  But  as  the  Hebrew  is  awkward,  it  is 
possible  that  the  text  has  suffered.  &  certainly  read  something 
quite  different  in  part  of  the  sentence  :  Thy  brothers  have  gofie 
away  arid  the  king  thy  father  has  gone  away  after  [^theni]  ;  now  I 
am  thy  servant,  O  king!  let  me  live  ;  I  have  been  thy  father's  servant 
heretofore,  and  now  I  am  thy  servant.  —  35,  36.  David  instructs 
Hushai  to  keep  Zadok  and  Abiathar  informed,  and  to  send  word 
by  their  sons  as  has  already  been  planned,  cf.  v.^.  —  37.  As  a 
result  of  this  advice,  Hushai  returns  to  the  city,  reaching  it  about 
the  time  of  Absalom's  arrival. 

30.  r^'Ni  sr'^N  idh]  we  find  du'Ni  lan  in  Jer.  14^  where  al^o  it  is  a  sign  of 
grief.  —  31.  ini]  read  nnSi  with  ^  and  3  MSS.  of  J§.  It  is  unnecessary 
however  to  change  the  verb  to  ijt  (Bu.).  —  32.  oixn]  b  apxifratpos  AavtiS  <3 
as  in  16^^  The  original  (g  was  6  'Apxl  erotpoj  AavtlS,  of  which  we  have  traces 
in  a  few  MSS.  The  friends  or  boon  companions  of  the  king  were  a  special 
class  of  courtiers,  as  it  would  seem.  The  Arkites  are  mentioned  Jos.  16^ 
between  Luz  and  Ataroth.  —  34.  The  difficulties  with  the  received  text  in  the 
middle  of  the  verse  are  these :  n^n.s  is  in  an  unusual  position  and  separated 
by  iScn  from  its  subject  ">:!<;  both  ■'jxi  have  the  1  of  the  apodosis  which  is 
certainly  extreme  (Dr.) ;  and  the  clause  Tia>'  •'JN'i  repeats  the  first.  At  the 
opening  we  should  expect  a  salutation  of  the  king.  (S  has  (with  slight  varia- 
tions) :  St(\7i\vOa<nv  ol  adeKcpol  ffov,  koI  6  0a<Ti\ebs  KaTdirtadiv  fxov  ^if\i)\vd(v 
d  irarrip  aoM  to  which  it  adds  the  reading  of  ^  in  a  second  translation,  only 


XV.  3I-XVI.  6  347 

rendering  n<nN  by  lo<r<if  /xe  (vaai.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  original  had 
some  such  reference  as  this :  iAy  brother  has  passed  away,  and  the  king  t/iy 
father  has  passed  away  after  him  (Kl.).  The  assumption  that  David  was  as 
good  as  dead  would  be  flattering  to  Absalom.  The  let  me  live  seems  to  us 
"too  currish"  (We.),  but  it  might  not  so  strike  an  oriental. —  36.  njn]  19 
codd.  have  njm  which  is  also  read  by  (gk  At  the  end  of  this  verse  (g^  inserts 
a  repetition  of  what  Hushai  was  expected  to  say  to  Absalom. —  37.  ^'P^  the 
pointing  is  unusual,  cf.  Ges.23  93  //.  —  {<3']  on  the  tense  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax, 
45,  Rem.  2,  Dr.,  Tenses^,  27  7. 

XVI.  1.  The  account  follows  the  fortunes  of  David.  When  he 
had  got  a  little  beyond  the  summit,  Ziba  the  servant  of  Meribbaal 
met  him']  having  come  from  the  city,  it  would  seem,  by  another 
road  ;  with  a  pair  of  asses  saddled,  and  two  hundred  loaves  of  bread 
and  a  hundred  bunches  of  raisins]  cf.  i  S.  25^^  The  two  hundred 
fruits  were  probably  figs,  Am.  8\  —  2.  To  the  king's  question 
Ziba  replies  that  this  is  provision  for  the  king's  household. — 
3.  A  further  question  concerning  his  master  brings  out  the  reply  : 
He  remains  in  Jerusalem,  for  he  thinks :  To-day  will  the  house  of 
Israel  give  me  back  my  father's  kingdom]  it  is  possible  that  Merib- 
baal had  the  idea  that  the  popular  disturbance  would  bring  the 
house  of  Saul  again  to  the  front.  But  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he, 
a  cripple,  should  expect  to  be  their  choice  for  the  throne.  The 
excuse  given  later  by  Meribbaal  himself  accounts  sufficiently  for 
his  remaining  behind,  and  we  must  suppose  Ziba's  accusation 
slanderous.  • —  4.  The  king  believes  in  the  man  who  has  done  him 
a  kindness,  and  without  waiting  to  hear  the  other  side  gives  him 
all  Meribbaal's  property.  Ziba  acknowledges  the  gift  by  obeisance 
and  a  prayer  for  the  king's  continued  favour. 

1.  icx]  Kl.  conjectures  idj?i,  and  in  fact  two  asses  seem  insufficient  for  the 
occasion. — f^p]  is  translated  by  (@^  (|)oiV(«6s,  but  by  {S"^  iraAaSaf;  the  other 
versions  seem  to  favour  the  latter.  —  2.  anSn'?!  Kt.  ;  onSni  Qre.  The  latter 
seems  to  be  correct.  —  3.  nioSDo]  as  indicated  above  (on  i  S.  15-^)  probably 
a  false  spelling  of  noScD.  —  4.    ^nMnncn]  /  bow  myself  in  gratitude. 

5.  The  next  incident  was  less  agreeable.  —  The  king  came  to 
Bahurim]  the  village  already  mentioned  in  the  account  of  Michal's 
return,  3'^  It  seems  to  have  been  on  distinctly  Benjamite  terri- 
tory. There  catne  out  a  man  of  the  clan  of  Saul  whose  name  was 
Shimei  son  of  Gera,  cursing  as  he  came.  —  6.    His  hostility  was 


348  2  SAMUEL 

made  known  by  his  actions  as  well  as  his  words  :  He  stoned 
David  and  all  his  officers  and  all  the  people  and  all  the  soldiers  at 
his  right  hand  and  at  his  left']  this  represents  the  king  surrounded 
by  his  body-guard.  —  7,  8.  Shimei's  words  were  :  Get  thee  gone, 
get  thee  gone,  vile  and  cruel  man  !  Yahweh  has  brought  back  upon 
thee  all  the  blood  of  the  house  of  Saul]  this  temper  was  probably 
not  uncommon  in  Benjamin.  We  could  condone  it  if  the  owner 
had  not  shown  such  obsequiousness  at  a  later  date.  —  Behold  thee 
now  in  thy  calamity/]  a  spectacle  to  all  men.  —  9.  Abishai  is 
ready  to  avenge  the  insult :  Why  should  this  dead  dog  curse  my 
lord  the  king?  cf.  9^  — 10.  David  denies  that  he  has  anything  in 
common  with  the  violent  temper  of  the  sons  of  Zeruiah :  When 
Yahweh  has  said  to  him  :  Curse  David !  then  who  shall  say :  Why 
hast  thou  done  so?  The  infliction  was  of  divine  ordering,  and 
must  be  borne  patiently.  — 11.  A  second  remark  on  the  same 
subject:  My  son  7vho  came  from  my  bo7vels  seeks  iny  life,  how  much 
more  this  Benfamite]  is  excusable.  — 12.  Perchance  YaMveh  will 
look  upon  my  affliction  and  repay  me  good  for  his  cursing  this  day] 
Nestle  {Marginalien,  p.  18)  compares  the  Qoran  (68^-),  where  the 
owners  of  the  blasted  garden  say  :  "  Perhaps  our  Lord  will  give  us 
in  exchange  a  better  than  it."  — 13.  As  David  continued  his  jour- 
ney, Shimei  went  along  on  the  side  of  the  mountain  parallel  with 
him,  cursing  as  he  went,  and  threw  stones  and  dust]  more  as  an 
expression  of  hatred  than  with  the  expectation  of  inflicting  bodily 
injury.  — 14.  So  the  king  and  the  people  came  to  ( ?  some  place 
the  name  of  which  is  lost)  and  he  refreshed  himself  there. 

5.  N3i]  is  the  wrong  tense,  and  should  be  corrected  to  n2'1,  so  apparently 
6.  We  should  however  expect  the  order  n:i  in  'oni.  Shimei  is  the  name  of 
several  men  in  the  history  of  Israel.  The  Benjamite  clan  Gera  is  mentioned 
Gen.  46^^^  Jd.  3'°.  —  6.  t>^-a^-a\  ij>D''d]  as  the  Benjamites  are  elsewhere  rep- 
resented as  ambidextrous  (Jd.  2oi6)  one  is  tempted  to  make  this  describe 
Shimei  as  throwing  with  his  right  hand  and  with  his  left.  But  in  usage  ^r^r; 
almost  always  means  at  the  right  hand  of  a  person  or  a  thing.  —  8.  inyia  ^Jn\] 
KoX  eSei^e  aoi  r))v  KaKiav  ffov  <&^  is  probably  only  a  free  translation,  though  it 
may  possibly  imply  in;n  iNnm.  — 10.  "^^p^  '3]  the  Qre  ^^P'  nr  does  not  seem 
to  help.  It  is  awkward  to  join  with  what  follows :  Tvhen  he  curses  and  when 
Yahweh  says:  curse.  I  suspect  that  Kl.  is  right  in  reading  here  as  below, 
favoured  also  by  ®,  ^^p^'^  i"?  mijn :  let  him  curse  !  When  Yahweh  has  said, 
etc, ^3)]   -3  Qre.  — 11.  The  verse  is  supposed  by  Kl.  to  be  a  paraphrase  of 


XVI.  6-19  349 

the  preceding.  There  seems  no  reason,  however,  why  the  king  may  not  have 
made  more  than  one  remark  on  the  same  subject. — 12.  "Jiya]  is  doubtless 
for  "j>'3.  Rabbinical  subtlety  sees  here  one  of  the  Tiqqune  Sopherim,  su]>- 
posing  the  original  reading  to  have  been  ij^yj  :  with  his  eye,  which  was  changed 
to  avoid  anthropomorphism  (Geiger,  Urschrift,  p.  325).  The  Qre  reads  Tyo 
which  is  intended  to  mean  upon  my  tears.  But  such  a  meaning  for  p>  is  with- 
out parallel,  'j'va  with  the  genitive  of  the  object,  the  sin  committed  against 
me,  is  contrary  to  analogy. — inS*?!-!]  is  the  reading  of  Baer  and  Ginsburg, 
whereas  the  majority  of  printed  editions  have  ^vb''!^  in  the  text,  with  inS'7|">  Qre, 
— 13.  '?'?p''i  ii'^n]  is  not  the  usual  form  of  such  a  phrase,  and  it  is  possible 
that  iiSn  is  an  erroneous  insertion;  it  is  lacking  in  %.  —  iricj.'*?]  the  second 
time  is  awkward :  e/c  irAa^icov  OLvrov  ^^ :  in  ahrov  ©^•'5'  may  be  conjectural 
renderings  only,  but  show  the  difficulty  of  the  word.  — 14.  cd^;;]  we  expect 
the  name  of  the  place,  and  it  is  possible  that  D''D''3;  represents  such  a  name; 
otherwise  one  has  dropped  out :  irapa.  rhv  'lopSofrjc  ®^  looks  like  a  conjecture. 
Itt  15'^^  David  expects  to  lodge  at  the  -i3i;:n  nnaj',  and  in  17I''  we  find  him  at 
what  is  intended  to  be  the  same  place.  Possibly  this  name  once  stood  here. 
—  B'djm]  cf.  Ex.  2312. 

15.  The  narrative  now  leaves  David,  in  order  to  show  how 
things  are  going  at  Jerusalem.  Absalom  had  taken  possession 
without  opposition.  The  populace  seem  to  have  been  on  his 
side,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  assertion  that  fke  men  of  Israel  made 
his  train.  — 16.  And  when  Hushai  the  Arkite,  the  friend  of  David, 
ca?ne  to  Absalom  and  said :  Long  live  the  kittg,  Absalom  said:  Is 
this  thy  friejiastiip  for  thy  friend  ?  Such  seems  to  be  the  construc- 
tion of  the  sentence.  — 18.  The  questions  of  Absalom  imply  that 
Hushai  should  have  gone  with  David,  to  which  implication  he 
replies  :  No  /  For  whom  Yahweh  and  this  people  a?id  all  Isr  lel 
have  chosen  —  to  him  will  I  belong  and  with  him  will  I  dwell'\  the 
combination  of  God's  will  and  the  will  of  the  people  overrules  all 
else.  The  flattery  is  obvious.  —  19.  And  in  the  second  place  : 
Whom  should  I  serve  ?  Should  it  not  be  his  soti .?]  that  is,  the 
son  of  the  friend  just  alluded  to.  The  speaker  endeavours  to 
show  that  the  friendship  is  best  manifested  by  turning  to  the  son  : 
As  I  have  served  thy  father,  so  will  I  serve  thee']  the  fine  words 
suffice  for  the  occasion. 

15.  X"  B"N  Djjn-Sji]  Kol  Tray  ox^p  'lffpari\  i&^.  The  latter  seems  original. 
— 16.  "iSnn  'D']  is  given  only  once  in  (g.  The  apodosis  seems  to  begin  with 
v.i'.  — 18.  nS]  the  second  time  is  corrected  by  the  Qre  to  iS,  which  is  essen- 
tial.—  Dtn  Dvni]  refers  to  the  people  there  present:  koI  6  Aoiy  aiiTov  ©'"in 
connexion  with  what  follows  is  tautological. 


350  2  SAMUEL 

20.  Absalom  asks  advice  concerning  the  first  step.  —  21,  Ahith- 
ophel  is  prompt  with  his  reply:  Go  in  to  thy  father's  concubines 
which  he  left  to  keep  the  house,  and  all  Israel  ivill  hear  that  thou 
hast  made  thyself  abhorred  of  thy  father  ;  and  the  hands  of  all  who 
are  on  thy  side  tvill  be  strengthened^  the  breach  would  thus  be  made 
incurable,  and  on  Absalom's  side  would  be  the  determination  of 
men  who  know  this.  The  act  advised,  however,  is  not  a  mere  act 
of  wantonness.  'I'he  successful  usurper  took  possession  of  his  pred- 
ecessor's harem  as  a  matter  of  right,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case 
of  David  himself.  Absalom's  act  was  only  the  public  affirmation 
of  the  logic  of  the  situation.  —  22.  They  pitched  the  tent'\  the 
bridal  tent  of  the  Semites  which  has  survived,  in  the  canopy  of 
the  Jewish  wedding  ceremony,  to  our  own  day.  Absalom  thus 
took  possession  of  the  king's  rights,  before  the  eyes  of  all  Israel 
Had  this  author  known  of  Nathan's  denunciation  of  this  punish- 
ment for  David's  adultery,  he  would  have  made  some  allusion  to 
it  here.  —  23.  That  the  advice  thus  acted  upon  was  just  what  the 
occasion  demanded  is  indicated  by  the  author  in  his  panegyric  : 
The  counsel  of  Ahithophel  ivhich  he  counselled  in  those  days  was  as 
though  one  inquired  of  the  ivord  of  God. 

20.  as'^  ian]  addressed  to  the  whole  circle  of  counsellors.  —  21.  Sn  ni3] 
frequently  used  of  the  consummation  of  marriage.  —  hn  rcsaj]  the  combina- 
tion occurs  nowhere  else,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  Hiphil  was  originally  writ- 
ten :  Ko.T-jax^va.'i  rhf  -narepa  aou  (§.  —  22.  Sn.sn]  cf.  the  nsn  of  the  bridegroom, 
Ps.  19S;  also  WRSmith,  Kinship,  p.  168  f.;  Wellh.,  Muhavimed  in  Medina, 
p.  178.  — 23.  The  Qre  bids  insert  z'^v.  after  Sn::",  which  is  certainly  smoother. 

XVn.  1-14.  Ahithophel  and  Hushai.  —  In  a  debate  as  to 
the  next  step  to  be  taken,  Ahithophel  counsels  an  immediate  pur- 
suit of  David.  Hushai  by  an  elaborate  argument  counteracts  the 
impression  made  by  Ahithophel,  and  secures  delay.  The  debate 
was  held  the  day  of  the  arrival  in  Jerusalem,  apparently  after  the 
appropriation  of  the  concubines  was  decided  upon,  but  before  it 
was  consummated. 

1.  Ahithophel  is  himself  ready  to  take  the  field  against  David  : 
Let  me  choose  twelve  thousand  men,  and  I  will  arise  and  pursue 
David  to-night.  —  2.  The  time  was  favourable:  And  I  will  come 
upon  him  when  he  is  exhausted  and  weak,  and  I  will  throw  him 


XVI.  2o-xvTr.  II  ^51 

into  a  panic,  and  all  the  people  with  him  will  flee  and  I  will  smite 
the  king  alone.  The  picture  drawn  has  a  good  deal  of  probabihty. 
David  was  weary  and  discouraged  ;  the  company  with  him  would 
easily  be  thrown  into  a  panic ;  and  in  the  confusion  the  king 
might  be  slain  with  little  loss  of  life  otherwise.  —  3.  Reading  with 
(5  we  translate  :  And  I  will  bring  back  all  the  people  to  thee  as  the 
bride  returns  to  her  husband ;  only  one  man  thou  seekest — and  all 
the  people  shall  be  at peace'\  the  figure  is  flattering  to  Absalom,  as 
well  as  the  intimation  that  David  alone  is  a  disturber  of  the  peace. 
—  4.  The  advice  commended  itself  to  Absalom  and  the  assembled 
Sheikhs.  —  5.  He  desires  however  to  get  all  possible  light  and  so 
orders  Hushai  to  be  summoned  :  that  we  may  hear  what  is  in 
his  mouth  also.  —  6.  The  case  is  laid  before  Hushai :  Thus  has 
Ahithophel  spoken  ;  shall  ive  carry  out  his  word  ?  If  not,  do  thou 
speak .'  In  case  of  disagreement  only  would  it  be  necessary  to 
make  a  speech.  —  7.  Hushai,  who  knows  that  delay  will  work  for 
David,  pronounces  against  the  scheme.  —  8.  The  argument :  first, 
David  and  his  men  are  old  soldiers,  and  of  angry  temper  like  the 
bear  robbed  of  her  cubs.  The  Syrian  bear  was  formidable,  as 
indeed  it  is  still.  (§  adds  here  :  and  like  the  wild  boar  of  the 
plain.  Secondly,  David  is  too  shrewd  to  spend  the  night  where 
he  is  likely  to  be  surprised ;  he  is  a  man  of  war  and  will  not  lodge 
with  the  people'\  the  hope  of  a  panic  is  hkely  to  be  frustrated.  — 
9.  The  danger  of  an  attack  on  such  a  man  is  evident :  Now  he 
has  hidden  himself  in  one  of  the  caves  or  i?t  one  of  the  places']  an 
indefinite  word  is  chosen,  in  order  to  suggest  that  a  great  variety 
of  such  places  exists  —  and  whe7i  sojue  of  the  people  fall  at  the  first 
attack,  the  report  will  spread]  literally,  the  hearer  will  hear  and 
say  —  there  is  a  slaughter  among  the  people  who  are  with  Absalom. 
The  plausibility  of  this  cannot  be  denied.  Among  the  suddenly 
levied  troops  of  Absalom  a  panic  was  more  hkely  to  arise  than 
among  the  seasoned  soldiers  of  David.  — 10.  The  result  can 
easily  be  foreseen  :  Even  the  valiant  man,  whose  heart  is  like  the 
heart  of  a  lion,  shall  utterly  melt  away]  in  fear,  for  all  Israel 
knows  that  thy  father  is  a  hero,  and  valiant  men  are  they  who  are 
with  him.  — 11,  So  far  the  refutation  of  Ahithophel;  now  comes 
the  counter-proposal :  But  I  counsel]  the  tense  indicates  that  the 
plan  has  been  fully  matured  in  his  mind  ;  let  all  Israel  be  gathered 


352  2  SAMUEL 

to  thee  from  Dan  to  Beersheba  as  the  sand  which  is  By  the  sea  for 
multitude,  7vith  thy  Majesty  inarching  in  the  midst  of  them']  the 
picture  of  the  monarch  in  the  midst  of  such  an  army  was  calcu- 
lated to  impress  the  imagination  of  Absalom.  The  language 
moreover  contains  an  insinuation  that  the  expedition  proposed 
by  Ahithophel,  and  under  his  leadership,  could  not  be  as  effective 
as  if  Absalom  himself  were  the  general.  — 12.  In  this  case  the 
destruction  of  David  is  certain  :  IVe  will  come  upon  him  in  one  of 
the  places  where  he  has  been  discovered]  by  that  time  we  shall  be 
in  no  uncertainty  as  to  his  whereabouts  :  and  we  will  light  upon 
him  as  the  dew  falls  upon  the  ground,  and  there  will  not  be  left  of 
him  and  the  men  who  are  with  him  even  one.  — 13.  An  objector 
might  say  that  the  king  will  thus  have  time  to  get  into  a  fortified 
place.  But  if  so  :  all  Israel  will  bring  ropes  to  that  city,  and  we 
will  drag  it  to  the  wadi]  on  which  it  may  naturally  be  supposed 
to  be  situated,  mitil  there  is  not  found  there  even  a  pebble]  the 
hyperbolical  language  is  calculated  to  make  an  impression.  — 
14.  The  oratory  of  Hushai  carried  the  day,  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  ordering :  Yahweh  had  commanded  to  bring  to  nought 
the  good  counsel  of  Ahithophel  in  order  that  Yahweh  might  bring 
calamity  upon  Absalotn]  hence  the  blindness  of  Absalom  to  his 
real  interest.  . 

1.  Nj"nin3S'  is  followed  by  the  dative  of  advantage  here  as  elsewhere 
according  to  (5 :  ifiavT^.  —  Ti'jj"0''j'^]  the  StKa  x'^^^^"'^  of  (3^  seems  more 
natural  to  us,  but  is  suspicious  for  that  very  reason.  —  2.  iminni]  of  throwing 
into  a  panic  (stampede)  by  a  sudden  attack,  Jd.  8^^.  —  3.  •c^an  Si3n  jitso 
'D  nnN'iB'NJ  is  unintelligible,  as  any  one  may  see  in  the  attempt  of  the  AV, 
adopted  without  remark  by  the  Revisers.  (S  had  a  different  text,  which  since 
Ew.  {GVI^.  III.  p.  247,  E.  Trans.  III.  p.  183)  has  been  generally  adopted  in 
the  form :  tt'pJD  r\7\t<  -inx  v^n  in  na'^sS  nSjn  airo.  The  only  difficulty  is  that 
if  Ahithophel  compares  himself  to  the  groomsman  who  brings  the  bride  to  her 
husband,  he  should  use  a  different  verb  from  2v:\  Schill  {ZATIV.  XII. 
p.  52)  proposes  'ui  ::'ivvn  piohd  ■'jirs,  which  also  gives  a  fairly  good  sense,  but 
does  not  explain  the  origin  of  (g.  —  "^^J  read  '?3i  with  (g.  —  5.  Kip]  read  iNip 
©.  —  Nin-Qj]  emphasizes  the  pronominal  suffix  which  precedes.  Davidson, 
Syntax,  i.  —  6.  On  the  question  whether  we  should  translate  as  above,  or 
(as  is  also  possible,  disregarding  the  accents)  :  shall  we  do  as  he  says  or  not? 
Speak  thou,  of.  Dr.  Notes.  For  pN-QN  (g^'  has  %  irtSs.  Probably  we  should 
read  pt<-ONi,  the  1  having  fallen  out  after  nan.  —  8.  ma-a]  ®b  adds:  Koi  wj 
VI  Tpox«<'tt  iv  r(f  ntSlcf).     The  fierceness  of  wild  swine  is  sufficient  to  justify 


XVII.  II-I9  353 

this  comparison  (cf.  Nestle,  Margittaliett,  p.  i8),  but  as  the  comparison  is 
nowhere  else  actually  made  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  presumption  is  against 
it  here.  —  3;'n-nN]  the  point  seems  to  be  that  David  will  arrange  the  camp  so 
that  his  own  person  will  be  guarded  from  surprise.  —  9.  nny  njni]  seems  not 
to  be  hypothetical:  and  suppose  now  that  he  is  hidden  (Kl.),  but  to  draw  the 
conclusion  from  what  has  just  been  said :  being  a  man  of  war,  David  has 
certainly  hidden  himself.  —  ainnsn]  cf.  iS^^.  For  cna  we  may  restore  D^ja 
with  @^.  — 10.  NiH)]  not  to  be  corrected  to  nini  with  (5^  (Kl.)  for  that  makes 
a  difficulty  with  the  following  verb;  but  the  reference  is  not  to  be  limited  to 
ynrn  which  precedes  (Dr.).  The  speaker  explains  what  he  means  by  the 
next  following  words :  And  he  (I  mean  even  the  valiant  man')  shall  melt  away. 
—  DD']  in  the  thought  of  the  speaker  the  heart  is  the  subject.  — 11.  >nxjj>  ■■a] 
seems  perfectly  good,  but  cf.  We.  —  ^JSi]  and  thy  countenance,  of  the  personal 
presence  of  the  monarch.  — 3"<i73]  means  into  the  war.  But  3ip  in  this  sense 
is  a  late  word,  and  @1L  read  here  D3ipa  which  should  be  restored  (Th.). — 

12.  unji]  evidently  from  nij,  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  pronoun.  Perles, 
Analekten,  p.  32,  proposes  nimi  (so  @^).  —  inu]  with  recession  of  the  accent 
on  account  of  the  following  monosyllable.  The  verb  is  taken  by  some  to  be  a 
jussive  form  instead  of  the  cohortative,  Ges.^^,  §  109  d,,  Davidson,  Syntax, 
§  63,  Rem.  I.  There  is  no  need  to  assume  an  anomaly,  as  the  Niphal  perfect 
makes  good  sense :    and  there  will  not  [by  that  time]  have  been  left  one.  — 

13.  iNijrm]  the  Hiphil  is  rare,  and  does  not  seem  natural  here.  (S^*  koX 
\-hn\f/erai  may  represent  iNom  which  seems  to  fit  the  case.  —  Smn]  as  the 
towns  were  generally  on  the  hills  it  was  fair  to  assume  that  there  would  be  a 
wadi  in  the  vicinity.  —  ins]  from  Am.  9^  the  meaning  pebble  seems  assured. 

15-22.  David  receives  the  news  of  Ms  danger.  —  Hushai  at 
once  informs  the  priests  of  the  discussions  in  the  council.  As  he 
could  not  be  certain  which  would  be  adopted  he  advises  David  to 
put  the  Jordan  between  him  and  the  enemy  :  Do  not  lodge  to-night 
in  the  Araboth,  but  cross  over]  the  place  is  the  same  at  which 
David  has  told  them  he  could  be  found,  15^^  The  danger  is: 
lest  the  king  and  all  the  people  loith  him  be  swallowed  up.  — 
17.  The  two  young  men  were  waiting  at  En-Rogel,  now  generally 
identified  with  the  Well  of  Job  {iox  Joab?)  at  the  junction  of  the 
two  valleys  of  Kidron  and  Ben  Hinnom.  If  they  should  be  seen  to 
come  into  the  city  after  having  started  out  with  David,  it  would 
awaken  suspicion.  —  18.  A  lad  saw  them,  however,  and  reported. 
Discovering  themselves  to  be  pursued,  they  took  refuge  in  the 
house  of  a  man  in  Bahurim~\  so  that  we  may  suppose  not  all  the 
inhabitants  to  have  been  of  the  same  mind  with  Shimei,  The  well 
in  his  court  was  a  good  place  of  hiding.  —  19.   The  woman  of  the 

2A 


354  2  SAMUEL 

house  took  and  spread  a  cloth  over  the  mouth  of  the  ivell  and 
strewed  fruit  upon  if]  as  if  the  fruit  were  drying.  —  20.  The 
reply  of  the  woman  to  the  question  of  the  pursuers  is  probably  de- 
signed to  be  enigmatical.  It  is  completely  so  to  us.  —  21,  22.  The 
messengers  come  to  David  and  bring  Hushai's  advice,  and  David 
arose  and  all  the  people  7vho  were  with  him  and  crossed  over  the 
Jordan]  the  Jordan,  a  swift-flowing  stream,  is  troublesome  either 
to  ford  or  to  cross  by  ferry.  On  this  account  immediate  pursuit 
need  not  be  feared  when  once  on  the  other  side.  By  morning, 
there  was  not  one  left  behind. 

16.  nnv2]  Baer  and  Ginsburg  have  no  Qre  here,  and  it  seems  difficult  to 
suppose  that  the  fords  could  be  called  fords  of  the  wilderness.  I  have  there- 
fore rendered  as  a  proper  name.  —  ;?'?3']  the  so-called  impersonal  construc- 
tion, Davidson,  Syntax,  §  109.  — 17.  '^JTj'y  is  mentioned  in  the  boundary  line 
of  Benjamin  and  Judah,  Josh.  15'^,  evidently  at  the  foot  of  the  valley  of  Ben 
Hinnom.  For  a  description  of  the  present  Bir  Eyyub  cf.  Robinson,  BR^. 
I.  p.  332.  Buhl's  objection  that  this  is  a  well,  and  not  a  fountain,  is  met  by 
the  fact  that  water  flows  in  the  well,  sometimes  even  coming  over  the  top,  so 
that  it  might  well  receive  the  name  Spring.  —  nno'i'n]  the  article  indicates 
only  the  particular  one  who  was  sent  on  this  message ;  we  should  say  a  maid. 
The  tense  of  the  verbs  seems  to  require  the  translation  :  the  maid  was  to  come 
and  tell  them,  and  they  were  to  go  and  tell  David.  — 19.  niDin]  is  unknown. 
The  Targum  has  pS^-n,  dates,  and  it  seems  most  probable  that  fruit  of  some 
kind  would  be  the  thing  exposed  for  drying;  <S)^  has  naKaOas  which  also  means 
fruit.  ®^  seems  to  transfer  the  Hebrew  word,  apa<p(ie.  Aq.  and  Sym.  have 
TTTiadvas  which  is  taken  by  1L.  This  word  means  hulled  or  crushed  barley,  and 
something  of  the  same  kind  is  intended  by  S  ^z'\-\.  The  tradition  represented 
in  BT  should  have  a  good  deal  of  weight  in  a  case  of  this  kind;  cf.  Nestle, 
Marginalien,  p.  iS,  who  also  favours  fruit.  —  20.  ^-^^rT^  is  a  word  which 
occurs  nowhere  else,  and  even  its  derivation  is  uncertain.  The  Arabic  and 
Assyrian  parallels  which  are  alleged  are  not  convincing.  <S^  has  n.iKpl>v;  ®'' 
a-KivlovTis  omitting  a^rn,  and  IL  gustata  paululum  aqiia  ,•  festinanter  seems 
to  come  from  I.  We  might  conjecture  that  an  original  ni^n^j  or  onnon  has 
been  corrupted  into  a''3'':':iT,  but  this  is  no  more  than  a  possibility.  — 
22.  -^\)17\  iiN"- 1;"]  is  connected  by  the  punctuation  with  what  follows;  (5  how- 
ever joins  to  the  preceding.  The  more  vigorous  sense  seems  conveyed  by  the 
former  construction.  —  in.s]  the  punctuation  is  anomalous,  Ges.^^,  §  96. 

23.  A  verse  is  added  to  show  the  fate  of  Ahithophel.  Con- 
vinced that  a  wrong  start  was  made  and  that  the  outcome  would 
be  failure,  he  saddled  his  ass  and  rose  and  went  to  his  house,  to  his 
city]    here  added  to  show  that  his  house  in  Jerusalem  was  not 


XVII.  19-27  355 

meant.  —  There  he  gave  command  concerning  his  house']  testa- 
mentary disposition  of  his  estate,  and  strangled  himself.  Cases 
of  suicide  are  not  common  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  most 
prominent  is  that  of  Saul.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Biblical 
writers  found  it  especially  abhorrent.  Ahithophel  was  not  refused 
burial  in  the  sepulchre  of  his  father. 

23.  niy-Sx]  the  change  to  "Sni  made  by  some  MSS.  seems  unnecessary. 

24-29.  David's  settlement  at  Mahanaim.  —  As  though  the 
temper  of  transjordanic  Israel  was  more  conservative  than  that 
of  the  tribes  west  of  the  river,  David  found  refuge  and  support 
among  the  same  people  who  had  clung  to  Ishbaal.  The  paragraph 
begins  to  tell  of  Absalom's  preparations  for  battle,  and  then  breaks 
off  to  tell  of  the  reception  provided  for  David  by  the  leading  men 
of  Gilead.     Vv.^'-'^  belong  logically  after  '^*». 

24.  David  came  to  Mahanaim,  and  Absalom  also  crossed  the 
Jordan,  he  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  with  him.  Some  time  proba- 
bly was  required  to  summon  the  militia,  but  we  do  not  know  how 
much.  —  25.  The  general  of  Absalom's  army  was  Amasa,  who  is 
described  in  |^  as  son  of  a  tnan  whose  name  was  Ithra  the  Israel- 
ite. The  statement  is  surprising,  because  it  is  superfluous  to  call 
a  man  an  Israelite  who  dwelt  in  the  land  of  Israel.  Only  in  case 
he  were  a  foreigner  is  it  natural  to  add  his  gentilic  description. 
Furthermore,  the  Chronicler  knew  him  as  Jether  the  Ishmaelite, 
I  Chr.  2^^  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  latter  is  correct ;  a 
scribe  would  have  every  reason  to  correct  Ishmaelite  to  Israelite. 
No  motive  can  be  discovered  for  the  reverse  process.  The  lan- 
guage which  is  used  further :  who  came  to  Abigail  daughter  of 
Nahash  sister  of  Zeruiah']  is  explicable  only  on  the  theory  that 
we  have  to  do  with  a  (adiqa  marriage,  that  is,  one  in  which  the 
wife  remains  with  her  clan  and  the  children  become  members  of 
that  clan.  For  Nahash,  the  Chronicler  substitutes  Jesse,  and  a 
number  of  Greek  codices  have  the  same  name  here.  But  the 
Greek  reading  may  have  arisen  from  the  desire  to  harmonize  this 
passage  with  Chronicles.  It  seems  impossible  to  get  at  the  truth 
of  the  case.  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  custom  that  Absalom 
should  appoint  his  kinsman  to  high  office,  as  David  did  in  the 
case  of  Joab.  —  27.    At  Mahanaim  David  received  material  help 


356  2  SAMUEL 

from  Shobi  ben  Nahash]  whom,  as  representing  the  old  royal 
family,  he  had  probably  made  viceroy  over  Ammon,  and  Machir 
ben  Amtniel  of  Lo-Debar]  the  protector  of  Meribbaal,  9*,  ami 
Barzillai  the  Gileadiie  0/  Rogelim']  the  name  is  evidently  Aramaic. 
The  place  is  mentioned  only  here  and  19^^.  —  28.  These  friends 
brought  couches  and  rugs  and  bowls  and  pottery']  in  order  to  fur- 
nish the  houses  occupied  by  the  fugitives.  Besides  this,  pro- 
visions in  abundance:  wheat  and  barley  and  flour  and  parched 
grain  and  beans  and  lentils]  these  the  vegetable  products. — 
29.  The  enumeration  goes  on  with  another  class  of  edibles  :  honey 
and  curds  and  sheep  and  calves.  These  they  set  before  David  and 
his  people,  knowing  that  they  would  be  hungry  and  weary  and 
thirsty  in  the  desert. 

25.  'N"\B"n  Nin>  ^•ov^  e"N"i3]  the  form  of  the  sentence  is  puzzling.  We 
expect  the  order  to  be  nip.'  icb'i  'i:"  tt"t<,  We.  Why  should  a  man's  name  be 
called  Ithra  the  Israelite  ?  His  name  was  Ithra  and  he  was  an  Israelite,  but 
in  Israel  itself  Israelite  would  be  no  distinguishing  mark.  In  case  of  a  for- 
eigner it  would  be  different :  Uriah  the  Hiltite  was  in  a  certain  sense  the 
name  of  David's  soldier.  This  consideration  certainly  favours  the  restoration 
of  Ishmaelite  here  in  accordance  with  Chr.  IL  makes  him  a  Jezreelite.  The 
latter  is  read  also  in  this  place  by  two  Greek  codd.  (III.  and  55  of  Parsons), 
but  probably  no  great  weight  can  be  given  to  this  testimony.  —  '^jn  Sx  n3— ic-n] 
the  sentence  would  be  unnecessary  except  in  case  of  a  fadiqa  marriage,  on 
which  cf.  WRSmith,  Kinship,  Chap.  3.  —  •i:'nj"n3]  as  the  Chronicler  makes 
Abigail  a  daughter  of  /esse,  the  Jewish  expositors  make  Nahash  here  to  be 
another  name  for  Jesse.  But  this  is  very  improbable.  Schm.  and  others  make 
him  the  first  husband  of  Zeruiah's  mother.  @^  and  a  number  of  codd.  read 
'Ifaacki,  which  however  may  be  due  to  harmonistic  tendency.  To  the  theory 
that  Nahash  and  not  Abigail  was  the  sister  of  Zeruiah,  which  would  be  a  pos- 
sible construction  of  the  text,  We.  objects  that  Nahash  is  not  a  woman's  name. 
But  of  this  we  cannot  be  certain.  It  is  not  impossible  that  rnjTa  has  come 
in  under  the  influence  of  rnj"p  in  the  verse  below. — 27.  ■"an]  /col  2«0«€« 
®^^, 'Ov€(T/86t'  (B)^.  It  is  possible  that  a  verb  once  stood  here.  —  o^Vjis]  t'/c 
IfaKaBfiv  <S^.  —  '''^ma]  aoubtless  the  first  element  is  na  =  J3,  Nestle,  in  Am. 
Jour.  Sem.  lang.  XIII.  3.  —  28.  The  missing  verb  is  put  by  6  here  and 
would  better  be  restored  in  the  form  iNi^n.  For  a^rc  :  ZtKo.  Kohas  koI  anfi- 
riwovs  @.  The  Sf/ca  is  ms'j.',  but  by  a  slight  change  we  get  rmnj;  which  makes 
excellent  sense.  With  this  change  (Kl.  and  Nestle)  the  text  of  ©  is  adopted 
above.  —  ^Sp]  is  erroneously  duplicated  in  the  text.  It  seems  to  belong  with 
ncr>.  —  29.  niott'i]  is  obscure.  ®^  seems  to  have  understood  <-a/i'«,  and  so 
IL;  and  this  fits  the  immediate  context.  6^  does  not  translate,  while  S2C 
make  the  wor^l  iii?an  r/uise.     Possibly  there  is  an  error  in  the  text. 


XVII.  27-xviii.  9  357 

XVIII.  1-8.  The  battle.  —  David's  army  sets  out  from  Maha- 
naim  to  meet  the  force  under  Absalom.  David  offers  to  go  him- 
self, but  yields  to  the  entreaties  of  the  soldiers  that  he  stay  in  the 
city.  He  charges  the  captains  to  spare  Absalom.  —  1.  The  king 
in  person  reviews  the  army  and  appoints  officers.  —  2.  The  three 
generals  are  Joab,  Abishai,  and  the  newly  recruited  Ittai.  —  /  also 
will  go  with  you\  the  form  of  the  offer  indicates  that  the  king  did 
not  feel  strong  enough  to  assume  the  chief  place.  —  3.  The 
soldiers  dissuade  him ;  if  they  should  be  defeated,  the  enemies' 
object  would  not  be  attained  so  long  as  David  should  remain 
alive  :  For  thou  art  equal  to  ten  thousand  of  «.$•]  a  common  esti- 
mate of  a  valued  leader.  —  And  besides  it  is  good  that  thou  be  a 
help  to  us  from  the  city]  by  sending  out  the  reserves  in  case  of 
necessity. — 4.  The  troops  march  past  the  king  as  he  stands  in 
the  gate.  —  5.  The  charge  to  the  generals:  Gently  for  my  sake 
with  the  lad  Absalom !  To  his  father  he  was  still  but  a  boy. 
That  all  the  soldiers  heard  is  intended  to  prepare  for  v.^.  — 
6.  The  battle  took  place  /'«  the  jungle  of  Ephraim]  not  otherwise 
known  to  us.  —  7.  Absalom's  party  was  defeated  with  the  loss  of 
2o,ooo  men.  —  8.  The  battle  became  a  rout;  scattered  over  the 
face  of  the  country,  and  the  jungle  devoured  more  than  the  sword] 
the  rocky  thickets  were  fatal  to  those  who  attempted  to  flee. 

2.  nSsTM]  Koi  (Tpiffirevae  (3^  points  to  trSim,  which  is  more  likely  to  be 
original  because  the  less  common  word. — 3.  JJC3  nnj>->o]  there  seems  to  be 
no  doubt  that  we  should  read  nns  for  ripy,  with  2  codd.,  <5^,  &,  IL  and  Sym. 
(Cappel,  Critica  Sacra,  p.  309,  Th.  al.).  The  sentence  still  does  not  seem 
quite  correct,  and  the  original  may  have  been  simply  D'cSn  n-\8'jj  id3  nnm, 
®^  has  8t(  Ka.\  vvv  a<patpe6ii(rfrai  €|  ijixciv  ri  yij;  which  Kl.  supposes  to  point  to  : 
for  then  the  earth  would  bring  forth  [ten  thousand  times]  more  than  we.  But 
this  seems  forced.  —  injj^]  iir;?'?  Qre.  The  latter  is  to  be  restored  (as  the 
Hiphil  is  uncalled  for)  unless  indeed  we  conjecture  ^jyS.  —  5.  iS"on^]  (5  has 
a  verb :  <pelffaa64  /liov  (/uoi)  possibly  iScn.  But  there  seems  no  reason  for  de- 
parting from  the  received  text,  cf.  Is.  8®.  —  6.  an£3N]  <5^  reads  Dijnc,  obvi- 
ously a  correction  of  the  editor,  cf.  GASmith,  Geog.  p.  335  n.  —  7.  Omit  the 
second  Dty  ®,  which  has  come  in  from  the  verse  below.  At  the  end  of  the 
verse  add  ^''H  with  (3-  —  8.    nixcj]  is  to  be  corrected  to  nxio:  with  Qre. 

9-18.  The  fate  of  Absalom.  —  In  the  general  flight  Absalom 
happened  upon  the  servants  of  David]  that  is,  the  body-guard. — 
His  mule  came  into  the  thick  branches  of  a  great  oak,  and  his  head 


35S  »  SAMUEL 

caught  fast  in  the  oak,  and  he  was  hung  between  heaven  and  earth'\ 
being  left  there  as  the  mule  kept  on  her  way.  — 10,  11.  I'o  the 
young  man  who  told  him,  Joab  said:  Thou  sawest  him.'  And 
7uhy  didst  thou  not  smite  him  to  the  ground ?  And  my  part  would 
have  been  to  give  thee  ten  shekels  of  silver  and  a  girdle~\  the  girdle 
was  often  richly  wrought,  and  so  worn  as  an  ornament.  — 12.  The 
soldier's  reply :  And  if  I  were  weighing  in  my  hand  a  thousand 
pieces  of  silver,  I  would  not  put  forth  my  hand  on  the  king's  son'\ 
for  the  reason  of  the  king's  charge  :  Take  care  of  the  young  man 
Absalom.  — 13.  Further  argument  of  the  case:  Had  I  wrought 
deceitfully  against  his  life,  nothing  would  have  been  hidden  from 
the  king,  and  thou  wouUist  have  stood  aloof.  This  seems  to  be  the 
best  that  can  be  made  of  the  present  text.  — 14.  Joab  breaks  off 
the  conversation,  takes  three  darts  in  his  hand  :  and  thrust  them 
into  the  heart  of  Absalom  yet  alive  in  the  midst  of  the  oak.  We 
think  of  the  oak  as  a  mass  of  thickset  branches  in  which  Absalom 
was  struggling.  — 15.  The  three  darts  must  put  an  end  to  the 
already  exhausted  man,  and  it  is  a  work  of  supererogation  on  the 
part  of  Joab's  armour-bearers  to  smite  him  and  kill  him  again. 
It  is  probable  therefore  that  the  verse  is  an  interpolation.  — ■ 
16.  Joab  calls  off  the  pursuit,  knowing  that  the  end  has  been 
attained.  — 17.  They  cast  Absalom's  body  into  the  great  pi t'\  the 
article  seems  to  indicate  that  it  was  one  well  known.  —  And  they 
raised  over  him  a  great  heap  of  stones']  Jos.  7^^  8^.  — 18.  Another 
monument  had  been  erected  by  himself  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem. 

9.  N^p'i]  is  probably  correct,  though  we  might  expect  another  verb.  — 
I^m]  kolI  avaKpffxaaee  ®^:  ■''^.n^Ni  2i: :  '"^rnNi  $k,  all  pointing  to  Spm,  which 
alone  is  in  place,  notice  'iSn  in  the  next  verse.  — 11.  nn'^  ''r-j.n]  an  obligation 
rests  upon  one.  ©^  has  simply  «ol  iyu>  Uv  8e5wKeiy,  in  favour  of  which  Th. 
urges  that  there  was  no  obligation  in  the  matter.  But  surely  it  is  the  com- 
mander's duty  to  reward  valour  in  his  soldiers.  — 12.  n*?!]  is,  of  course,  Ni*?!. 
—  S"'2']  We.  proposes  to  make  a  passive,  because  the  recipient  does  not  tell 
the  money,  but  the  payer.  The  soldier  however  seems  to  mean:  i/l  were  to 
/ee/  the  weight  of  that  money  paid  into  my  hand.  —  ''s]  is  unintelligible;  read 
'S  with  the  versions  and  2  codd.  —  IS.  in]  may  possibly  do,  but  it  is  better 
to  correct  it  to  bn.  (5  connects  the  whole  clause  with  the  preceding  verse, 
making  it  a  part  of  David's  exhortation.  Take  care  of  the  young  man  Absa- 
lom, lest  any  one  -work  injustice  to  his  life.  But  the  present  verse  seems  to 
need  the  words.  The  only  real  difficulty  is  in  the  word  -ipr.  The  killing  of 
Absalom  would  not  be  deceit.  —  1C'CJ3]  'cbj3  Qr'e.    The  latter  is  read  also  by 


XVIII.  9-25  359 

©i'.  — 14.  o»B3S']  clubs  are  not  thrust  into  one's  heart,  so  that  we  should 
probably  read  D'hSb'  with  (5  fie'Ajj  (Th.).  — 15.  For  the  reason  above  given, 
We.  regards  the  verse  as  an  interpolation  {Comp.  p.  261).  Th.,  followed  by 
Ki.,  begins  the  sentence  with  the  preceding  clause :  But  as  he  was  yet  alive  in 
the  heart  of  the  oak,  ten  of  Joab's  armour-bearers  compassed  him.  But  for  this 
we  should  at  least  have  "^v  Nini  instead  of  the  bare  ijii;'.  P"or  this  reason  it 
seems  best  to  regard  the  verse  as  an  interpolation  except  inn-ci  at  the  end ; 
this  word,  pointed  inn^aii,  will  readily  join  to  the  end  of  v.^*.  The  ingenious 
construction  of  Kl.  which  makes  Joab  simply  release  Absalom  from  the  tree 
so  that  he  is  really  slain  by  the  armour-bearers,  lacks  basis  in  the  text.  — 
18.  On  naxc,  We.,  TBS.  The  statement  seems  to  conflict  with  1^^'^.  Of  the 
two,  this  seems  more  likely  to  be  original,  as  it  is  quite  in  place  to  explain 
why  Absalom  had  a  monument  in  the  king's  dale.  The  location  is  unknown. 
Josephus  puts  it  two  stadia  from  Jerusalem  (/^m/.  VIII.,  X.  3).  —  i^jrn]  cf. 
ZA  TW.  XI.  p.  178,  XVII.  p.  74;  and  Schwally,  Leben  nach  dem  Tode  (1892), 
pp.  28,  58.  The  indications  are  in  favour  of  worship  of  the  dead,  as  the  motive 
for  the  erection  of  such  a  monument. 

19-32.  The  news  is  brought  to  David  by  two  runners.  The 
first  is  Ahimaaz,  already  known  to  us,  15-'.  He  asks  permission  to 
bring  the  king  tidings  :  that  Yahtveh  has  pronounced  for  him  as 
against  his  enemies.  —  20.  Joab  at  first  refuses  permission  because 
he  knows  that  the  king  will  be  grieved  at  Absalom's  death ;  and 
to  bring  bad  tidings  would  not  be  of  advantage  to  Ahimaaz. — 
21.  Joab  then  calls  a  negro  (naturally,  a  slave)  and  commands 
him  :  Go  tell  the  king  what  thou  hast  seen"]  a  message  of  grief 
by  a  despised  messenger.  —  22.  Ahimaaz  again  begs  permission  : 
Ho7vever  it  may  be,  let  me  run^  the  motive  is  not  very  clear  — 
whether  a  desire  to  break  the  news  more  gently  than  the  slave 
would,  or  simply  an  ambition  to  carry  the  tidings.  Joab  dissuades 
him  :  Why  is  it  that  thou  wilt  run,  my  son,  seeing  that  no  reivard 
7vill  be  given  thee  ?  —  23.  Ahimaaz  is  still  insistent,  and  Joab  gives 
the  desired  permission  :  And  Ahimaaz  ran  by  the  way  of  the 
[Jordati\  valley,  and  outran  the  }iegro'\  the  direct  way  was  prob- 
ably across  the  hills,  but  the  roughness  of  the  country  made  that 
way  more  difficult.  —  24.  Meanwhile  David  was  sitting  between 
the  gates']  that  is,  in  the  building  which  was  both  gateway  and 
tower.  The  watchman  \\did  gone  up  to  the  roof  of  the  gate  ;  thence 
he  saw  a  man  running  alone.  —  25.  To  the  news,  the  king  said  : 
ff  he  be  alone,  tidings  are  in  his  ?nouth.  Were  he  a  fugitive 
from  the  battle,  others  would  appear  scattered  over  the  plain.  — 


360  2  SAMUEL 

26.  Seeing  another  runner:  the  watchman  on  the  gate  cried: 
Another  tnan  runtiing  alone  .']  to  which  the  king  made  answer  : 
This  also  is  a  bearer  of  tidings.  —  27.  The  watchman  recognizes 
the  foremost :  I  see  that  the  running  of  the  first  is  like  the  running 
of  Ahimaaz  ben  Zadok'\  so  Jehu  is  known  at  a  distance  by  his 
manner  of  driving.  The  king  judges  the  character  of  the  message 
from  the  character  of  the  messenger :  He  is  a  good  man  and  a 
good  message  he  will  bring.  — 28.  And  Ahiinaaz  drew  near  and 
said  to  the  king :  Peace']  the  customary  salutation,  followed  by  the 
customary  prostration.  The  news  is  conveyed  in  a  pious  ejacula- 
tion :  Blessed  is  Yahweh  thy  God  who  has  delivered  over  the  men 
who  lifted  up  their  hand  against  my  lord  the  king !  The  words 
give  certain  information  of  the  victory,  and  contain  a  hint  of  the 
fate  of  Absalom.  —  29.  The  king  asks  directly  concerning  his  son, 
and  receives  the  reply  :  I  saw  the  great  tumult  %vhen  Joab  sent  thy 
servant  but  I  do  not  know  what  it  was.  It  seems  evident  that 
this  is  false.  —  30,31.  The  negro's  arrival  and  greeting:  Let  my 
lord  the  king  receive  tidings :  for  Yahweh  has  avenged  thee]  cf.  v.'^. 
—  32.  The  question  about  Absalom  receives  this  time  an  unmis- 
takable answer  :  May  the  enemies  of  my  lord  the  king,  and  all  who 
rise  up  against  thee  for  evil  be  as  the  lad  is  ! 

19.  ra'N  i>D  r\\r\\  iobs-]  the  constrtictio  pregnans  like  i  S.  24I&.  —  20.  p"Sj'] 
is  to  be  read  with  the  Qre.  p  has  fallen  out  owing  to  its  similarity  to  ja.  ^'^ 
represents  ^d  only,  cf.  Jd.  622.  —  21.  It  is  an  old  question  whether  "■^rno  is  to 
be  taken  as  a  proper  name  or  as  an  appellative.  As  the  form  used  is  nearly 
always  'nan,  the  latter  is  more  probable.  The  Cushites  were  properly  the 
Nubians,  but  probably  the  name  was  extended  to  cover  all  natives  of  Africa 
beyond  Egypt.  The  trade  in  slaves  brought  them  to  Asia.  The  first  occur- 
rence of  the  word  here  should  be  without  the  article  ^'i'y^^,  the  second  on  the 
other  hand  should  have  the  article  supplied  —  Ton,  —  22.  dd  tim]  let  it  be 
what  it  may,  is  an  answer  to  Joab's  objection  in  \P.  —  pnxd]  is  obscure. 
We.  proposes  pnxs,  brought  forth,  which  is  adopted  by  Bu.  But  the  phrase  is 
even  then  not  very  clear.  Possibly  the  word  is  a  corruption  of  isnm  which  is 
needed  in  the  next  verse.  —  23.  At  the  beginning  insert  ncNii  with  @SIL. — 
nDjn]  is  the  Jordan  valley.  Gen.  1312  Dt.  343.-26.  ijirn-SN]  Before,  the 
watchman  had  cried  directly  to  the  king,  and  so,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  king's 
reply,  he  does  here.  Read  therefore  lytin  *?;•  with  ®L  ^ .  j„  culmine  IL  seems 
to  mean  the  same;  lys'n  Sn  of  ®B  ^yill  hardly  do.  After  the  second  B'in  add 
inw  with  6S.  —  27.  Nn^  naia  mv.:o-'?Ni]  it  seems  more  natural  to  read  hm 
NO^  naits  r\-\\ifi  which  is  favoured  by  C  and  cf.  (5^  olmi..  —  28.    Nip'^]   <§' 


XVIII.  26-XIX.  8  361 

renders  aipv,  which  was  conjectured  also  by  We.  before  the  publication  of 
that  edition.  —  i.sr  j"-\';'x]  traces  of  a  Greek  reading  point  to  an  original :  who 
hate  (ix:r)  the  hand  {ox  power\  of  my  lord  the  king.  —  29.  It  seems  necessary 
to  read  ai'^rn  with  15  codd.  —  'cn  lay-px]  is  superfluous  and  grammatically 
in  the  wrong  place;  it  should  be  stricken  out,  reading  TiaynN  for  'ynNi  (Bu. 
following  We.),  nc  should  perhaps  be  followed  by  d::-  @,  or  N^n.  —  30.  nD^'i] 
®L  adds  oTr/ffo)  auToO.  —  31.  i;:'i3n]  the  second  time  is  omitted  by  (5^  SIL  and 
is  in  fact  superfluous. 

XIX.  1-9*.  David's  emotion  and  Joab's  rebuke.  —  The  king 
was  shocked'^  having  hoped  against  hope  to  the  last.  —  He  went 
up  to  the  chamber  over  the  gate"]  a  common  feature  in  city  gate- . 
ways.  And  thus  he  said  in  his  weeping :  My  son  Absalom  .'  My 
son,  my  son  Absalom  !  Oh  that  I  had  died  for  thee,  Absalom,  my 
son,  my  son  /  The  fondness  which  had  shown  itself  in  early 
indulgence,  here  breaks  out  in  uncontrolled  grief.  —  3.  The  vic- 
tory was  turned  to  mourning  that  day,  because  the  people  heard : 
the  king  grieves  for  his  son.  —  4.  Instead  of  the  triumphal  march, 
the  people  stole  away  to  the  city  as  people  steal  away  who  are 
ashamed  of  having  fled  in  battle']  the  approval  of  the  king  had 
been  their  incentive.  There  seemed  now  no  hope  of  this. — 
5.  The  king  on  his  part  wrapped  up  his  face  and  cried  aloud: 
My  son  Absalom  !  Absalom,  my  son,  my  son  !'\  oblivious  of  every- 
thing but  his  grief. —  6,7.  Joab  rebukes  David  :  Thou  hast  shained 
to-day  the  face  of  all  thy  servants,  who  saved  thy  life  ajid  the  life  of 
thy  sons  and  daughters,  and  the  life  of  thy  wives  and  concubines, 
by  loving  thine  enemies  and  hating  them  that  love  thee~\  the  hard- 
headed  warrior  told  a  wholesome  truth.  The  throne  of  David 
would  not  have  been  secure  so  long  as  Absalom  lived.  The  con- 
duct of  the  king  said  in  effect :  that  princes  and  officers  are  nothing 
to  thee']  in  comparison  to  Absalom.  For  I  know  that  if  Absalom 
were  alive,  and  all  of  us  were  dead  this  day,  then  thou  wouldst  be 
pleased.  —  8.  The  occasion  calls  for  action  :  Rise,  go  forth  and 
speak  to  the  heart  of  thy  servants]  speak  a  word  of  encouragement, 
Is.  40^  Should  he  not  do  this,  the  people  would  desert  —  an 
oriental  army  quickly  melts  away  under  discouragement :  And 
this  will  be  worse  to  thee  than  all  the  evil  that  has  come  upon  thee 
from  thy  youth  until  now]  the  nature  of  the  threatened  evil  is  not 
given,  but  probably  the  thought  is  that  the  kingdom  will  fall  to 


362  2  SAMUEL 

pieces.  —  9.  The  last  four  words  belong  to  the  following  para- 
graph. David  sees  the  force  of  Joab's  words,  commands  himself, 
comes  down  and  sits  in  the  gate,  and  receives  the  people. 

1.  tjim]  the  verb  seems  to  mean  io  tremble  under  strong  emotion.  —  iPoSa] 
fV  T^T  Kkaieiv  avTov  (S^  pointing  to  in33  3.  In  spite  of  We.'s  commendation 
of  |§,  the  alternate  reading  seems  to  me  better.  —  2.  The  verse  logically 
belongs  after  v.'',  unless  the  author  means  that  news  was  carried  to  Joab  while 
still  in  the  field.  —  3.  The  second  Ninn  ava  is  superfluous  and  perhaps  erro- 
neous.—  4.  ncnSoa]  is  lacking  in  ©^.  —  5.  lax'^]  for  o*^,  the  vowel  written 
plene,  as  in  csn  12^.  —  I'^cn]  the  second  time,  is  probably  to  be  omitted  with 
(S^SiL.  —  6.  vvz^']  from  z'\i,  Ges.26  §78  (J.  —  yvi^a  csji]  (S^  omits  ::'dj, 
bringing  this  clause  into  line  with  the  preceding.  The  insertion  was  proba- 
bly made  to  prevent  too  close  association  of  the  concubines  with  the  wives 
(Nestle).  —  7.  nV  r^  ''^j  the  parallels  give  the  meaning  thou  hast  no  princes. 
But  here  the  sense  seems  to  be  like  that  of  njj  pxa  Is.  40".  —  TvS-o]  the  's 
simply  resumes  the  former ''O  (Dr.).  —  8.  xsv  ipn]  is  the  protasis.  The  ON 
which  follows  is  the  on  of  the  oath,  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  132,  R },.  —  ^v] 
some  copies  have  ^>•l.  —  9.   -[San  ••joS]  ©^  adds  njjtt'n  Sn. 

Q'^-IS.  Proposals  are  made  for  the  recall  of  David.  —  Israel 
had  fled ^  each  to  his  tent,  and  the  people  expostulated  in  all  the 
tribes  of  Israel']  the  intimation  seems  to  be  that  the  common 
people  were  vexed  at  the  slowness  of  the  leaders.  — 11.  The 
recollection  of  David's  former  benefits,  with  the  fact  of  Absalom's 
death,  prompts  the  question  :  Why  do  you  delay  to  bring  back  the 
king?  This  word  of  theirs  came  to  the  ears  of  David  (for  the 
correct  text,  see  the  note).  — 12.  With  genuine  oriental  love  of 
his  own  clan  he  incites  Judah  not  to  be  behind  the  other  tribes, 
working  by  means  of  his  friends  the  priests  :  Say  to  the  Sheikhs 
0/  Judah  :  Why  should  you  be  the  last  to  bring  back  the  king  to  his 
house  ?  The  reason  was,  of  course,  that  they  had  been  the  leaders 
in  the  rebellion.  — 13.  The  bond  of  blood  is  urged  as  a  reason 
why  they  should  not  be  backward.  — 14.  Amasa,  as  one  of  the 
most  influential,  is  to  be  won  by  the  promise  of  the  chief  com- 
mand in  place  of  Joab.  — 15.  And  Amasa  turned  the  heart  of  all 
the  men  0/  Judah  as  one  man]  so  that  they  sent  for  David  to 
return  with  all  his  retainers. 

10.  jnj]  would  mean  were  in  a  state  of  mutual  strife  (Dr.).  But  as  the 
Niphal  occurs  nowhere  else,  we  should  perhaps  read  ]^^:  with  (5^.  —  Kim]  is 
emphatic.  —  11.   At  the  end  of  the  ver.se,  ®  adds  the  clause  which  in  J^  comes 


XIX.  9-23  363 

at  the  end  of  v.^^^  omitting  it  there :  iSdh-Sn  xa  Snib^-^o  1311.  As  shown 
by  Th.,  the  words  belong  here  and  not  there.  — 12.  The  end  of  the  verse 
should  be  at  the  Athnach,  the  rest  having  come  in  by  transposition,  and  having 
been  increased  by  erroneous  addition  of  ih-'^'Sn  from  the  line  above.  — 
13.  The  opening  words  seem  the  most  proper  introduction  to  the  speech,  and 
it  is  possible  that  they  belong  immediately  after  the  second  nsN^  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  all  between  being  erroneous  duplication.  — 14.  nop]  for  naxr, 
Ges.26,  68  h.  — 15.  om]  ®^  is  probably  correct  in  its  interpretation  when  it 
inserts  Amasa  as  the  subject.     Quite  as  good  is  the  reading  of  %:  33S  to'i. 

16-24.  The  return  of  the  king.  —  So  David  returned  marks 
the  transition,  closing  the  account  of  the  negotiations  and  opening 
the  narrative  of  his  journey.  Judah  came  down  to  Gilgal,  the 
well-known  sanctuary  in  the  Arabah,  io  go  to  meet  the  king.  It 
seems  hardly  consistent  with  this  to  add  :  to  bring  the  king  over 
the  Jordan.     The  latter  seems  to  have  been  the  work  of  Ziba.  — 

17.  The  verse  should  include  the  first  four  words  of  v.^* :  Shimei 
went  down  to  meet  the  king  with  the  men  0/ Judah,  and  a  thousand 
men  of  Benjamin  with  hint]   the  account  is  continued  in  ^^^.  — 

18.  The  zeal  of  Ziba  is  described  in  a  parenthetical  sentence 
which  includes  ^'^\  He,  with  his  fifteen  sons  and  twenty  servants, 
rushed  through  the  Jordan  before  the  king']  the  meaning  of  the 
verb  is  uncertain.  — 19.  A?id  they  kept  crossing  the  ford  to  bring 
the  household  of  the  king  over,  and  to  do  what  would  please  him. 
The  Jordan,  though  not  a  large  stream,  is  swift  and  treacherous. 
The  women  and  children  would  need  the  help  of  strong  and 
experienced  guides.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse  returns  to  Shimei, 
who  fell  do7vn  before  the  king  as  he  crossed  the  Jordan]  at  the  very 
ford.  —  20.  Shimei's  prayer  is  :  Let  not  my  lord  charge  guilt  to 
tne  ;  and  do  not  remember  what  thy  servant  did  perversely  .  .  .  that 
the  king  should  pay  attention  to  it]  he  attempts  no  justification,  as 
indeed  grounds  for  justification  were  none.  —  21.  He  now  realizes 
that  he  sinned,  and  confessing  it  pleads  his  present  zeal :  /  a7n 
conie  to-day,  first  of  all  the  house  of  Joseph]  Benjamin  is  not  reck- 
oned to  Joseph  in  the  genealogies  —  this  must  be  a  more  ancient 
conception.  —  22.  Abishai  is  strenuous,  as  before,  to  put  Shimei  to 
death :  because  he  cursed  the  anointed  of  Yahweh]  the  divinity 
that  doth  hedge  a  king  made  his  crime  blasphemy,  —  23.  David 
again  disclaims  fellowship  with  the  sons  of  Zeruiah  who  would  be 
his  adversary,  hindering  him  from  doing  what  he  would.     To-day 


364  2  SAMUEL 

shall  a  man  be  put  to  death  in  Israel?  Evidently  conciliation  was 
to  be  the  order  of  the  day,  for  the  king  had  the  confidence  that 
he  was  fully  restored  to  his  throne.  The  acclaim  oi  the  people 
had  moved  him  to  this  generosity.  —  24.  He  therefore  gives 
Shimei  the  sworn  assurance  that  he  shall  not  die.  We  should  be 
better  pleased  with  Shimei  had  he  taken  his  punishment  like  a 
man,  for  his  reviling  of  the  king  no  doubt  expiessed  his  real  mind. 

16.  'IJI  Tapn'?]  It  would  be  more  appropriate  to  say  when  he  had  crossed, 
and  perhaps  something  of  that  kind  was  the  original  text.  — 17,  18,  The  verse 
division  here  and  in  the  following  two  verses  is  confused  (We.).  Divide  at 
P''j JO,  at  I'^sn  •'jfl'^,  and  at  ij^>'3  .  —  prcni]  on  the  form  Ges.^^,  §  97  <r.  —  inSxi] 
the  tense  seems  wrong  and  we  should  probably  strike  off  the  initial  1  ;  notice 
the  preceding  word.  The  meaning  of  nSx  is  elsewhere  to  come  violently  upon, 
to  take  violent  possession  of,  generally  used  of  the  Spirit's  coming  upon  a  man. 
The  only  reason  for  its  use  here  is  that  it  describes  the  energy  with  which  Ziba 
acted.  — 19.  m3>n  m2;'i]  is  taken  traditionally  to  mean  that  a  ferry-boat 
went  over.  But  this  meaning  for  majj  is  without  confirmation.  The  word 
elsewhere  means  ford.  The  verb  here  must  be  the  plural  naj?i,  and  the  tense 
indicates  the  repeated  action.  The  band  of  experienced  men  went  back  and 
forth,  carrying  the  children  and  leading  the  riding  animals  of  the  women.  It 
is  unnecessary  therefore  to  correct  according  to  (S  to  rt-\2-;r\  n3j;''i  (Kl.,  Bu.). 
—  lOi'S]  for  T'3;jn'^,  Ges.^s,  §  53^.  —  The  extraordinary  points  over  the  word 
«>•■•  indicate  that  the  Scribes  wish  to  suggest  pnx'  (Ginsburg).  —  ir>'3]  to  be 
read  with  Qre  vy;z .  —  20.  ni;n]  cf.  f*.  —  2i.  y^T^]  in  i  S.  29*  the  Philis- 
tines contemplated  the  possibility  of  David's  becoming  a  ]^z-,  a  traitor  in  the 
camp ;  in  much  the  same  light  David  views  the  sons  of  Zeruiah  here.  —  crn] 
the  second  time,  is  probably  to  be  read  ornn,  Lag.  Proph.  Chald.  p.  li. — 
\nj?T']  oTSttTf  ©^  is  perhaps  more  forcible  —  do  you  not  know  that  I  have  the 
right  to  decide  as  king? 

25.  The  next  incident  was  the  coming  of  Meribbaal  ben  Saul, 
as  he  is  called  by  |^.  —  He  had  not  dressed  his  /eet'\  his  lameness 
made  some  special  attention  to  them  advisable.  —  And  had  not 
trimmed  his  ttioustache  and  had  not  washed  his  clothes^  neglect  of 
the  person  is  a  sign  of  mourning.  — 26.  As  Meribbaal's  home  was 
Jerusalem,  he  came  fi-om  Jcrusalern  to  meet  the  king.  The  king 
naturally  inquires  why  he  had  not  gone  with  the  household  at  the 
coming  of  Absalom.  —  27.  The  reply  is:  My  lord  the  king,  my 
servant  deceived  me.  For  thy  servant  commanded  him  :  Saddle 
the  ass  that  I  may  ride  upon  her  and  go  with  the  king"]  the  suffi- 
cient explanation  why  he  was  powerless  to  do  more  is  his  lameness, 


XIX.  24-34  365 

which  he  therefore  mentions.  —  28.  But  he  slandered  thy  servant 
to  my  lord  the  king]  the  case  is  sufficiently  clear,  and  he  leaves  it 
to  the  decision  of  the  king.  —  29.  For  all  the  house  of  my  father 
were  deserving  only  of  death  before  my  lo?'d  the  king,  when  thou 
didst  set  thy  servant  atnong  those  who  eat  at  thy  table]  the  unde- 
served kindness  of  the  king  was  a  reason  why  he  should  now  be 
contented  with  his  decision:  And  what  further  claim  have  I  to 
cry  to  the  king?  The  resignation  is  a  httle  forced.  —  30.  The 
king  is  impatient :  Why  wilt  thou  go  on  talking?  I  have  decided : 
Thou  and  Ziba  shall  divide  the  land]  undoubtedly  the  zeal  of  Ziba 
in  serving  the  king  was  the  reason  for  this  decision.  Possibly  there 
was  also  some  suspicion  that  Meribbaal  had  not  been  as  prompt 
as  he  might  have  been  in  endeavouring  to  follow  David, — 
31.  Meribbaal  is  content  even  that  Ziba  should  have  the  whole : 
since  my  lord  the  king  has  come  home  safe  and  sound. 

25.  'MNB'-ja]  v\)ts  v'loZ  2aoi5\  ©^ .  yj^j  ^\wvaQh.v  vlov  1aov\  (B^  are  evident 
expansions.  —  vhi-\  nryxSi]  had  the  author  meant  simply  that  he  had  not 
washed  his  feet,  he  would  probably  have  used  another  verb.  In  Dt.  21^^,  n^v 
is  used  of  trimming  the  nails,  but  the  nails  are  named.  —  Pj*?  Drn'joS]  the 
article  is  surprising,  but  perhaps  due  to  the  mistake  of  a  scribe;  Dr.  cites 
Ex.  9I8.— 26.  aSrn']  should  be  o'^s-n^D  (Ew,  CT/s.  III.  p.  259,  E.  Trans. 
III.  p.  191).  —  27.  After  T^^y  insert  iS,  and  for  naonx  read  neon,  so  (55i,  for 
Meribbaal  was  not  able  to  saddle  her  himself.  And  the  fact  that  he  had  given 
command  to  Ziba  put  the  crime  of  the  latter  in  a  stronger  light.  —  n>Sj?]  should 
possibly  be  vhy,  as  nicn  is  generally  the  ma/e.  —  28.  Sjn^i]  here  only  of  going 
about  as  a  slanderer.  —  29.  In  @^  the  second  half  of  the  verse  is:  And  fro»t 
whose  hand  shall  I  receive  justice?  And  he  cried  further  to  the  king.  This 
may  be  original,  as  the  next  verse  intimates  that  he  is  talking  too  much. — 
30.   nann]  (5^  seems  to  read  r\-2r\T^. 

32-40.  The  parting  with  Barzillai.  —  It  is  not  certain  that  the 
author  follows  the  exact  order  of  events.  We  suppose  that  the 
parting  from  Barzillai  took  place  before  the  meeting  with  Merib- 
baal. The  plan  is  to  recount  the  meeting  with  Ziba,  Shimei,  and 
Meribbaal  in  connexion,  and  then  to  take  up  the  parting  scene. 

32.  Barzillai  came  down  from  his  home,  and  went  with  the  king 
to  bid  him  good-bye  at  the  fordan]  it  was  the  part  of  politeness  to 
accompany  a  departing  guest  the  first  stage  of  his  journey. — 
33.  The  old  man  had  nourished  the  king  in  his  exile  at  Maha- 
naim,  a  thing  which  his  wealth  enabled  him  to  do.  —  34.    David 


366  2  SAMUEL 

invites  him  to  become  a  member  of  the  court.  —  35.  I?ar/.illai 
declines  on  account  of  his  years.  —  36.  Age  had  blunted  his  senses 
so  that  he  did  not  kno7v  good  from  evil']  the  sense  in  which  he 
intends  this  is  indicated  by  his  further  questions  :  Can  thy  servant 
taste  that  which  I  eat  and  that  which  I  drink?]  the  inconsistent 
use  of  the  pronouns  in  such  sentences  is  not  uncommon.  —  Or 
can  I  hear  the  voice  of  singers^  men  or  women  .?]  the  pleasures  of 
the  court  have  no  attractions  for  him.  —  37.  For  thy  servant  wiU 
go  a  little  ways  with  the  king,  and  why  should  the  king  give  me  this 
reco7tipensc .?]  depreciation  of  his  own  services  in  accordance  with 
politeness.  —  38.  His  only  desire  is  to  return  home  and  die  near 
the  sepulchre  of  his  father  and  his  mother.  But  the  favour  which 
he  declines  for  himself  he  will  accept  for  Chimham  his  son.— 
39.  The  king  willingly  consents  to  take  Chimham  with  him  :  and 
all  thou  shalt  choose  to  lay  upon  me  I  will  do.  —  40.  With  this, 
David  dismisses  his  host,  standing  at  the  Jordan. 

32.  r-^'r\'\  (first)  is  superfluous,  Bu.  (at  any  rate  accus.  loci,  Kl.).— 
j-n^a-PN]  cannot  be  right  of  course.  And  as  we  must  emend,  it  will  be  best 
to  follow  @L  j'„  ^gQ  'lopSai/ou.  Barzillai  parted  from  him  at  the  Jordan, //-ow 
that  point  he  dismissed  him.  The  emendation  of  Kl.,  adopted  by  Bu.,  whicli 
finds  here  a  mention  of  Chimham,  seems  to  me  too  bold.  —  33.  iP2'ra]  is 
rendered  by  (g  kv  ry  oIk^Iv  omtov  (so  S).  It  is  quite  likely  however  that  the 
author  intended  mora,  as  the  stay  across  the  Jordan  was  a  real  exile.— 
34.  ipn]  t6  7^paj  aov  ©  indicates  ina^B*  (possibly  a  reminiscence  of  the  ina^r 
in  V.33),  adopted  by  Ew.  and  others.  — 35.  hdd]  the  question  is:  Is  my  age 
such  that  it  is  proper  for  fue  to  go  to  court? — 36.  ii]?]  is  twice  lacking  in  ®i'. 
Such  words  are  easily  inserted  and  also  easily  omitted.  —  37.  d;d3]  on  oAi-yoc 
(5^  is  certainly  smoother.  —  pi^n-pN]  is  probably  to  be  stricken  out,  as  the 
verb  was  taken  by  a  scribe  to  mean  cross  over.  If  retained,  it  must  be  changed 
to  pn^n  'i{<._38.  cnca]  Nestle  {Am.  Jour.  Sem.  Lang.  XIII.  p.  173)  suggests 
that  the  name  is  derived  from  hdd,  he  has  loeak  sight.  —  39.  ••'^')  nnar]  construe-  . 
tio  preplans.  —  40.  nar  iScni]  It  seems  unnecessary  that  Barzillai  should 
cross  and  then  recross  the  river,  ^i^  is  probably  right  therefore  in  reading 
ic-;  for  ^t;  here  :  All  the  people  crossed  the  Jordan,  but  the  king  stood  still ; 
and  the  king  kissed  Barzillai  and  bade  him  good-bye. 

XIX.  41-XX.  3.   The  strife  between  Judah  and  Israel.  —  The 

king  passed  by  Gilgal,  Chimham  being  with  him,  and  all  the  people 
of  Judah  7vere  marching  along  with  the  king,  and  half  the  people 
if  Israel]  the  mark  which  divided  Judah  and  Israel  shows  itself 


XIX.   :!<;-XX.  3  367 

on  every  such  occasion.     The  king's  conduct  in  this  matter  rather 
accentuated  than  obUterated  it. — 42.   The  men  of  Israel  appar- 
ently realize  that  Judah  has  been  favoured  by  an  invitation  from 
David  :    IV/iy  have  our  brethren  the  men  of  Judah  stolen  thee  and 
brought  the  king  and  his  house  over  the  Jordan  ?     The  conclusion 
of  the  verse  seems  to  mean  :    tvhen  all  the  men  of  David  are 
[equally]  his  people  \  the  wrong  was  in  David's  giving  the  prefer- 
ence to  his  kinsmen.  —  43.   The  answer  of  Judah  :   Because  the 
king  is  near  of  kin  to  me.     And  why  is  it  that  thou  art  angry  at 
this  thing  ?     Have  we  at  all  eaten  of  the  king  ?  or  has  any  thing 
been  carried  away  by  us .?]  the  insinuation  is  that  Israel  has  inter- 
ested motives,  suspecting  that  Judah  is  claiming  offices  and  emolu- 
ments. —  44.   The  retort :    /  have  ten  shares  of  the  king']  out  of 
ihe  twelve  which  all  Israel  might  claim,  and  I  am  the  first  born 
rather  than  thou.    Elsewhere,  Judah  is  supposed  to  have  succeeded 
to  the  birthright  in  default  of  Reuben.      Why  hast  thou  treated 
me  with  contempt — was  not  my  word  first  to  bring  back  my  king? 
The  fact  was  as  they  claimed.     But  in  spite  of  all,  the  men  of 
Judah  were  more  strenuous  in  the  strife.  —  XX.  1.   The  result  was 
a  new  rebellion  :    There  happened  to  be  there  a  vile  man  whose 
name  was  Sheba  ben  Bichri,  a  Benfamite']  the  feelings  of  men 
had  become  so  inflamed  that  any  bold  leader  might  stir  up  a 
revolt.     He  started  the  cry  : 

We  have  no  share  in  David, 

And  we  have  no  part  in  the  Son  of  Jesse  ; 

Each  to  his  tents,  O  Israel! 

The  exhortation  is  to  leave  their  allegiance,  and  resume  the  old 
tribal  independence.  —  2.  The  men  of  Israel  deserted  the  train 
of  David,  but  the  men  of  Judah  clave  to  their  king  from  the  Jordan 
to  Jerusalem]  the  blood  was  the  bond. 

3.  Further  account  of  the  rebellion  is  interrupted  by  this  verse, 
which  tells  how  David  treated  the  ten  concubines  on  whom  Absa- 
lom had  demonstrated  his  possession  of  the  royal  power.  These 
he  put  in  a  house  of  guard]  where  they  would  be  under  surveil- 
lance, and  supported  them,  but  did  not  go  to  them]  as  a  husband. 
—  So  they  were  shut  in  until  the  day  of  their  death]  the  last  two 
words  are  obscure  and  probably  corrupt. 


368  2  SAMUEL 

41.  pn3]  occurs  here  only,  elsewhere  ohds.  —  n^ap'i]  Kt :  nopn  Qri. 
Better  than  either  is  onj;  ®B_  —  42,  m;?  in  i!:'js~'73i]  the  clause,  in  the  point- 
ing of  il5l,  reads  like  an  afterthought  and  is  superfluous  in  the  context.  I'ut 
if  we  point  ^D>*,  we  get  the  assertion  that  all  David^s  men  are  his  people,  which 
bears  directly  on  the  subject.  It  seems  to  me  enough  to  make  this  slight 
change.  Kl.  proposes  icy  *?}<-(!:"  i£"n  S^i.  But  in  this  passage  where  the  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  Israel  and  Judah,  this  would  be  misleading. — 
43.  PNS'j]  is  grammatically  and  syntactically  difficult.  Gratz  (C  d.  Juden, 
I.  p.  287)  proposes  to  read  pn^'c,  or  has  a  portion  [from  his  table]  been  carried 
away  for  us  ?  This  in  connexion  with  the  previous  clause  makes  good  sense 
and  seems  favoured  by  ©.  The  Judahites  say :  we  have  neither  eaten  of  the 
king's  table  nor  received  presents  from  it.  Dr.  proposes  to  read  nu'j  (the  infini- 
tive absolute).  — 44.  ina]  read  -\id3  with  ®  (Th.).  —  n^i]  is  difficult  and  proba- 
bly to  be  emended  to  nSh.  The  second  question  is  plainly  required  by  the  sense. 
The  second  "■':'  is  difficult,  and  has  probably  arisen  by  erroneous  duplication  of 
S  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  word.  —  XX.  1.  '^^•hi  ^-^n]  ®^  inserts  jr, 
whereas  ©^  has  S^j'Sa  p.  We  find  "irc  for  Benjamite  only  here  and  Esth. 
2^  —  3.  crj]  lacking  in  (5K  —  dhiSni]  the  masculine  for  the  feminine  —  6 
codd.  have  p'^rNi,  but  this  is  probably  a  correction  of  the  scribes.  —  nrn  pijo^n] 
is  unintelligible,  and  as  the  sense  is  complete  without  it,  possibly  a  gloss.  But 
the  meaning  of  the  glossator  is  obscure ;  pvn  occurs  only  here  but  might  mean 
life :  a  widowhood  of  life  however  would  not  mean  a  life-long  widoivhood. 
®  X^P"'  C'^"^"'  seems  to  read  n^Ti  pijdSn  —  living  widows  however  is  so  self- 
evident  that  it  could  not  need  to  be  expressed.  A  widoivhood  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  husband  or  widows  whose  husband  was  living  (We.)  would  be 
otherwise  expressed. 

XX.  4-13.  The  murder  of  Amasa. — Joab  shows  the  same 
conscienceless  rigour  in  dealing  with  Amasa  as  he  showed  in  the 
case  of  Abner  —  more  unscrupulous  in  fact,  because  in  Abner's 
case  he  had  the  excuse  of  blood  revenge. 

4.  The  king  has  already  appointed  Amasa  chief  of  the  army, 
for  he  commands  him  (and  not  Joab)  to  call  together  the  men 
of  Judah  within  three  days.  —  5.  Amasa,  however,  lacked  the 
energy  of  Joab  and  delayed  beyond  the  time  tvhich  he  had  ap- 
pointed hi^n. —  6.  David  sees  that  time  works  for  the  rebels  and 
orders  Abishai  to  take  his  lord's  servants,  that  is,  the  body  guard, 
and  pursue  him,  lest  he  find  fortified  cities  and  escape  from  us. — 
7.  The  original  reading  seems  to  me  to  be  :  And  there  ivent  out 
after  Abishai,  Joab  and  the  Cherethites  and  the  others.  —  8.  They 
were  by  the  great  stone  in  Gibeon  wheft  Amasa  came  leading  ihe 
people']   meaning  the  soldiers  whom  he  had  levied.     As  Amasa  was 


XX.  4-13  369 

raising  the  men  of  Judah,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  be  at 
Gibeon,  unless  he  overtook  Abishai  there,  and  we  may  interpret 
this  language  accordingly.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  de- 
signed to  show  how  Joab  prepared  himself  for  his  attack  in  such  a 
way  that  Amasa's  suspicion  was  not  aroused.  Unfortunately,  it  is 
impossible  to  discover  from  the  present  text  how  he  did  it,  and 
the  versions  give  little  help.  That  Joab's  sword  tvas  girded  on  his 
loins  is  so  much  a  matter  of  course  that  the  author  probably  in- 
tended to  tell  us  more.  —  9.  As  Joab  greets  Amasa,  he  stretches 
out  his  right  hand  to  take  hold  of  Amasa's  beard  to  kiss  hi?n'\  the 
common  salutation  of  kinsmen.  — 10.  But  Amasa  was  not  ivare 
of  the  sword  which  was  in  Joab's  hand'\  if  it  was  in  his  left  hand 
the  fact  should  have  been  stated  here.  One  is  led  to  think  that 
it  was  concealed  (in  the  sleeve?)  in  the  outstretched  hand.  —  So 
he  smote  him  ivith  it  in  the  abdomen,  and  shed  his  boivels  to  the 
ground y  and  he  did  not  give  a  second  blow']  the  experienced  slayer 
of  men  knew  the  most  effective  stroke.  The  work  done,  he  pro- 
ceeded with  the  order  of  the  day.  — 11.  A  man  was  stationed  by 
the  body  to  urge  the  passing  soldiers  to  follow  Joab.  — 12.  Amasa 
was  wallowing  in  blood  in  the  tnidst  of  the  highway']  the  con- 
vulsive throes  of  one  dying  may  well  be  so  described.  It  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  people  stopped  to  look.  Hence  the  re- 
moval from  the  highway  into  the  field,  and  the  throwing  of  a  gar- 
ment over  him,  because  the  sentinel  saw  that  every  one  ivho  came 
to  him  stood  still.  — 13.  The  removal  from  the  highway  had  the 
desired  effect ;  all  men  went  oti  after  Joab. 

4.  0''D'  ntrSr]  the  temporal  clause  should  be  closely  joined  with  what  fol- 
lows—  in  three  days  stand  thou  here.  —  5.  in'MJ  ^mM  Qre.  Some  form  of 
nnN  seems  to  be  intended,  whether  -ih'm  for  inx;;,  or  in"i  for  insn  seems  im- 
possible to  make  out  —  the  Qre  of  course  intends  the  latter,  cf.  Ges^s,  §  68  i. 
—  ny]  -I- in  @^  (Bu.).  —  6.  For  Abishai,  &  substitutes  Joab,  which  We. 
supposes  to  be  original.  But  as  Joab  is  in  disgrace  it  seems  more  natural  that 
Abishai  should  be  called  upon.  Joab  apparently  accompanied  the  expedition 
in  a  subordinate  position.  But  his  energy  and  habit  of  command  made  him 
the  real  leader.  —  i:rp]  the  difficulties  in  the  word  are  disposed  of  by  read- 
ing UCD  with  ®k  Bu.  proposes  uryS  ^'i:\.  —  7.  'iimn  ii-ipn]  that  the  second 
word  is  a  corruption  of  ^roN  is  indicated  by  @'^^,  which  however  retains  the 
suffix  of  rinN.  As  this  does  not  agree  with  what  precedes,  it  seems  obvious 
that  we  should  read  ^B'^aK  nnx  (Graetz).  —  8.   on-jD*^]  may  be  for  oyn  'jd^,  a 

2B 


370  i  SAMUEL 

mistake  which  occurs  elsewhere.  If  this  were  the  original  reading,  it  meant 
that  Amasa  with  his  troops  had  reached  Jerusalem  just  after  the  departure  of 
the  body  guard  and  had  pushed  on  after  them,  oveitaking  them  at  Giheon. 
The  rest  of  the  verse  reads,  so  far  as  we  may  attempt  to  translate  it :  And  Joab 
was  girded  as  to  his  gariitetit,  his  clothing,  and  upon  him  [or  ?V]  was  a  sword- 
oirdle  hound  on  his  loins  in  its  sheath,  and  he  ivent  out,  and  it  fell.  The  im- 
possibility  of  such  a  sentence  is  obvious.  If  the  key  to  the  situation  is  that 
the  sword  fell,  the  author  should  at  least  tell  us  that  Joab  took  it  up  before  he 
reached  Amasa.  S  has  a  clue  perhaps  when  it  says  his  sword  rested  on  his 
hips  like  a  dagger.  In  this  case,  we  may  suppose  that  Joab  had  arranged  his 
sword  in  some  unusual  way  in  order  to  this  emergency,  but  how  this  was,  we 
cannot  clearly  make  out.  The  same  version  renders  '?sm:  and  his  hand  fell 
upon  his  sword,  which  again  might  help  us  if  we  could  suppose  it  to  be  origi- 
nal. But  the  testimony  of  S  alone  is  hardly  sufficient  to  establish  this.  — 
3svi]  Bu.  inserts  a  clause  and  Joab  ran  to  meet  hitu,  which  is  without  sup- 
port in  any  document.  —  v.:oS  no]  is  redundant,  and  the  second  word  is  pos- 
sibly inserted  to  explain  the  first.  KI.  conjectures  with  some  plausibility 
no  3nn  instead  of  n3  -\nn,  and  \i>l^  nnnn  for  the  simple  woS.  The  second 
-\un  is  pointed  nun  by  6'^.  — niDSD]  d/x(^T;K^  ©i-.  — ns>  Nim]  (S^  has  a 
double  translation,  naX  tj  fxaxaipa  t^riXdiv,  koI  avrri  f^vKOev.  Both  of  these  in- 
dicate that  the  sword  is  the  subject  of  the  verb,  which  should  therefore  be  hnx-. 
Kl.  proposes  s^xin  Nim :  and  he  took  it  out.  But  that  the  sword  fell  has  as 
little  place  in  the  narrative  as  it  had  before  all  these  emendations.  That  Joal- 
had  one  sword  (or  dagger)  concealed  under  his  clothing  in  his  left  hand, 
while  he  ostentatiously  let  his  usual  weapon  fall  to  the  ground  to  disarm  sus- 
picion (Kl.,  Dr.)  is  certainly  very  obscurely  stated  in  the  emended  text.  — 
9.  Tnm]  for  tnNm  like  nnvi  of  the  Qre,  v.^.  — 12.  '^'^jpd]  ■nt<pvptxivos  ©"^ 
does  not  seem  to  indicate  a  different  text.  (5^  inserts  TiQvf)Kw%  kuI,  evidently 
reading  no  as  a  separate  word.  That  nci  is  said  above  is  against  the  inser- 
tion ;  on  the  other  hand  the  statement  that  he  died  would  not  preclude  the 
assertion  that  he  still  moved  convulsively  where  he  lay.  — mpi  rS;j  Nan-So]  is 
quite  regular.  But  it  is  possible  that  the  i  of  the  last  word  is  erroneous  dupli- 
cation of  the  preceding  i.  In  this  case  it  is  better  to  connect  v^y  with  the 
following :  every  comer  stood  over  him,  so  ^^.  Bu.  thinks  the  whole  clause, 
from  Ti'NJ,  to  be  a  later  insertion,  while  Kl.  supposes  it  to  belong  earlier  in  the 
verse.  — 13.  -\B'Nd]  we  should  probably  prefix  ••n>i  with  (5^.  —  njn]  most  satis- 
factorily accounted  for  as  Hiphil  of  nr,  and  probably  with  the  suffix,  for  um 
(njin). 

14-22.  The  death  of  Sheba.  —  As   might  be  expected,  the 
rebellion  was  of  short  duration.     Sheba  seems  to  have  had  com 
paratively  Uttle  following,  and  with  his  death  peace  was  restored. 
— 14.    He  went  through  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  Abel  Beth 
Maacah']  as  the  coming  of  the  army  of  Joab  is  told  in  the  fol- 


XX.  14-22  371 

lowing  verse,  the  subject  is  probably  Sheba.  The  city  was  one 
of  the  most  northerly  possessed  by  Israel.  It  is  identified  by 
Robinson  with  the  present  Abil  or  Abil  el  Kamh  in  the  upper 
Jordan  valley.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  obscure.  It  seems  in- 
tended to  assert  that  Sheba's  following  was  made  up  of  his  own 
clan.  — 15.  Here  he  was  besieged :  they  raised  a  mound  at  the 
city,  and  it  stood  with  the  wall'\  that  is,  even  with  it,  to  the  same 
height.  It  was  a  favourite  device  in  ancient  sieges  to  raise  a 
mound  of  earth  to  the  same  height  with  the  besieged  wall.  This 
gave  the  besiegers  command  of  the  wall,  and  allowed  them  to 
throw  a  bridge  to  it.  The  earth  was  brought  in  baskets  and 
poured  out  to  make  the  mound.  In  addition,  all  the  men  of  Joab 
were  devising  to  throw  down  the  wall'\  by  the  various  methods 
which,  as  experienced  warriors,  they  knew.  — 16.  A  wise  woman 
asks  a  conference  with  Joab.  — 17.  The  interview  is  opened. — 
18,  19.  They  used  to  say  formerly :  Let  them  ask  in  Abel  and  in 
Dan  whether  what  the  faithful  in  Israel  established  has  come  to  an 
end?  The  question  implies  that  in  these  cities  IsraeUtic  custom 
was  maintained  if  anywhere.  The  reproach  upon  Joab  is  evident 
if  he  will  now  wipe  out  such  a  city  and  mother  in  Israel'\  that  is, 
a  city  looked  up  to  with  the  veneration  which  a  mother  should 
receive.  The  text  has  suffered,  but  can  be  restored  with  a  good 
degree  of  probabiUty.  —  20,  21.  Joab  disclaims  the  purpose  as- 
cribed to  him,  but  sets  forth  the  cause  of  the  siege.  If  Sheba 
alone  were  given  up,  the  siege  should  cease.  The  woman  prom- 
ises that  his  head  shall  be  thrown  out  through  the  wall.  —  22.  The 
woman  persuades  the  people,  Sheba  is  put  to  death,  and  the  siege 
terminates. 

14.  -i3V'i]  it  seems  almost  necessary  to  read  nay  xim  making  the  refer- 
ence to  Sheba.  —  P'3i]  as  only  one  city  is  besieged  we  should  read  no  here 
as  in  V.15,  Ew.  GVI^.  III.  p.  264,  E.  Trans.  III.  p.  195.  On  the  site  of  Abel, 
of.  Robinson,  BR"^.  III.  p.  372;  Baedeker,  Palestine'^,  p.  263.  The  town  lies 
on  a  hill  in  the  fertile  valley  west  of  Tell  el  Kadi,  in  which  the  springs  of  the 
Jordan  have  their  rise.  —  onan-'^Di]  we  have  no  trace  oi  Beerites  who  belong 
in  this  connexion.  ©^  seems  to  have  read  i-i33"^3i:  ©^  -\ij!-Soi:  another 
group  of  MSS.  represent  Dn;;n"Soi :  omnesque  electi  IL  and  Arm.,  would 
render  D>"Mn3n-S3i.  The  last  is  accepted  as  the  original  reading  by  Th.  and 
others,  whereas  Kl,  on  the  ground  of  ©^  reads  onoan-Soi,  that  is,  Sheba's 
own   clan.  —  inSp^]    iSnpM    Qre.     The   latter   is   favoured  by  the   versions. 


372  2  SAMUEI. 

Bui  the  fCtib  also  has  claims.  If  it  means  ami  they  treated  him  -with  con- 
tempt, it  would  account  for  the  small  strength  which  he  showed  in  the  sequel. 
—  in]  is  lacking  in  (g.  And  as  for  all  the  Bichrites,  ihey  i^athered  and  came 
in  [to  Abel]  after  him  (Dr.)  is  perhaps  the  best  that  can  be  done,  but  is  nut 
entirely  satisfactory.  My  own  conjecture  is  that  iji  in3m  is  duplication  of 
the  first  clause  of  verse  >*  and  that  the  original  stated  that  all  the  young  men 
esteemed  him  lightly  (ni^pn)  and  came  and  besieged  him,  that  is:  the  people 
had  already  taken  measures  to  defeat  him  before  the  coming  of  Joab.  But 
this  is  probably  as  subjective  as  the  other  conjectures.  — 15.  '^na  ici'm]  seems 
plainly  to  mean  and  it  stood -with  the  wall,  so  that  it  is  unnecessary  with  Keil 
to  make  ^r\  the  moat.  But  We.,  Kl.,  Bu.,  make  it  refer  to  the  wise  woman  and 
prefix  -1%'n  jo  r\x::-:ir\  twv.  nxpi.  —  OT^nii'D]  were  laying  waste,  which  is  the  ordi- 
nary meaning,  does  not  fit  well  here.  Ew.  proposes  to  make  it  denominative 
from  r^n:.'-.  ivere  digging  a  pit,  that  is,  were  undermining  the  wall.  —  pni^no 
ST  seems  here  to  agree  with  (5  ivoovaav  (^ivivoovv)  which  We.  supposes  to 
represent  DO^-no  (adopted  by  Kl,  Dr.,  Bu.).  — 16.  i^yn-jc  '^n  n^rx]  is  trans- 
ferred by  Kl.  (Bu.)  to  the  verse  above,  where  Nxni  is  prefixed  to  it.  The  text 
thus  constructed  undoubtedly  makes  good  sense,  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 
it  could  have  been  changed  into  what  we  have.  —  ^v^]  +  ■>-^^'  ®^-  — 
18.  -iCN^]  is  superfluous,  and  is  lacking  in  (g^^.  —  i^i]  K^-^o^i  (g  is  probably 
correct :  they  used  to  have  a  proverb.  The  contents  of  the  proverb  are  ob- 
scure in  1^ :  let  them  ask  in  Abel,  and  so  they  ended  must  mean  that  people 
sought  wisdom  in  Abel.  But  the  commendation  of  the  wisdom  of  the  town 
would  have  no  special  influence  with  Joab.  With  this  text  moreover  we  have 
difficulty  in  the  following  verse.  From  the  duplicate  translation  of  (5  we 
easily  extract  one  which  makes  a  better  sense.  For  the  words  extending  from 
131  in  this  verse  through  Sntj",  vP  substitute  ^nis"  'Mcx  ick'  -wv.  icrn  pai 
since  Ew.  (III.  p.  264)  generally  adopted.  The  proverb  will  then  mean  that 
the  two  neighbouring  cities  of  Abel  and  Dan  knew  what  tradition  had  estab- 
lished; they  were  the  seats  of  genuine  Israelitic  life.  Such  cities  Joab  might 
well  hesitate  to  destroy.  — hpn]  should  probably  be  nnxi  «gk  — P'on'-']  should 
be  nn:rS  as  pointed  out  by  Nestle  {Marg.  p.  20)  on  the  ground  of  rrn-.v  at 
the  end  of  the  next  verse.  —  22.  ayn]  (g  inserts  koI  iKdKTjirev  npbs  Traaau  tV 
v6\iv  which  seems  necessary  to  the  sense.  The  resemblance  of  oyn  and  i^jjn 
may  account  for  the  omission. 

23-26.  The  officers  of  the  administration  are  here  repeated, 
with  some  variations  from  8"^^*,  or,  more  probably,  are  original 
here  and  copied  in  the  other  document.  The  names  of  Joab, 
Benaiah,  Jehoshaphat,  Zadok,  are  the  same  in  both  lists.  Seraiah 
there  is  represented  by  Sheya  or  Shewa  here ;  probably  both  are 
corrupted  from  a  common  source.  Abiathar  in  this  passage  is  more 
in  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the  history  than  is  Ahimekch 
ben  Abiathar  of  the  other.     New  in  this  passage,  as  compared 


XX.  23-xxi.  373 

with  the  other,  is  Adoram  (Adoniram),  who  is  said  to  have  been 
over  the  forced  labour,  the  corvee  which  is  inseparable  from  an 
oriental  monarchy,  cf.  Jd.  i'*  and  Moore's  note.  As  we  can  con- 
ceive of  a  reason  for  the  omission  of  this  datum,  in  the  desire  to 
shield  David  from  the  imputation  of  tyranny,  we  may  suppose  it 
original  here.  The  other  discrepancy  is  in  substituting  Ira  the 
Jairite  as  priest  in  the  place  of  David's  sons.  The  author  or 
editor  in  putting  this  Ust  here  evidently  designed  it  to  mark  the 
close  of  the  account  of  David's  reign.  The  main  narrative,  which 
is  continued  in  i  K.  i,  goes  on  to  the  accession  of  Solomon,  the 
coronation  of  Adonijah  being  simply  a  prelude  to  the  reign  of 
his  brother. 

23.  'i'n]  should  of  course  be  S}*,  as  in  8^^  l  Chr.  iS^".  In  both  those  pas- 
sages we  have  simply  N3xn  instead  of  '?xiu"  'xn  ^2.  The  latter  is  ungram- 
matical  and  Ssia'^  should  be  stricken  out  —  it  is  lacking  in  12  MSS.  of  @ 
(Parsons).  —  n^n]  for  the  more  common  TnDn,  possibly  simply  a  textual 
error.  The  form  113^  occurs  in  2  K.  il^^^.  But  as  the  author  of  2  Sam. 
always  uses  'n-\3n  it  seems  better  to  restore  that  form  here  with  Qre  and  @^ 
(XfAe^fl*!)'  ^  (XepeSflei)- — 24.  a->-iNi]  as  ©^  reads  Adoniram  here,  and  an 
officer  of  Solomon  named  Adoniram  was  also  over  the  forced  labour,  it  is  natu- 
ral to  identify  the  men  and  the  names. — 25.  v.-'Z'\  Kt,  ^vi^\  Qre,  see  on  S^'. 
(S^  has  'Irjo-oOs  here,  ©^  2ou(ra.  —  26.  N-('i']  two  of  David's  mighty  men  bear 
the  name,  232^-^.  One  of  them  is  possibly  the  same  person  with  this  one. 
He  is  called  however  in  23^^  I  Chr.  ii*°  'invi.  ^^  reads  6  'itflep  here  and  Ss 
has  ■»\i''  jm.  There  is  no  intrinsic  difficulty  in  the  way  of  reading  yazW/if  how- 
ever, and  the  identity  with  the  Jetherite  (or  Jathrite)  of  23^  is  only  a  conjecture. 

XXI.-XXrV.  Four  chapters  are  here  inserted  which  break  the 
connexion  of  the  narrative,  for  this  once  made  i  K.  i^  follow  im- 
mediately after  20^^  It  seems  as  if  the  compiler  threw  together 
the  fragments  which  were  left  after  completing  the  main  narrative 
and  put  them  here,  because  they  belonged  in  the  reign  of  David, 
and  he  did  not  know  where  else  to  put  them.  Examination  shows 
however  that  they  were  probably  inserted  at  different  times.  First 
an  editor  put  in  21'"'*  and  24,  two  narratives  of  calamity  which 
belong  together.  The  two  were  then  forcibly  separated  by  the  list 
of  exploits  and  heroes  which  occupies  21^^*^^  23*^^  And  this  again 
was  cut  in  two  by  the  two  Psalms  22  and  z"^''-  We  have  nowhere 
a  better  illustration  of  the  complexity  of  the  process  by  which  our 
books  reached  their  present  form. 


'374  2  SAMUEL 

XXI.  1-14.  The  famine  and  the  expiation.  —  The  narrative 
seems  to  be  old  and  good.  But  it  is  not  in  its  proper  place 
chronologically.  There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  omitted 
by  the  author  of  9-20,  because  he  had  enough  unfavourable 
features  without  it.  We  may  be  glad  that  a  succeeding  editor 
found  the  story  and  transcribed  it,  for  few  sections  of  the  Old 
Testament  show  more  clearly  the  religious  ideas  of  the  time.  We 
see  how  Yahweh  as  the  avenger  of  a  broken  covenant  requires 
from  the  children  of  the  offender  the  blood  that  has  been  shed. 

1.   The  famine  was  a  mark  of  Yahweh's  displeasure,  and  David 
sought  the  face  of  Yahweh']  to  inquire  the  occasion.     The  reply 
is  :  there  is  blood  upon  Saul  and  upon  his  house  because  he  slew  the 
Gibeonites']  the  blood  of  a  murdered  man  rests  upon  the  murderer 
Dt.  19'",  cf.  Jd.  p^-*  2  S.  i'«,  and  the  case  of  Lady  Macbeth.  — 2.  The 
narrative  is  interrupted  by  a  parenthesis.     Whether  such  an  ex- 
planation as  the  parenthesis  gives  was  needed  by  the  first  readers 
of  the  story  is  doubtful.     If  an  explanation  were  necessary,  more- 
over, the   author  would   put   it   after   the   first   mention   of  the 
Gibeonites  and  not  when  David's  speech  has  been  introduced. 
For  these  reasons  the  verse  (after  the  first  five  words)  is  now 
generally  regarded  as  a  gloss,  including  also  the  first  three  words 
of  v.^     It  should  be  noticed  however  that  the  interpolation  makes 
no  mention  of  Joshua,  so  that  probably  the   glossator  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  narrative  which  now  stands  in  Jos.  9.  —  The 
Children  of  Israel  had  sworn  to  them']  such  covenants  were  very 
common  during  the  process  which  ended  in  the  establishment  of 
Israel  in  Canaan. — But  Saul  sought  to  smite  thetn  in  his  zeal  for 
the  Children  of  Israel  and  Judah]  as  in  some  other  places,  Judah 
seems  to  be  an  afterthought.  —  3.    David's  inquiry  is  :  what  shall 
I  do  to  you,  and  ivherewith  shall  I  make  expiation]   the  verb  is 
used  of  the  (priestly)  work  of  removing  Yahweh's  anger,  gener- 
ally by  an  offering.     The  result  would  be  :  that  ye  may  bless  the 
heritage  of  Yahweh]  that  is,  bring  a  blessing  on  Israel.  — 4.    The 
reply  of  the  Gibeonites  consists  of  two  parts.     For  one  thing,  they 
will  not  accept  blood  money  —  it  is  not  a  question  of  silver  and 
gold  between  them  and  Saul.     On  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  so 
bloodthirsty  as  to  require  victims  from  Israel  at  large.     David 


XXT.  1-9  375- 

inquires  further:  W7iat  do  you  say  that  I  shall  do  for  you?  — 
5,  6.  The  expiation  shall  be  made  by  the  family  of  the  murderer  : 
As  for  ike  ?nan  who  consumed  us  and  who  thought  to  destroy  us 
that  we  should  not  remain  in  all  the  border  of  Israel,  let  seven  of 
his  sons  be  given  us  and  we  will  expose  them  before  Yahweh']  that 
the  sins  of  the  father  should  be  visited  upon  the  children  is  a 
matter  of  course.  The  expiation  was  to  be  made  in  Gibeon  in  the 
mount  of  Yahweh']  as  we  learn  from  the  history  of  Solomon,  a 
celebrated  sanctuary  existed  at  Gibeon.  The  received  text  has 
corrupted  the  original  reading  to  /«  Gibeah  of  Saul,  the  chosen  of 
Yahweh.  —  7.  A  note  to  the  effect  that  David  screened  Merib- 
baal  his  client  from  the  vengeance  that  would  otherwise  have 
overtaken  him.  —  8.  The  victims  actually  taken  were  two  sons 
of  Rizpah,  the  concubine  who  was  the  occasion  of  Abner's  revolt, 
and  the  five  sons  of  Aferab}  so  we  should  read,  for  it  was  Merab 
who  was  given  to  Adriel,  i  S.  i8'^.  The  name  of  Michal's  hus- 
band was  Paltiel.  —  9.  The  Gibeonites  exposed  the  seven  as  they 
had  determined,  and  the  seven  of  them  fell  together^  the  verb  is 
hardly  appropriate  if  the  victims  were  suspended  above  the 
earth.  The  time  of  the  year  was  harvest,  which  comes  in  April 
or  May. 

1.  a>a^^  n''3"'?Ni  SinivSn]  the  preposition  is  to  be  changed  to  '?;•,  the 
accents  are  to  be  disregarded,  and  the  n  is  to  be  made  the  suffix  of  n^a;  read 
therefore  D'Oi  nh^j  *?;?,  so  (5  (We.).  —  2.  >ncNn]  as  in  some  other  passages,  a 
comprehensive  name  for  the  early  inhabitants  of  Canaan. —  iPNjpi]  cf.  i  K. 
igio.  14_  —  3_  13131]  the  imperative  is  used  to  express  the  purpose  of  the  preced- 
ing verb,  cf.  I  S.  12";  Dr.  Tenses^,  §65;  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  65  J,  Ges.-'' 
§110  J.  —  4.  ■>'?]  is  changed  unnecessarily  to  ij*?  by  the  Qre.  —  '^ixtr'-oy]  the 
assertion  that  they  have  no  silver  and  no  gold  in  possession  of  Saul  only  says 
that  they  will  not  put  forward  a  claim  for  material  damages.  The  blood-wit 
was  forbidden  by  the  later  legislation,  Num.  35^^  but  is  evidently  regarded  as 
allowable  in  our  text.  —  n'^an  S  fs  ij'?"pNi]  and  we  have  no  man  to  slay  does 
not  seem  appropriate.  (5^  transposes  two  words,  t^N  n''!;n'^,  which  is  smoother. 
— -23^  r\z'yn  DiiCN  an.vncj  as  pointed  out  by  Dr.,  the  present  text  must  be 
translated  as  above.  (B^  seems  to  have  read  hb'JJNI  which  would  then  be  the 
apodosis:  whatever  you  say  f  will  do.  —  5.  ijintj'j]  cannot  be  used  in  this 
form.  It  would  be  possible  to  point  u^ntt'j  as  is  done  by  one  of  the  render- 
ings found  in  ®.  This  would  require  a  change  in  the  pointing  of  noi.  It 
seems  also  that  the  apodosis  begins  with  inj'  of  the  next  verse.  The  probability 
therefore  favours  a  change  of  uict^j  ^i-  into  UTDcnS  (Wc.  adopted  by  Bu.). 


376  2  SAMUEL 

The  construction  would  then  l)e  parallel  to  Jd.  20".  Ew.  proposed  i:-<r:z'^  ap- 
parently retaining  u^ — 6.  jnj']  the  Qre  changes  to  a  Hophal  without  appar- 
ent cause.  —  oiViivni]  the  verb  is  used  Num.  25*  of  some  form  of  execution, 
precisely  what  is  difficult  to  determine.  ©^  has  here  e^rjAiaffw^uei/  and  the 
other  Greek  versions  use  words  meaning  /o  impalt  or  to  hang.  W.  R.  Smith 
supposes  it  to  mean  cast  over  a  precipice.  ST  also  makes  it  mean  to  hang  or 
crucify.  But  this  is  contradicted  for  this  passage  by  i'tdm  below.  — '^ins'  npaja] 
iv  Va.&(xwv  2aov\  <5^.  Two  MSS.  omit  the  name  of  Saul.  The  narrative  is 
favourable  to  Gibeon  as  the  site  of  the  expiation.  Saul  has  come  in  by  mis- 
take.—  nn>  i^nj]  in  v.^  we  find  that  the  men  were  exposed  nvT  ms'^  ^^3. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  ■in''  -^nj  was  original  here  (We.,  Bu.).  — 8.  The 
name  of  one  of  Rizpah's  sons  appears  in  the  distorted  form  given  to  the 
son  of  Jonathan.  —  '^j'c]  two  codd.  of  |§  have  31::  which  is  represented  also 
in  (S^ST.  The  latter  alone  agrees  with  the  statement  i  S.  18^^.  —  9.  i'?dm] 
is  changed  by  Kl.  into  i'?.-i^i,  on  the  supposition  that  Oy'P'i  means  they  hung 
them.  DP;?3i'  is  to  be  read,  as  indicated  in  the  margin.  The  Qre  also  de- 
mands n::ni  for  oni,  but  this  does  not  seem  necessary.  The  last  clause  drags 
awkwardly  and  is  perhaps  a  scribal  expansion,  O'ja'Nij  is  lacking  in  <3^.  — 
nSn.-i]  is  perfectly  intelligible  as  the  accusative  of  circumstance,  without  the 
preposition  which  is  prefixed  by  the  Qre. 

10.  The  devotion  of  Rizpah  is  seen  in  her  watching  the  bodies 
day  and  night :  ant/  she  did  not  permit  the  birds  of  the  heaveti  to 
rest  upon  them  by  day,  nor  the  wild  beasts  by  fiight'\  the  last  clause 
naturally  implies  that  the  bodies  were  not  suspended  above  the 
ground,  but  rested  on  the  earth.  That  this  continued  for  some 
time  is  indicated  by  the  pains  taken  to  say  that  it  lasted  from  the 
beginning  of  hamest  until  water  7vas  poured  out  tipon  them  from 
heaven.  But  whether  this  means  until  the  beginning  of  the  regular 
autumn  rains  is  impossible  to  say.  So  long  an  exposure  of  corpses 
is  in  glaring  inconsistency  with  Dt.  21^^-,  all  the  more  that  it  is 
here  done  to  propitiate  the  Deity.  — 11,  12.  When  David  was  told 
of  the  fidelity  of  Rizpah,  he  ivent  and  took  the  bones  of  Saul  and 
of  Jotiathan  from  the  citizens  of  Jabesh  Gilead  who  had  stolen  them, 
as  narrated  above.  — 14.  These  with  the  bones  of  the  exposed — 
that  the  bones  alone  remained  shows  that  the  exposure  had  lasted 
a  considerable  time  —  he  buried  in  Zela  in  the  sepulchre  of  Kish 
his  father\  the  locality  is  unknown.  That  God  was  propitiated 
toward  the  land  after  this  is  the  conclusion  of  this  narrative.  The 
propitiation  was  not  wrought  by  the  burial  but  by  the  execution 
of  the  men. 


XXI.  IO-22  377 

10.  i"^".:'^]  the  cloth  which  she  would  naturally  wear  as  a  mourner.  This 
ihe  spread  upon  the  rock,  to  lie  upon,  we  must  suppose.  —  ^n]  for  ^'i  as 
often.  —  I'sp]  ®  adds  Kpiduv,  which  is  perhaps  original.  — 11.  At  the  end  of 
the  verse  @A.Bai.  adds:  koI  i^fXvdricrau,  ko!  KarfKa&iv  avrovs  Aoc  vihs  'Itua  «« 
Twv  aiToy6vwv  rwv  yiydvTuv.  <3^  has  the  same  words  at  the  end  of  v.'".  They 
seem  to  have  wandered  hither  from  v.^^. — 12.  Z'^pJ  Why  the  Qre  should 
want  to  substitute  3>t<Sn  is  incomprehensible.  —  Z'PZ'^on  az'}  the  Qre  assumes 
that  the  division  of  words  is  wrong,  but  again  without  internal  probability.  — 
14.  nap'i]  perhaps  we  should  read  Q-\3|iM :  and  he  buried  thetn  with  the  bones 
of  Saul.     @  inserts  after  Jonathan,  the  bones  of  the  exposed. 

15-22.  The  fate  of  four  Philistine  champions. — The  sec- 
tion is  part  of  a  summary  containing  the  exploits  of  David  and 
his  men.  It  seems  to  belong  with  s^'''^,  though  that  passage 
relates  victories  over  the  Philistine  army,  while  this  gives  exploits 
of  individual  soldiers.  — 15.  War  broke  out,  and  David  and 
his  men  went  down  —  from  Hebron  apparently.  There  was  war 
again,  indicates  that  this  is  taken  from  a  more  extended  history. 
— 16.  The  text  is  corrupt.  It  gave  originally  the  name  of  a  Philis- 
tine who  was  one  of  the  Rephaites.  The  name  is  now  lost,  and 
even  the  description  given  of  him  is  unintelligible.  All  we  make 
out  is  that  he  thought  to  slay  David.  — 17.  Abishai  delivered  his 
captain,  and  David's  men  took  an  oath  that  the  king  should  not 
go  to  battle  with  them  any  more  and  quench  the  light  of  Israel. 
Compare  the  coal  that  is  left  of  the  Thekoite  woman.  — 18.  That 
there  was  war  again  in  Gob  imphes  that  the  preceding  war  had 
been  in  the  same  locality.  The  place  is  mentioned  nowhere 
except  in  this  chapter.  —  Sibbechai  the  Hushathite'\  a  Bethlehemite 
family  is  named  Hushah,  i  Chr.  4*.  — 19.  In  another  campaign 
Elhanan  ben  fair  the  Bethlehemite  slew  Goliath  the  Gittite'\  the 
harmonistic  purpose  of  the  Chronicler  in  making  the  victim  the 
brother  of  Goliath  is  evident.  —  20.  Still  another  tall  man  with 
the  curious  physical  deformity  of  six  fingers  on  each  hand  and  six 
toes  on  each  foot  is  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  same  family. 
—  21.  His  challenge  to  Israel  brought  upon  him  the  fate  of  his 
brothers.  —  22.  The  verse  sums  up  the  paragraph  —  four  cham- 
pions of  one  family  were  slain  by  David  and  his  men. 

16.  -in  IP'O  is  suspicious  and  probably  corrupt;  @b  reads  Koi  (iropddi) 
Aavf'iS.     Had  the  Philistine  attacked  him  when  weary,  a  more  explicit  state- 


378  2  SAMUEL 

itient  would  have  been  niatle.  —  16.  2:2  ij^m]  ('jjr-^  Qre)  cannot  be  a  proper 
name.  Taking  the  words  by  themselves,  we  should  naturally  connect  them 
with  the  preceding  verse  in  the  sense,  and  they  dwelt  (that  is,  camped)  in  Nob, 
only  for  the  name  of  the  place  we  should  read  Gob  as  in  v.'*.  This  is  adopted 
by  We.,  Dr.,  Bu.,  who  agree  in  inserting  the  words  after  id;;  of  the  preceding 
verse  —  perhaps  the  best  we  can  do,  though  the  displacement  is  difficult  to 
account  for.  It  is  possible  that  in  -\vn  3jj  we  have  p  with  a  mutilated  proper 
name;  ®^  reads  koi  Aa5oi>  t/tbs  'loios  where  the  first  name  seems  a  corruption 
of  in.  For  n>':'o  we  should  probably  read  ''T'^'C.  The  name  T^Q-\7[  is  appar- 
ently an  eponym.  —  irp]  would  be  his  lance,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the 
weight  of  some  other  piece  of  armour  would  be  given,  as  i  S.  17**  where  we 
find  the  helmet,  yaip,  which  therefore  may  be  restored  with  some  probability 
here  (Kl.,  Bu.).  Sp;;'C  seems  to  be  an  error  for  Sp'.:'.  The  clause  and  he  was 
girded  with  a  new  is  of  course  unintelligible  without  the  name  of  the  piece 
of  armour  which  he  had  on;  (g^  gives  Kopvvr\v,  a  club,  which  however  is  not 
girded  on  like  a  sword;  ©^  and  Theodotion  iTapaCdi>vr)v.  Lagarde  conjectures 
7\yz.'-\  (the  form  of  the  clause  naturally  points  to  David  as  the  subject,  Kl.). — 
17.  iS]  after  -\n  is  probably  to  be  omitted,  with  (g.  — 18.  For  2i  here  many 
codd.  have  3j,  whereas  ©^  and  S>  read  Gath,  (5^  Ta^fd,  and  the  parallel,  i  Chr. 
20*  has  -\i.i.  In  this  confusion  it  seems  best  to  retain  the  reading  of  |§,  which 
is  more  likely  to  have  been  replaced  by  a  well-known  name  than  the  reverse. 
— 19.  O'JiN  n;;i]  is  hardly  a  man's  name  and  the  d^jin  has  plainly  crept  in 
from  the  line  below.  For  •'ij?'  it  seems  better  to  restore  also  m;;''  or  i^''  with 
Chr.  —  20.  pio  iT'w]  (jno  Q>'e)  is  probably  intended  to  mean  a  man  of  strife. 
But  from  the  context  we  infer  that  mn  cw  of  Chr.  is  original.  On  six-fingered 
persons,  the  commentators  refer  to  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  XI.  43.  —  1£3Dd]  read 
■>DDD3  (Kl.).  —  21.  ^ynr]  xyci'  Qre  is  also  the  reading  of  Chr.  The  same 
person  is  called  njjDtt'  in  133.  —  22.  On  the  use  of  the  accusative  sign  with  the 
subject  of  passive  verbs,  cf.  Konig,  Syntax,  §  108  f.,  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  79. 

XXII.  David's  song  of  triumph.  —  A  psalm  is  here  introduced 
which  is  found  also  in  our  Psalter  (Ps.  18).  It  there  has  a  title 
which  seems  adopted  from  this  place,  and  the  indications  point  to 
this  as  the  earlier  place  for  it.  The  text  has  suffered  in  the  copy 
now  before  us  (as  we  might  expect)  more  than  in  the  Psalter. 

The  poet  begins  with  an  expression  of  trust  in  Yahweh,  vv.^"*. 
He  then  recounts  his  experience  of  calamity  and  deliverance,  ^"-'". 
He  affirms  his  uprightness,  which  he  believes  to  be  the  reason  why 
he  enjoys  the  divine  favour,  ""^.  He  praises  God  as  the  source 
of  his  strength  and  success,  ^^"^",  and  closes  with  a  doxology,  *'"'. 
Allusions  to  specific  events  in  the  life  of  David  cannot  be  discov- 
ered.   The  description  of  misfortune  is  conveyed  in  general  terms, 


XXII.  1-8  379 

such  as  any  one  might  use  who  had  been  in  deep  trouble.  The 
theophany  which  brings  deliverance  is  set  forth  in  terms  not 
unlike  those  used  by  the  other  Old  Testament  poets.  Where  the 
poet  speaks  of  his  own  deserts  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  he 
has  David's  experience  in  mind.  The  impression  made  by  the 
Psalm  is  that  it  is  the  utterance  of  a  man  speaking  for  the  com- 
pany of  the  faithful  and  embodying  their  experience  in  words. 
For  these  reasons  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  the  composition  to  be 
David's  own. 

As  many  excellent  commentaries  on  the  Psalter  are  accessible 
to  the  student,  it  is  unnecessary  to  give  here  any  extended  exposi- 
tion of  this  psalm,  or  a  translation  of  it.  I  shall  content  myself 
with  notes  on  the  various  readings  which  are  discovered  by  com- 
paring this  text  with  that  of  Ps.  i8. 

1.  The  title  here  begins  with  in  -\3iii.  The  compiler  of  the  Psalter, 
in  accordance  with  his  custom,  prefixed  in'?  nin'  •^2y^  nxjc*^  and  was  then 
obliged  to  change  to  i3i  ib'n.  For  ^ddi  he  reads  iTi,  which  is  certainly  no 
improvement. 

2.  The  psalm  here  opens  with  'pVo  n^r^\  while  Ps.  i8  prefixes  a  clause  icmx 
'pin  nin>,  and  the  same  is  found  in  @^.  The  insertion  seems  to  weaken  the 
force  of  the  opening,  so  that  in  this  instance  our  text  seems  original.  That  a 
psalmist  took  the  liberty  of  expanding  his  text  is  only  what  we  should  expect 
from  the  history  of  hymnology.  —  >S]  is  lacking  in  Ps.  and  is  in  fact  superflu- 
ous. It  is  a  question  whether  ibSdh  ought  not  also  to  be  stricken  out.  The 
metre  and  the  sense  are  complete  without  it : 

Yahweh  is  my  rock  and  my  fortress ; 
My  God  is  my  crag  in  whom  I  trust. 

3.  ii^n]  should  probably  be  pointed  '•h'^n;  Ps.  reproduces  the  word  in  the 
form  '^N,  which  is  unmistakable.  From  ^Dijci  Ps.  omits,  and  apparently  with 
good  cause,  for  the  clause  is  quite  out  of  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  verse. 

5.  ^3]  lacking  in  Ps.  and  @H  is  therefore  suspicious,  -i^rc  is  clearly  to 
be  preferred  to  ^'^ir\  Ps.  —  7.  NipN]  in  the  second  clause  is  intolerable:  yi;:'N 
Ps.  is  far  better.  After  inpici  add  Nan  from  the  N3n  vjdV  of  Ps.  —  8.  K-ium] 
Kt.  and  Ps.,  evidently  has  tinh  for  its  subject.  The  Qr'e  trvjpii  perhaps  intends 
Yahweh  as  subject:  He  shook  himself  (with  wrath)  and  the  earth  trembled; 
in  this  case  however  another  verb  would  probably  have  been  chosen,  as  iyjn% 
Nestle,  Marginalien,  p.  21. — O'DK'n  nnoim]  Dnn  nmni  Ps.  The  latter  is  t>) 
be  preferred,  for  the  foundations  of  /unuen  are  nowhere  else  mentioned.  — ■ 


3bu  2  SAMUEL 

11.  nim]  NT1  Ps. ;  the  latter  is  far  finer,  cf.  Dt.  28*".  — 12.  After  ji'r\  insert 
}'\rD  Ps.,  and  read  in^D  for  pidd.     We  thus  get  a  good  parallelism : 

nno  -\^n  ncii 

The  word  mm  is  obscure;  PDti'n  Ps.  is  favoured  by  (S^  (tkStos  while  (S^ 
((ptiffaro  seems  to  have  read  ^t:'^.  — 13.  The  verse  as  it  stands  consists  of  but 
one  member,  whereas  Ps.  has  two.  The  latter  is  doubtless  original,  except  that 
^^;2  is  to  be  retained  instead  of  na;'. 

14.  D>*"\'']  Ps.  @^  and  S  unite  in  prefixing  1.  — 15.  The  second  member  is 
too  short;  Ps.  has  D::n^'^  ai  o^'piai.  I  conjecture  ddhm  nan  d\ii3i.  There 
seems  to  be  no  reason  for  the  Qre  an^.  — 16.  iSji]  the  form  iSj'i  Ps.  agrees 
better  with  the  sense  in  this  verse.  The  tense  changes  in  v.i^  in  order  to  a 
more  vivid  presentation  of  the  actual  deliverance.  — 18.  ?>'  ^D'nc]  is  difficult 
to  construe.  Apparently  13  has  dropped  out  after  o^'wr.  — 19.  jys'c]  read 
i;c'D^  with  Ps,  and  codd.  mult.  —  23.  viddz't:  Qre  is  favoured  by  Ps.  and  the 
parallelism,  —  njsc]  is  difficult  afier  the  plural  and  probably  to  be  read  'JDD 
("JD  Ps.),  and  this  involves  the  reading  T'DS  (Ps.)  :  ovk  a.no(TrTiaeTat  an'  ip.ov 
i^^:  OVK  aviaT7]v  ott'  avrwv  ®^.  —  26.  "injj  is  certainly  out  of  place:  naj  Ps. 
is  confirmed  by  @. . —  27.  lanr]  is  an  evident  error  for  "\"\3nn  Ps.  One  -\  has 
dropped  out.  —  '?Dnr]  Snenn  Ps.,  a  similar  case  of  carelessness,  —  28.  The 
second  clause  gives  no  suitable  sense.     For  cnvSy  ^^y^^y^  read  niDi  u^yyy  Ps. 

29.  The  assertion  Thou  art  my  torch  seems  to  have  been  too  bold  for  the 
Psalmist,  who  changes  into :  Thou  lightest  my  torch.  The  probability  seems 
in  favour  of  our  text.  In  the  second  member  however  read  ^nSxi  for  nin^i.  — 
30.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  speaks  of  leaping  a  wall.  It  seems  clear 
that  the  paralleHsm  requires  inj  instead  of  nnj,  and  this  calls  for  v'^y  (Lag., 
Proph.  Chald.,  p.  xlvi)  instead  of  vt>^'.  —  31.  The  second  clause  is  perhaps  an 
interpolation,  as  it  breaks  the  parallelism  (Kl.). 

32.  For  the  second  n;?Sac,  Ps,  substitutes  ^nSii  which  many  codd.  have 
here.  The  dissimilation  is  more  elegant.  —  33.  S''n  myc]  seems  to  give  no 
suitable  sense,  whereas  S^n  ■'jitNcn  Ps.  is  excellent.  —  in>i]  seems  to  be  a 
corruption  of  jnii  Ps.,  and  i31T  Qre  is  to  be  adopted.  —  34.  ■*Sj"i  Qre  and  Ps, 
is  correct,  —  35.  nnji]  nnmi  Ps.,  neither  one  giving  a  suitable  sense.  The 
passage  seems  to  require  and  makes  ffiy  artns  like  a  bow  of  bronze.  jnM  will 
hardly  do,  for  the  same  verb  follows  immediately  —  perhaps  ^^Z'^^  would  meet 
the  conditions.  —  36,  l^Ji'i]  the  word  seems  to  be  nowhere  else  applied  to 
God,  and  is  incongruous  in  this  passage;  Ka.\  fi  viraKoi}  aov  @B.  ^^\  ^  -iraiSfia 
(Tov  (S^  if  taken  to  mean  and  thy  discipline  [obedience  to  thee]  brought  me  up 
would  be  appropriate,  but  both  tidto  and  ^^^31^  are  somewhat  remote  in  form 
from  the  word  in  the  text.  Other  conjectures  are  unsatisfactory.  —  39.  dSdni] 
is  doubtless  erroneous  duplication  of  the  preceding  word  (lacking  in  Ps.). — 
40.  •'JiT~i]  another  spelling  for  ^n'NHi  Ps. — 41.  nnp]  has  lost  its  J  —  a  case 
of  simple  carelessness  like  some  others  in  this  chapter.  — 42.    ivr^]  they  looked 


X\ll.   ii-\XI]l.  4  381 

u-()ul(l  be  possible,  but  u'V"'  Fs.  is  confirmed  by  ®. — 43.  ayp"^^'  ap-^K]  one  of 
the  two  words  is  superfluous.  The  reading  has  come  about  by  conflation,  as 
is  shown  by  DpnN  Ps.  and  codd.  Dpix  alone  fits  the  context. — 44.  'cy]  is 
hardly  appropriate;  a;;  Ps.  is  better,  but  still  better  would  be  a^ny,  parallel  with 
D'U.  For  •'nscn  substitute  ijc^'n  Ps.  (5^  has  a  very  different  sense  for  this 
verse,  —  45.  Ps.  inverts  the  order  of  the  clauses  (also  (5^),  which  is  better. — 
46.  I'ra']  as  pointed,  gives  a  strained  sense.  The  conjecture  of  Kl.  ''V  t'2V, 
adopted  by  Bu.,  has  everything  in  its  favour.  —  i"ijnii]  is  equally  unfortunate, 
but  corrected  by  Ps.  uinM. 

47.  iix]  is  superfluous  and  omitted  by  Ps.  <3^,  while  (@^  seems  to  have 
read  -ixj.  —  50.  mntx  Ps.  is  the  better  form.  —  51,  '^njc]  there  seems  to  be 
no  reason  for  the  Qre. 

XXIII.  1-7.  David's  last  words.  — The  psalm  here  introduced 
is  intended  to  give  David  a  Testament  Uke  that  of  Jacob  and 
Moses,  The  contents  however  are  obscure  and  the  text  is  corrupt. 
Both  vocabulary  and  thought  show  it  to  be  a  comparatively  late 
production. 

1.  After  the  title  we  have  the  ostensible  author's  introduction 

of  himself: 

Oracle  of  David  ben  /esse, 
Oracle  of  the  man  set  on  high, 
The  Anointed  of  the  God  of  Jacob 
And  the  Joy  of  the  songs  of  Israel. 

2,  3*.  A  second  introductory  stanza,  assuring  the  hearer  that 
what  is  spoken  is  divinely  inspired  : 

The  Spirit  of  Yahweh  spoke  in  me, 
And  his  word  was  on  tny  tongue; 
The  God  of  Jacob  said  to  me. 
The  Rock  of  Israel  spoke  : 

3*5,  4,  The  oracle  now  follows,  and  is  evidently  intended  as  a 
panegyric  upon  the  just  ruler  : 

One  ruling  over  men,  a  righteous  man, 

Ruling  in  the  fear  of  God ; 

Like  the  light  of  the  morning  shall  he  rise. 

The  sun  of  a  cloudless  morn. 

Making  the  green  earth  brilliant  after  rain. 


382  2  SAMUEl, 

5.  The  poet  reflects  on  the  divine  revelation  just  vouchsafed  : 

Verily,  sure  is  my  fiousc  with  God, 

For  an  eternal  coTenant  he  made  with  me, 

Set  in  order  in  all  things,  and  he  will  keep  it. 

For  all  my  salvation  and  all  my  delight  are  in  him. 

The  text  has  suffered,  and  the  last  clause  is  quite  unintelligible. 
The  above  restoration  is  only  provisional. 

6,  7.  Some  violence  is  needed  to  get  a  sense  out  of  the  present 
text.     By  conjecture  we  may  restore  the  following : 

But  vile  men  shall  not  flourish, 

They  are  like  thorns  of  the  desert,  all  of  thetn, 

Which  are  not  harvested  by  the  hand, 

Nor  doth  a.  man  labour  for  them. 

Though  armed  ivith  iron  and  spear 

They  shall  be  utterly  consumed  with  fire. 

The  subject  of  the  last  couplet  is  no  longer  the  thorns,  but  the 
wicked  men,  of  which  they  are  a  type. 

1.  The  versions  differ  extraordinarily  in  their  understanding  of  the  Psalm, 
and  their  apprehension  is  usually  a  misapprehension.  —  dxj]  is  used  of  a  divine 
communication  nearly  if  not  quite  always.  —  dnji]  I  have  omitted  the  i  with 
I  cod.  of  1^,  also  IL©^  and  5.  —  apn]  is  for  apin,  which  is  found  in  a  number 
of  codd.  —  ^y  opn]  the  construction  is  difficult,  the  only  parallels  to  this  use 
of  hy  being  Hos.  7I6  n^^  both  corrupt  passages:  tv  avearriffiv  6  et6s  <5^ 
(Kvpios  (S^)  may  point  to  jrVy  u^pn.  The  last  clause  can  hardly  mean  the 
sweet  singer  of  Israel. — 3.  For  the  first  Israel  I  have  substituted  ya<r<)i^  with 
?L  and  I.  It  is  possible  that  '''^  should  be  supplied  before  ^znr:  (i),  so  that 
Yahweh  would  say  /  have  a  ruler,  that  is,  I  have  found  a  ruler.  —  nxn^]  a 
number  of  codd.  interpret  correctly  in  writing  psn^:i. — 4.  "msoi]  the  1  is 
omitted  by  @^S1L;  it  is  however  quite  in  place  as  introducing  the  sequence. 
—  nj:D]  should  be  a  participle,  perhaps  a  Piel,  though  that  form  does  not 
occur  elsewhere.  Otherwise  read  n^jp.  Kl.  proposes  n'»DXC,  nipD  or  33jc;  the 
last  is  adopted  by  Bu.  —  nacc]  @3L  seem  to  have  read  ntacD,  which  would 
better  be  adopted  if  we  change  the  preceding  word  to  aajD  —  like  rain  making 
the  green  of  the  earth  to  spring.  The  influence  of  a  beneficent  ruler  is  else- 
where likened  to  showers  that  water  the  earth.  —  5.  P"kS"'>3]  gives  just  the 
opposite  of  the  desired  meaning.  I  see  in  nS  the  strongly  affirmative  particle 
.s|^,  which  we  have  met  occasionally  elsewhere.  —  mntPi]  is  pointed  as  a  passive 
participle  by  iUl :  Koi.  <pv\d^ei  avrijv  ®^  seems  to  be  better.  —  ^j;!J»]  it  does  not 
appear  what  (5^  has  in  mind  in  translating  rhv  avTi6(T6v  not :  adversantem 
mihi  I.  —  I'cn]  should  be  ^^fon  apparently.  —  n>DS>  nS  ^3]  as  above  remarked. 


XXIII.  5-u  383 

is  unintelligible.  Kl.  proposes  tc  lead  ncS'''i^'o,  making  the  whole  sentence 
a  promise  of  God  :  all  my  help  and  all  my  good  pleasure  shall  spring  up  for 
him  (that  is,  for  David).  It  seems  to  me  better  to  throw  out  the  niDX'<  nS,  as 
having  strayed  in  from  another  place  (Nestle,  Marginalicn,  p.  22),  and  to 
close  the  verse  with  n  •'SDn"'^Di.  —  6.  (5^  begins  the  verse  with  n''DX>  N*^  13 
from  the  end  of  the  preceding,  and  this  agrees  better  with  the  rhythm. — 
?>?i'^3i]  omit  1  (5^.  —  ijc]  does  not  seem  appropriate;  read  naiD  with  Kl.,  Bu. 
For  "V,  Perles  (^Analekten,  p.  53)  proposes  ^^^-z,  in  which  case  we  should  read 
mn  1MCD.  For  inp*,  I  propose  rap'?''  —  the  worthlessness  of  the  thorns  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that  no  one  cares  to  gather  them.  —  7.  The  reading  just  given 
naturally  carries  with  it  the  reading  yj^"'  instead  of  yj-i  (confirmed  by  (@),  and 
makes  this  clause  parallel  to  the  one  preceding.  —  xSai]  is  incomprehensible  : 
ih.v  ^7)  (5^  points  to  N^'-'ON.  But  the  negative  does  not  fit,  and  I  conjecture 
1^"DN  or  perhaps  better  idS  dn — if  they  have  iron  as  their  defence.  —  r^jn] 
SioKo'i^j?  wrovs  <^^,  perhaps  3xn  in  some  form.  —  nasya]  which  is  quite  super- 
fluous, has  come  in  by  error  from  the  next  verse. 

8-39.  The  catalogue  of  David's  knights.  —  The  author  throws 
together  a  Hst  of  the  men  who  distinguished  themselves  in  David's 
wars  and  who  in  consequence  were  enrolled  in  a  special  band. 
The  section  agrees  in  tenor  with  21'^"^  and  seems  to  be  a  part  of 
the  same  document.  It  is  copied  in  i  Chr.  i  i"-^i*  where  the  text 
is  in  a  number  of  cases  better  preserved. 

8.  First  mentioned  is  Ishbaal  the  Hachmonite  chief  of  the  Three'\ 
that  is,  of  the  distinguished  band  which  ranked  above  all  except 
the  commander  in  chief  —  He  swung  his  spear  over  eight  hundred 
slain  at  one  time']  cf.  v.^^.  —  9.  And  after  him  was  Eleazar  ben 
Dodo  the  Ahohite]  an  Ahoah  is  mentioned  among  the  Benjamite 
clans,  I  Chr.  8*.  —  He  was  ivith  David  at  Fas-Dammim  and  the 
Philistines  gathered  there]  the  text  is  that  of  the  Chronicler. 
Pas-Dammim  is  the  Ephes-Dammim  of  i  S.  1 7^  — 10.  Begin- 
ning the  sentence  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  we  read  : 
And  the  men  of  Israel  retreated,  but  he  stood  and  sfnote  the  Philis- 
tines until  his  hand  was  weary  and  clave  fast  to  the  sword]  the 
muscles  became  so  stiff  that  he  could  not  relax  them.  So  in  our 
own  times,  an  Arab  champion  boasted  :  "  The  Kusman  perished 
before  me  until  the  evening,  when  my  fingers  could  not  be  loosed 
froiTti  the  handle  of  the  sword."*  — 11.  The  third  is  Shammah  ben 
Agee  the  Hararite.     His  exploit  was  when  the  Philistines  gathered 

*  Doughty,  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserta,  II.  p.  28. 


3S4  2  SAMUEL 

at  Leht]  cf.  Jd.  1 5'.  —  And  there  was  a  plot  0/  ground  full  0/  Icn- 
tiles']  a  well-known  crop,  for  which  however  the  Chronicler  here 
substitutes  barley.  —  12.  He  stationed  himself  in  the  middle  of  the 
field  and  defended  it]  literally  delivered  it.  The  account  of  these 
three  was  to  all  appearance  originally  concluded  by  ^'^ :  These 
things  did  the  three  heroes.  The  connexion  is  now  broken  by  the 
following  paragraph  which  relates  the  joint  deed  of  three  of  the 
heroes. 

8.  rara  att''']  has  not  the  appearance  of  a  proper  name:  ja  D)J3C>  Chr. : 
'U&6ads  (5^ :  'leffjSaaA.  <B)^.  From  the  last  reading  we  suspect  the  original  to 
have  been  '^•;yv^  C^^ar.s)  which  some  scribe  corrected  in  well-known  fashion 
to  Pii'^i'''  which  gave  rise  to  the  reading  of  |^.  Chr.  mutilates  by  changing  the 
last  letter  only.  —  ■'jnann]  •'jinan  Chr.  The  latter  looks  more  like  the  origi- 
nal; the  n  of  the  former  probably  represents  the  article:  o  Xavavalos  (@^:  vihs 
QiKiixavei  @^.  It  is  possible,  as  supposed  by  Bu.,  that  the  name  of  the  man's 
father  has  dropped  out  and  that  we  may  supply  it  from  i  Chr.  27^  where  we 
find  '?>s'-i2i"p  s;*3r\  But  as  in  i  Chr.  27^'-  we  find  another  man  called  also 
>jaon"p,  this  is  not  certain.  —  ■'C'^rn  cwn]  would  naturally  be  the  third  cap- 
tain, that  is,  next  in  rank  to  Joab  and  Abishai.  Chr.  has  however  a''w"'7!:'n  i:'n-\, 
chief  of  the  Thirty,  or  D'::'''?'i'n  '^  Qre,  chief  of  the  picked  men.  We  are  wholly 
helpless  in  the  endeavour  to  decide  between  these  readings.  To  them  (5^ 
adds  dpx'^''  ''■0''  "rplrov,  captain  of  the  third  (division  ?),  ©^  irpuTos  rwv  rpioiv : 
We.  conjectures  nc''^:;'n  h-n-i,  that  is  chief  of  this  first  three ;  while  Kl.  sup- 
poses a  statement  that  he  was  a  Shalishite,  that  is  a  native  of  Ifosh  (elsewhere 
Baal)  Shalisha.  Marquart  in  a  somewhat  extended  discussion  of  this  list 
(^Fundamente  Israelitischer  und  Jiidischer  Geschichte,  1896)  adopts  "ryar* 
nifSrn  tt'Ni  ^jcjn-.-ia.  The  unmeaning  collocation  of  words  usyn  ijnj?  Nin  is 
not  helped  by  the  Qre  ^jx>*n.  The  original  reading  of  (S  seems  to  be  pre- 
served in  @^:  oStos  SuKSfffiti  rrjv  StacTKtv^v  avruv,  hie  adornavit  adornationem 
suam  I  {Cod.  Goth.  Leg:).  This  may  represent  rSoTs  •]•)';  Nin,  or  possibly 
D3ij>n  "ny  Nin,  compare  i  Chr.  12*^.  But  this  does  not  help  us  in  connexion 
with  what  follows,  and  we  are  forced  to  adopt  the  parallel,  i  Chr.  11":  Nin 
iri^jn'.iN  miy.  For  njat:' :  t:'S:>  Chr.  The  latter  seems  to  have  been  purposely  ■ 
changed,  so  as  not  to  give  Ishbaal  more  than  Abishai.  —  9.  m]  ^•[^^\  Qre. 
The  latter  form  occurs  also  v.^*  Jd.  lo^  and  l  Chr.  ni2-26_  On  the  other  hand 
we  find  111-1  in  i  Chr.  27*  and  as  this  is  the  natural  contraction  of  niin  it 
may  be  original  here  (Marquart).  —  >mnN  |3]  ^mnNn  Chr.  which  recurs  in 
V.28  I  Chr.  1 129  and  27*.  Marquart  (/.c.)  conjectures  ^cnSn-n-'a.  But  the  con- 
sensus of  the  four  places  seems  to  me  to  favour  the  received  text,  ocina 
0\-iri'^D3,  in  their  bandying  insults  with  the  Philistines  is  not  bad  in  itself; 
but  the  Cw'  which  follows  indicates  that  the  name  of  a  place  has  preceded: 
cm  Dfi3  Chr.  supplies  one.  This  requires  the  insertion  with  Chr.  of  T\''r\  Nin 
before  cy.     Marquart  conjectures  d^ndi  soya.     In  any  case  the  following  word 


XXIII.  12-17  385 

requires  us  to  read  aiPtt*':'Bni  Chr.  for  a''PrS33.  The  following  clause,  and  the 
men  of  Israel  ivent  up,  is  unmeaning.  Probably  the  author  intended  to 
continue  the  preceding  ami  overpowered  the  men  of  Israel ;  koX  a.vi^6-t\aiv 
av})p  '\apa.r]K  (5^  may  be  no  more  than  a  corruption  of  koX  avfSricav  av.  'la. 
(5^  and  so  not  an  independent  witness.  On  the  other  hand  it  may  conceiva- 
bly represent  ipi'SM  which  points  to  an  original  ipix'i  (Marquart).  — 10.  Chr. 
omits  from  iVpM  v.^  to  n^'n'?  v.'^.  —  s-in]  should  be  Nini.  — 11.  nnNi]  innNi 
Qre.  —  mn]  in  v.^'  (i  Chr.  ii^*)  we  have  another  I/ararite  and  we  should 
prefix  the  article  here  as  there.  (5  however  points  to  i^nsn  in  this  verse 
(Marq.).  Kl.  supposes  this  hero  to  be  identical  with  nSk  ja  ii-jDfS^  i  K.  4'^. 
—  n^nS]  is  evidently  intended  as  a  proper  name,  in  which  case  we  must  see  in 
it  the  Lehi  well  known  from  the  history  of  Samson.  Ew.  conjectured  this 
{GFI^.  III.  p.  192,  E.  Tr.  III.  p.  141),  and  is  confirmed  by  @L  ^vj  0-107^^. 
— 12.  3S>nn]  Chr.  deprives  Shammah  of  his  glory  by  making  this  and  the 
two  following  verbs  plural. 

13-17*.  An  exploit  of  three  of  the  heroes  is  inserted  here,  be- 
cause they  were  supposed  to  be  the  three  just  mentioned.  The 
terms  in  which  they  are  introduced  does  not  however  indicate 
this.  — 13.  Three  of  the  Thirty']  implies  that  the  Thirty  have  been 
mentioned,  and  shows  the  original  place  of  the  section.  —  They 
came  down  to  the  mou7itain  top,  to  David  to  the  fortress  of  Adul- 
lam  when  a  clan  of  the  Philistines  was  encamped  in  the  Valley  of 
Rephaini]  the  well-known  scene  of  several  battles.  — 15.  David 
had  a  longing  for  the  water  he  used  to  drink  in  his  boyhood :  Oh, 
that  one  would  give  7ne  to  drink  from  the  well  of  Bethlehem!  That 
there  is  now  no  well  in  the  town  does  not  prove  anything  for 
earlier  times.  — 16.  The  three  heroes  broke  throiigh  the  camp  of 
the  Philistines  to  accomplish  David's  desire.  He  however  would 
not  drink  the  water  but  poured  it  out  to  Yahweh']  as  too  precious 
for  any  other  use.  — 17.  Yahweh  forbid  that  I  should  do  it !  This 
is  the  blood  of  the  men  who  went  at  the  risk  of  their  lives]  the 
value  thus  put  upon  it  shows  David's  appreciation  of  his  knights 
quite  as  well  as  if  he  had  drunk  their  present. 

13.  D'tt'St:']  nti'S'ii'  Qre,  Chr.  (§,  no  doubt  correctly.  —  ir'Ni]  it  is  difficult  to 
suppose  that  the  Thirty  are  all  called  chiefs  in  this  connexion.  If  we  change 
"T'sp  to  iisn  it  would  be  most  natural  to  read  iwn  trx-i,  and  suppose  the  inter- 
vening words  the  insertion  of  a  scribe  who  connected  cxi  wrongly  with  what 
precedes.  Chr.  has  only  nxn  S^  itni.  —  -i"'Xp"'?N]  they  certainly  did  not  come 
unto  the  harvest ;  nxn  Chr.  @^  is  doubtless  correct,  and  to  be  consistent  we 
must  make  msn  for  r"^vr:,  confirmed  by  the  next  verse.  — 14.  Possibly  a  gloss, 
2C 


386  2  SAMUEL 

as  it  is  entirely  unnecessary  to  the  sense,  ["his  does  not  invalidate  the  argu- 
ment just  based  on  7^■^ri::2  for  it  still  shows  that  the  glossator  found  nns::  in 
v.^^.  — 15.  ■'jpe'>  >c]  the  question  expresses  a  wish,  as  often,  -^sa  is  naturally 
a  well  of  living  water  —  only  such  would  account  for  David's  desire.  Perhaps 
because  no  well  was  known  in  later  times,  the  margin  substitutes  na  here,  and 
is  followed  by  Chr.,  cf.  Robinson,  BJ?'-,  I.  pp.  470,  473.  — 17.  r!in>]  in'?NC  Chr. 
points  to  nm's  which  is  found  in  many  codd.,  and  which  is  the  more  usual 
construction.  —  ain]  is  difficult,  because  the  question  does  not  contain  a  verb. 
The  Chronicler  supplies  the  verb,  but  makes  an  awkward  sentence  which  can 
hardly  be  original.  Probably  mn  is  corrupted  from  3t  nr  or  ai  Nin  (Bu.). 
The  last  clause  of  this  verse  appears  to  belong  after  v.12,  as  already  noted. 

18,  19.  The  received  text  confuses  the  Three  and  the  Thirty 
so  as  to  contradict  itself.  It  seems  plain  that  the  narrative  knows 
only  the  two  bands ;  were  there  a  Second  Three  it  must  be  desig- 
nated. Bearing  this  in  mind  and  correcting  the  text  accordingly, 
we  may  read  of  Abishai :  He  was  captain  of  the  Thirty  —  he  swung 
his  spear  over  three  hundred  slain,  so  he  got  a  ?iame  like  that  of  the 
Three.  He  was  tnore  honourable  than  the  Thirty  and  became  their 
captain,  but  to  the  Three  he  did  not  attain. 

18.  >^Sv7{\  ntySifn  Qre.  Neither  of  these  can  be  right  and  it  is  necessar>' 
to  read  a^rSB-n  with  two  MSS.  (We.).  — nc-Vt^a  zv-\^\\  there  is  no  way  in 
which  Abishai  could  have  a  name  among  the  Three  without  being  enrolled 
among  them,  which  is  expressly  denied  in  the  next  verse.  Chr.  and  some 
MSS.  read  n'^i  for  iSi,  on  the  ground  of  which  Marquart  proposes  -i'l  a^'C  n*:-! 
which  is  the  same  thing  stated  at  the  end  of  vP.  I  have  conjectured  atf  1S1 
na-St^D  which  does  not  seem  inappropriate,  and  departs  very  slightly  from  the 
text.  — 19.  The  first  7s-v^z-r\  must  be  corrected  as  in  the  other  case  to  aitf-Scn. 
For  >3n,  We.  substitutes  ijn,  but  Nin  is  simpler  and  answers  the  purpose. 

20-23.  Benaiah  is  next  described  as  a  man  of  valour,  a  doer 
of  great  deeds.  His  home  was  the  Judahite  town  Kabzeel.  —  He 
smote  the  two  sons  of  Ariel  in  Moab']  unless  indeed  to\vns  or 
sanctuaries  are  intended.  —  And  he  used  to  go  down  and  smite  the 
lions  in  the  pit  on  snowy  days']  when  he  could  track  them  easily. 
—  21.  Moreover,  he  smote  a  tall  Egyptian  who  had  in  his  hand  a 
spear;  he  went  against  him  7vith  only  a  club  and  snatched  the  spear 
from  the  Egyptiafi's  hand,  and  killed  him  ivith  his  07vn  spear]  the 
better  weapon  did  not  avail.  —  22.  The  result  was  a  reputation 
like  that  of  the  Three.  —  23.  He  too  received  an  important  com- 
mand, for  David  set  him  over  his  servants']  by  which  the  body- 
guard seems  intended,  i  S.  22". 


XXIII.  18-39  3'87 

20.  >n"i:''N''p]  h-n  Qrc  is  ilnuHlIess  correct  (so  C"hr.).  But  what  concerns 
us  is  not  the  character  of  Henaiali's  father  or  grandfather,  hut  his  own.  tt  is 
probable  therefore  that  we  should  read  simply  '?''n  B'in  (Ew.)  :  h.v)\p  a\n6s  (S^ 
indicates  Nin  ivn  which  however  seems  unnatural.  Kabzeel  is  named  among 
the  towns  of  Judah  in  Jos.  15^1. — '?!<-in]  is  unintelligible,  and  as  '?vS-\n  ij3  is 
witnessed  by  @,  that  emendation  seems  obvious;  n^n  indicates  that  men  and 
not  sanctuaries  are  intended.  —  nam  -i^i]  the  consecution  is  awkward  and  we 
should  perhaps  read  -^y__,  in  which  case  we  should  have  the  account  not  of  a  single 
exploit,  but  of  the  man's  custom.  —  21.  icn]  read  S'\x  Qre  and  Chr.  —  hn-id] 
should  be  hid  with  Chr.  —  22.  nrSaoJ  Bu.  has  already  conjectured  na''ri:'3 
which  seems  plausible,  and  which  confirms  a  similar  conjecture  of  mine  above. 
According  to  this  the  Heroes  included  the  Three,  the  Thirty,  and  two  who  were 
unclassed  but  who  ranked  above  the  Thirty  and  below  the  Three.  —  23.  "^n] 
read  *?];  with  Chr.  —  inyntt't:]  @^  t)\v  <pv\aKr]v  ai/rov  may  possibly  have  read 

24-39.  Catalogue  of  the  Thirty.  —  That  the  names  are  more 
than  thirty  in  number  need  cause  no  surprise,  as  we  may  suppose 
the  corps  to  have  been  kept  full  after  losses  in  war.  —  25.  T/ie 
Harodite\  probably  from  Harod  in  the  Great  Plain,  Jd.  7^  — 
26.  The  Paltite'\  very  uncertain.  —  The  Tekoite~\  already  known 
to  us  by  the  Tekoite  woman.  —  27.  The  Anathothite'\  from  the 
town  which  vyas  afterwards  the  home  of  Jeremiah,  situated  a  short 
hour  northeast  of  Jerusalem.  The  Hushathite  has  already  ap- 
peared, 21^^  —  28.  Netophathites  are  mentioned  elsewhere;  the 
town  in  connexion  with  Bethlehem  after  the  Exile,  Ezr.  2-^ 
Neh.  7^6.  — 30.  Pirathonite ,  zi.  ]^.  12^^  The  Wadies  of  Gaash 
may  be  connected  with  Mount  Gaash,  Jd.  2^.  —  31.  For  Abi- 
Albon  we  should  perhaps  read  Abibaal  (We.)  ;  his  town  may  be 
identified  with  Beth-Arabah,  Jos.  15".  —  32.  The  Shaalbottiie,  pos- 
sibly from  Shaalbin,  Jos.  19*-  (Shaalbim  i  K.  4').  — 34.  Eliphalet 
was  from  Beth-Maacah,  20^^  —  39.  The  total  of  37  does  not 
agree  with  the  names  given.  The  Chronicler  (i  Chr.  11*^"*^)  adds 
a  number  of  others. 

24.  an*^  P'3]  read  cnS  noo  Chr.  (gi' and  some  codd.  —  25.  'nn  }<,iiSn]  is 
omitted  by  Chr.  and  @.  —  26.  ^a^ijn]  ijiSon  Chr. :  b  KfXwQei  <&i^ :  6  i>a\yovi 
®''.  In  the  conflict  of  testimony  it  is  difficult  to  put  much  confidence  in  any 
one  of  the  forms.  —  27.  'jan  )  would  naturally  be  read  •'inr  and  is  so  read  by 
<S^.  But  Chr.  in  two  places  has  a  proper  name  ^320  which  is  also  represented 
in  (@k  —  28.  •'nnsn]  cf.  v.".  —  29.  a'^n]  iSn  i  Chr.  ii^o,  and  21  codd.  here, 
besides  (E  (Cod.  Reuchl.)  :   n'^n  i  Chr.  271^.  — 30.  ■'in]  mn  Chr.  is  confirmed 


388  2  SAMUEL 

by  several  codd.  of  0,  Field,  Hexapl.  I.  p.  586.  —  31.  \-iaijrn  paSyaw]  Snok 
'naiyn  Chr. :  'AjStrjA.  vlh%  toD  'A.pa0udiTov  &'=°<^'^ .  On  the  basis  of  these  KI., 
followed  by  Bu.,  has  restored  >nanjjn  n>3  Vy3~''3N.  —  ■'Dman]  ^nnnan  Chr.  is 
probably  gentilic  of  onna.  —  32.  fnjin^  jb"  >ja]  gives  no  good  sense.  jE^'ija 
is  probably  corruption  of  a  proper  name,  in  which  case  it  is  most  natural  to 
suppose  injm''  corruption  of  a  gentilic  :  Baaal  6  Twuvi  (S'=°'^'^-.  Chr.  connects 
in:in^  with  the  following  by  a  ja,  as  do  the  Greek  Codd.  used  by  Field.  — 
S3,  mnn  and  msn  are  different  spellings  of  the  same  word.  —  34.  v^aycn  p] 
probably  to  be  corrected  to  ina;>Dn-n>a  (Kl.).  —  35.  nxn  A7.  is  confirmed  by 
Chr.  'aiNH  should  perhaps  be  ••anNn  (Dr.).  —  38.  nn-'n  possibly  from  Yattir 
(Kl.).  —  39.  The  only  way  in  which  we  can  make  a  total  of  37  is  to  count 
\v>  'J3  as  two.    The  number  was  computed  after  the  corruption  took  place. 

XXIV.  The  census  and  its  results.  —  Incited  by  Yahweh, 
David  orders  a  census  and  insists  upon  it  against  the  remon- 
strances of  Joab.  No  sooner  is  the  work  done  than  he  sees  its 
sinfulness  and  repents.  He  is  given  his  choice  of  three  calamities 
and  chooses  the  pestilence.  After  ravaging  the  country,  the  de- 
stroying angel  reaches  Jerusalem  but  is  bidden  to  stay  his  hand. 
David  receives  the  command  to  build  an  altar  on  the  place  where 
the  angel  had  stood  when  the  plague  was  stayed.  He  therefore 
purchases  the  site  and  offers  sacrifices  upon  it. 

There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  section  is  from  the 
same  source  with  chapter  21^'",  and  once  followed  that  paragraph 
without  a  break.  The  possibiHty  of  secondary  insertions  how- 
ever need  not  be  denied. 

1-9.  The  census.  —  1.  Yahweh  was  again  angry  with  Israel 
must  be  a  reference  to  the  account  of  the  famine.  There  seems 
to  be  no  other  instance  of  Yahweh's  wrath  against  Israel  in  our 
present  history  of  David.  —  And  instigated  David  against  them'] 
to  do  them  harm,  i  S.  26".  The  language  leaves  no  doubt  of 
the  author's  theory  that  God  incites  men  to  do  that  for  which  he 
afterwards  punishes  them.  Go,  tiumber  Israel  and  Jiidah.  Why 
this  should  be  a  sin  we  are  not  told,  but  it  was  doubtless  regarded 
as  such  by  popular  opinion  —  as  we  see  from  Joab's  protest.  — 
2.  The  command  is  given  to  Joab  and  the  captains  of  the  army 
who  were  with  him"]  this  was  especially  appropriate,  as  the  num- 
ber of  fighting  men  was  the  point  in  mind.  Go  about  in  all  the 
tribes  of  Israel  .  .  .  and  ynuster  the  people  and  let  me  know  the 


XXIV.  1-9  3^9 

number  of  the  people.  —  3.  Joab's  protest:  May  Yahweh  thy  God 
add  to  the  people  a  hundred  times  as  many  as  they  are,  while  the 
eyes  of  my  lord  the  king  are  looking  on  /]  that  is,  during  David's 
lifetime.  But  why  should  my  lord  the  king  take  pleasure  in  this 
thing?  The  protest  is  evidently  as  strong  as  the  servant  of  an 
absolute  monarch  can  make  it.  It  is  explicable  only  on  the 
theory  that  this  was  a  new  and  unheard-of  step.  —  4.  The  com- 
mand is  too  positive  to  be  evaded  and  the  work  is  undertaken. — 
6.  The  beginning  was  made  in  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan 
— from  Aroer  and  from  the  city  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  Wadi'\ 
so  we  must  emend  the  text.  The  same  places  are  mentioned  in 
Dt.  2^  as  forming  the  southern  boundary  of  the  territory  taken  by 
Israel  from  Sihon.  The  ruins  of  Aroer  still  bear  the  name  '  Arair. 
The  first  objects  of  the  survey  were  the  Gaddites  unto  Jaazer'\ 
the  town  marked  the  boundary  of  the  first  district  on  the  north, 
cf.  Num.  21^*  (©.  Both  Aroer  and  Jaazer  are  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  towns  belonging  to  Gad,  Num.  32^*^. — 6.  It  is  impossible  to 
make  sense  of  the  received  text.  Three  points  are  clear  how- 
ever :  They  came  to  Gilcad'\  which  lay  next  in  order  as  they  went 
northward  ;  they  reached  Dan'\  the  most  northerly  point  of  Israel's 
actual  possessions,  and  there  they  turned  towards  Sidon,  as  we  should 
expect.  The  intervening  clause  seems  to  have  said  that  they  came 
to  the  land  of  the  Hittites  to  Hermon.  —  7.  The  Fortress  of  Tyre 
to  which  they  next  came  would  naturally  be  a  post  on  the  bound- 
ary of  the  Phoenician  territory.  —  And  all  the  cities  of  the  Hivvites 
and  the  Canaanites']  as  they  worked  their  way  southward  these 
marked  the  boundary  of  their  operations.  The  Hivvites  were  the 
original  inhabitants  of  Shechem  and  Gibeon.  —  The  end  of  their 
journey  was  the  Negeb  of  Judah,  at  Beer-sheba']  well  known  from 
the  history  of  Abraham,  and  as  the  southernmost  town  in  Judah. 
—  8.  The  time  occupied  was  nine  months  atid  twenty  days.  — 
9.  As  in  so  many  other  cases,  the  numbers  are  not  to  be  relied 
upon.  For  the  800,000  of  Israel  the  Chronicler  has  r,  100,000, 
and  for  the  500,000  of  Judah  he  gives  470,000. 

1.  Bu.  removes  the  first  clause  to  the  margin  and  begins  the  section  PD^i 
mn\  This  is  in  accordance  with  his  theory  that  2i'-'''  originally  followed  this 
chapter.  If  we  deny  this  supposed  original  order  the  reason  for  modifying 
the  verse  falls  to  the  ground.  —  pci]   as  is  well  known,  the  Chronicler  could 


390  2  SAMUEL 

not  conceive  of  Yahweh's  inciting  David  to  sin,  and  he  therefore  begins  the 
account  ( I  Chr.  21 1)  tdm  ^k-ib'''  ^y  ]Ott'  isp'i.  This  conception  of  Satan  was 
entirely  unknown  to  the  older  writer.  Ewald's  proposal  to  correct  Sam.  by  Chr. 
is  motived  by  a  theological  prejudgment.  —  onj]  seems  to  make  no  difficulty, 
though  objected  to  by  Bu,  —  2.  ':''nn-n!r]  (5^  seems  to  have  read  'j'nn  i-w  ht<^ 
which  IS  favoured  by  v.*  and  by  the  paraphrase,  nyn  i-ic  Sni,  i  Chr.  2i'.  —  aw] 
probably  to  be  corrected  to  the  plural  with  @^.  For  the  tense  in  TiyiM  cf. 
Dr.,  Tenses^,  §  112.  —  3.  non]  it  seems  best  to  omit  the  i  with  ©^  and  Chr., 
but  cf.  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  136,  J?,  I,  d,  —  ano]  /Ag  like  of  what  they  now  are. 
—  4.  "'Jfl':']  read  'JDD  with  (5^  —  5.  '3  ijmi]  is  suspicious,  as  the  surveying 
party  did  not  have  to  stay  long  in  one  place  :  /cal  tjp^avTo  anh  'Aporjp  <S^  has 
doubtless  the  correct  reading  li'nj'D  iSnn  (conjectured  by  We.  apparently 
without  knowledge  of  this  recension  of  (3).  This  requires  the  emendation  of 
pD^  to  pi.  On  the  site  of  Aroer,  Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria,  p.  372;  G. 
A.  Smith,  Geog.  p.  559.  The  town  is  mentioned  by  Mesha,  line  26.  —  ijn] 
the  article  is  suspicious;  probably  njn  should  be  restored  with  ^^  in  which 
case  the  i  of  the  next  word  may  be  stricken  out.  The  location  of  Jaazer  is 
given  by  Jerome  (Eusebius)  as  ten  (or  eight)  miles  from  Philadelphia  and 
fifteen  from  Heshbon,  OS.  pp.  86,  131.  Conjectural  identification  with  the 
site  now  called  Sar  is  given  in  Buhl,  Geog.  p.  263  f.  —  6.  ■'l:'^^  D^"^^p]  cannot 
be  the  name  of  a  place.  The  reading  of  ^  was  evidently  nB'^|■)  OTnn,  to  the 
land  of  the  Hittites  to  Kadesh.  As  the  Hittites  occupied  the  region  of  Lebanon 
they  make  no  difficulty,  but  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes  is  too  far  away,  and  Kedesh 
of  Naphtali  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Hittites.  The  conjecture  of  Ew.  (  G  F/'. 
IIL  p.  220,  E.  Tr.  IIL  p.  162)  is  therefore  attractive,  that  for  ■'Unn  we  should 
read  J3in  (better  njnnn).  The  clause  a>3Di  |i'^  also  makes  difficulty.  It  seems 
to  conceal  133D  dbm  or  its  equivalent.  We.,  Bu.  read  133D  pDi.  —  9.  The 
separate  enumeration  of  Israel  and  Judah  can  hardly  be  evidence  of  late  date. 
We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  indications  of  their  separate  feeling. 
The  numbers  given  are  increased  for  Israel  by  some  Greek  MSS.  to  900,000 
while  those  of  Judah  are  diminished  to  400,000. 

10-16.  The  punishment.  —  As  the  account  now  stands,  David's 
repentance  comes  before  his  denunciation,  which  hardly  seems 
natural ;  v.^°  is  probably  an  insertion.  — 11,  12.  Gad,  David's  seer, 
had  received  a  revelation  during  the  night,  commanding  him  to 
say  from  Yahweh  :  Three  things  1  lay  before  thee :  Choose  one  of 
them  that  I  may  do  to  thee'\  what  the  three  are  is  not  stated  here 
but  in  the  following  verse.  — 13.  The  choice  offered  is  :  three  years 
of  famine  in  thy  land,  three  tnonths  fleeing  before  thine  enemies 
while  they  pursue  thee,  or  three  days'  pestilence"]  it  has  been 
supposed  that  as  the  three  years  of  famine  were  actually  inflicted 
in  the  matter  of  the  Gibeonites,  so  the  three  months'  flight  repre- 


XXIV.  10-17  391 

sents  David's  experience  in  the  rebellion  of  Absalom.  But  of 
this  there  is  no  evidence.  — 14.  David's  choice  is  motived  by  the 
thought  that  Yahweh  is  more  merciful  than  man.  — 15.  The  more 
graphic  text  of  (§  gives  us  :  So  David  chose  the  pestilence.  And 
when  the  days  were  the  days  of  wheat  harvest,  the  plague  began 
among  the  people  and  slew  of  the  people  seventy  thousand  men']  the 
days  of  wheat  harvest  explain  how  Araunah  came  to  be  at  his 
threshing-floor.  The  fact  that  the  plague  had  only  begun  when 
Yahweh  stayed  the  angel's  hand  justifies  David's  confidence  in  his 
mercies.  — 16.  The  angel  comes  to  Jerusalem,  when  Yahweh 
repents,  and  commands  :  Enough,  now  stay  thy  hand!  The  exact 
locality  which  he  had  reached  was  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah. 
The  reason  why  Yahweh  repented  is  his  affection  for  Jerusalem. 

10.  In  favour  of  treating  the  verse  as  an  intruder  is  the  use  of  icD  instead 
of  njD  v.i.  After  p  insert  ij  with  @^  (Kl.).  — 11.  -\p-yi  nn  DpM  is  apparently 
a  part  of  the  interpolation.  —  N>3jn]  is  omitted  by  Chr.  and  is  superfluous.  — 
12.  11*?^]  on  this  use  of  the  infinitive  Davidson,  Syntax,  §  88  ^.  —  '?toij]  read 
nt2j  with  Chr.  — 13.  For  jjor,  Chr.  has  B'iSb>  which  makes  the  offer  more 
symmetrical.  —  T"'s]  should  evidently  be  fix  to  agree  with  what  follows; 
the  word  is  to  be  taken  collectively.  We.  prefers  ^D^n  aim  to  ^fl^^  Nini. 
— 15.  The  reconstruction  of  the  verse  by  We.  adopted  by  Dr.  and  Bu.  is  the 
one  reproduced  above.  The  reading  of  |^  and  Yahweh  sent  a  pestilence  upon 
Israel  from  the  morning  until  an  appointed  time  is  obscure,  but  seems  to  imply 
that  the  threatened  three  days  were  fulfilled.  <5  has  a  double  reading,  a  sec- 
ond translation  of  |^  being  inserted  in  the  original  rendering.  Cutting  out 
this  insertion  we  have  left :  koX  i^fXf^aro  eour^  Aaveid  rhv  Bdvarov,  kuI  fj/xtpat 
OepKTfJLOv  -Kvpwv,  KoX  fip^aro  r)  6pav<Tis  eV  ti^  \af.  This  evidently  represents  a 
good  Hebrew  text.  —  nD>i]  is  perhaps  to  be  pointed  nn-'i.  It  seems  violent 
however  to  introduce  ri^nr^  ^{<'?D^  (Bu.).  —  paB'  -iNa-ij;i  pn]  is  lacking  in  Chr. 
and  probably  an  interpolation.  — 16.  ■ix'7cn  n^  nStt'^i]  the  order  of  the  words 
is  unusual.  But  it  seems  impossible  to  get  along  without  InSdh  unless  we 
insert  it  in  the  preceding  verse.  Bu.  inserts  v.^'  after  nnnirS,  which  gives  a 
plausible  text.  —  njninn]  the  article  with  the  proper  name  is  impossible  and 
must  be  stricken  out.  The  original  form  of  the  name  cannot  be  recovered : 
nni«  AV.,  n:^•^n  Qre;  nijiN  Kt.,  njnN  Qre  v.^^.  elsewhere  in  this  chapter 
njnN  or  n^jiN,  in  Chr.  uniformly  jnN.     (@  has  'Opvd.  both  here  and  in  Chr. 

17-25.  The  commemorative  altar.  —  The  first  verse  is  either 
an  interpolation  or  displaced,  as  ^*  joins  immediately  to  ^^  As  it 
stands,  it  asks  that  Yahweh  will  spare  the  people  but  punish  David 
and  his  house.     Neither  in  what  follows  nor  in  v.^®  is  any  notice 


392  2  SAMUEL 

taken  by  Yahweh  of  this  prayer.  — 18.  The  place  where  Yahweh 
reveals  himself  becomes  a  sanctuary  and  properly  receives  an 
altar.  —  20.  Araunah  looked  down  from  the  elevation  on  which  the 
threshing-floor  was  placed,  and  seeing  the  king  and  his  servants 
crossing  over  to  him,  he  went  to  meet  them  and  showed  the  cus- 
tomary reverence.  —  21.  In  accounting  for  his  mission,  David 
speaks  of  building  an  altar,  that  the  plague  may  be  stayed  from 
the  people"]  he  is  apparently  not  certain  that  it  has  actually  been 
checked.  —  22.  Araunah's  reply  considers  the  first  object  of  the 
altar,  the  sacrifice,  and  offers  the  material  which  he  has  at  hand  : 
Let  my  lord  the  king  take  and  offer  what  he  pleases  ;  see  the  oxen 
for  the  burnt  offering  and  the  threshing  sledges  and  the  implements 
for  wood]  the  yokes  and  goads  are  the  implements  of  the  oxen. 
We  are  reminded  of  i  S.  6^*,  where  the  cart  which  brought  the 
Ark  furnishes  the  wood  for  the  extemporized  altar  and  the  kine  are 
the  burnt  offering.  Threshing  sledges  were  heavy  boards  with 
stones  set  in  the  under  side,  and  they  were  dragged  over  the  grain, 
as  is  still  the  custom  in  the  East.  —  23.  The  whole  has  thy  ser- 
vant, my  lord  the  king,  given  to  the  king]  the  usual  response  of 
the  oriental  to  the  expression  of  desire  for  something  in  his  pos- 
session. On  the  text,  see  the  note.  The  conclusion  of  the  verse 
is  a  prayer  for  the  success  of  the  sacrifice  :  Yahweh  thy  God  accept 
thee!  —  24.  After  refusing  to  offer  that  which  cost  him  nought, 
David  buys  the  field  and  the  cattle  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver]  the 
Chronicler  expands  these  to  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold. — 
25.  The  altar  was  built  and  the  sacrifices  offered,  and  Yahweh 
was  entreated  for  the  land  ajid  the  plague  was  stayed  from 
Israel. 

17.  Against  the  originality  of  the  verse  is  the  fact  that  Gad's  message 
makes  no  allusion  to  it.  If  stricken  out,  the  connexion  is  perfect.  —  20.  r'^;'] 
naturally  to  be  corrected  to  v^^n  (Bu.).  Immediately  after  it  we  should  per- 
haps insert  a^Bn  fi  njnxi  from  Chr.,  though  the  Chronicler  has  treated  the 
verse  very  freely.  —  23.  "iSon  njiiNJ  has  given  rise  to  much  speculation,  as 
though  Araunah  had  been  king  of  the  Jebusites  before  the  conquest  of  the 
city.  It  is  evident  however  that  if  this  had  been  the  case  (its  intrinsic 
improbability  need  not  be  dwelt  upon)  the  author  would  have  taken  pains 
to  inform  us.  In  r\y\-\^  her*  we  have  a  corruption  of  ijik  as  was  recognized  first 
by  Bottcher  (We.).  The  subject  to  jnj  then  must  be  T<3j;  which  has  fallen 
out. — 25.    ©  adds  at  the  end  of  the  verse  that  Solomon  added  to  the  altar 


XXIV.  iS-25  393 

later  because  it  was  small.  This  assumes  what  was  also  the  mind  of  the 
Chronicler,  that  the  site  now  fixed  became  the  site  of  Solomon's  Temple. 
But  of  this  we  cannot  be  certain.  The  site  of  Solomon's  Temple  was  fixed  by 
the  location  of  the  palace,  of  which  it  was  the  sanctuary.  It  is  not  likely  that 
this  was  anywhere  except  in  the  citadel  where  both  David  and  Solomon 
resided. 


The  division  of  books  here  is  quite  artificial,  as  the  history  of 
David  is  continued  in  i  Kings  with  the  account  of  Abishag  and 
the  revolt  of  Adonijah.  That  the  division  is  not  very  early  is 
probably  indicated  by  (@^  which  begins  its  Third  Book  of  Kings 
with  I  K.  3  of  the  received  text,  and  numbers  the  two  chapters 
which  intervene  25  and  26  of  our  book. 


APPENDIX 


I.    THE  CRITICISM  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TEXT 

The  foregoing  commentary  was  in  the  hands  of  the  printer 
before  I  received  the  third  edition  of  Thenius'  Commentary 
edited  by  Professor  Lohr.  Careful  examination  of  this  volume 
shows,  to  my  surprise,  a  serious  divergence  from  Thenius'  own 
work  in  respect  to  the  treatment  of  the  text.  As  the  position 
taken  by  Professor  Lohr  indicates  how  far  we  are  from  uniting 
upon  even  the  most  elementary  questions  of  Old  Testament 
science,  an  examination  of  his  argument  will  be  in  place  here. 
Thenius  opened  the  way  to  a  rational  treatment  of  the  text  in  his 
exposition  of  the  Books  of  Samuel.  His  results  have  been  widely 
accepted,  and  all  recent  inquiry  has  been  based  more  or  less 
distinctly  upon  his  work.  Yet  now  the  editor  who  claims  to  con- 
tinue his  work  attempts  to  discredit  a  considerable  part  of  it  and 
announces  a  principle  which  would  be  repudiated  by  the  original 
author.*     Such  a  phenomenon  deserves  study. 

The  position  of  the  author  (by  which  I  mean  Professor  Lohr)  is 
stated  as  follows  :  "  The  aim  of  Old  Testament  textual  criticism  is 
(if  indeed  we  wish  to  retain  common  ground  and  a  sure  footing)! 
a  philologically  correct  edition  of  the  Massoretic  Text."  The 
first  remark  suggested  by  this  language  is  that  common  ground  is 
not  at  present  attainable.  The  prejudgment  which  made  the 
Massoretic  Text  unassailable  to  scholars  of  the  seventeenth  century 
has  not  yet  died  out.     Those  who  are  affected  by  it  can  have  no 

*  This  was  written  before  I  saw  Bertholet's  review  of  Lohr  (in  ThLZ.  XXIII, 
529  ff.),  which  agrees  with  my  criticism  of  this  part  of  the  book. 

t  Wenn  anders  wir  eintn  gemeinsamen  und  sicheren  Boden  unter  den  Ftissen 
behalten  wollen ;  Thenius  8  p.  xc. 

395 


396  APPENDIX 

common  ground  with  those  who  believe  that  the  received  text  of 
the  Old  Testament  has  suffered  from  the  accidents  of  transmission, 
and  who  seek  to  improve  it  by  every  resource  known  to  textual 
criticism. 

What  we  know  as  the  Massoretic  Text  is  the  text  common  to  all 
Jewish  copies  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  well  known  that  this 
has  been  transmitted  with  great  care  for  some  centuries  —  though 
we  must  not  suppose  that  the  rules  for  the  Scribes,  intended  to 
secure  perfect  copies  for  the  public  service,  were  applied  to  those 
intended  for  private  use.  The  praise  which  we  cheerfully  accord 
to  this  extraordinary  diligence  should  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that 
no  scrupulosity  could  cure  errors  already  in  the  text.  And  that 
the  original  to  which  this  diligence  was  applied  was  not  the  auto- 
graph, but  an  extremely  defective  copy  —  this  must  be  evident  to 
any  unprejudiced  observer. 

Where  and  when  this  archetype  of  our  Hebrew  copies  was 
settled  upon  we  do  not  know.  But  it  seems  probable  that  after 
the  revolt  of  Bar  Cochba,  the  Jewish  scholars  united  upon  some 
one  manuscript  as  a  standard,  and  guarded  its  propagation.  It  is 
not  impossible  that  they  were  reduced  to  a  single  manuscript,  for 
the  marks  sedulously  preserved  to  us  (extraordinary  points,  sus- 
pended letters,  unusual  orthography)  are  marks  which  we  should 
expect  to  find  in  a  single  imperfect  manuscript.*  Had  the  text 
been  edited  even  rudimentarily,  these  would  have  disappeared. 
But  even  if  we  suppose  (as  tradition  seems  to  affirm)  that  the 
authorities  had  three  or  more  MSS.  at  their  disposition,  we  shall 
not  thereby  increase  our  confidence  in  the  received  text.  Textual 
criticism  is  a  science  of  recent  growth.  We  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  scribes  of  a.d.  200  either  had  adequate  material 
for  a  really  critical  edition  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  that  they  were 
able  to  make  intelligent  use  of  such  material  as  they  had.  Three 
manuscripts  or  a  dozen,  if  of  the  same  family  or  type,  could  not 
correct  each  other's  errors  except  in  minor  particulars. 

In  this  condition  of  things  it  seems  misleading  to  call  the  Masso- 
retic Hebrew  Bible  a  recension.     By  recension  we  mean  an  edition 

*  This  seems  to  have  been  first  declared  by  Lagarde  in  the  preface  to  his 
Anmerkungen  zur  griechischen  Uebersetzung  der  Proverbien  (1863),  reprinted  ill 
Mittheilungtn,  I.  p.  19  ff. 


APPENDIX  397 

revised  and  corrected  by  a  single  hand  with  a  definite  purpose  antl 
according  to  some  fixed  principle.  To  choose  a  single  manuscript, 
because  it  happens  to  be  accessible,  and  to  make  it  the  parent  of 
numerous  copies  is  not  to  make  a  recension.  And  the  reverse  is 
true  —  to  reconstruct  a  codex  which  happens  to  be  the  parent  of  a 
large  family  of  derived  manuscripts  is  not  to  recover  a  distinct 
recension  of  the  text.  The  eccentricities  of  the  recovered  copy 
are  not  the  result  of  editorial  purpose,  but  are  the  accumulated 
errors,  misunderstandings,  attempts  at  correction,  of  all  the  scribes 
who  have  had  a  hand  in  the  whole  preceding  line  of  transmission. 

The  philologically  correct  edition  of  the  Massoretic  Text  which 
is  desiderated  by  Professor  Lohr  is  no  more  than  the  recovery  of 
the  single  defective  codex  upon  which  the  judgment  of  the  Scribes 
(or  perhaps  their  necessity)  settled  in  the  time  of  Hadrian.  It 
forms  no  natural  stopping  place  in  the  history  —  or  at  least  it  forms 
no  stopping  place  at  which  the  exegete  can  say  '  this  is  the  goal  of 
my  labours.' 

The  example  of  Professor  Lohr  is  instructive,  because  it  shows 
the  difificulty  of  fixing  any  point  short  of  the  earliest  attainable  text 
as  the  end  of  critical  effort.  What  this  scholar  actually  adopts 
in  his  commentary  is  not  a  philologically  correct  edition  of  ^. 
He  is  forced  to  have  recourse  to  (3  for  frequent  emendation. 
The  only  result  of  his  self-limitation  is  that  he  makes  a  half-hearted 
use  of  this  version,  accepting  it  where  he  is  obliged  to,  rejecting  it 
where  he  thinks  it  goes  too  far. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  (Introduction,  §  7)  that  serious 
difficulties  meet  us  in  attempting  to  make  systematic  use  of  the 
versions  for  correction  of  the  text.  Confining  ourselves  to  (3  fox 
the  present,  we  must  see  that  these  difficulties  are  no  reason  for 
despair.  If  we  could  attain  the  original  form  of  this  version,  it 
would  be  practically  equivalent  to  a  Hebrew  MS.  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ.  Greater  age  is  not  always  a  guarantee  of 
greater  correctness,  but  as  the  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  text 
probably  went  on  actively  during  just  the  period  which  elapsed 
between  the  translation  of  (3  and  the  choice  of  ^,  the  presump- 
tion is  that  in  this  case  the  older  copy  would  be  more  valuable. 
Even  if  it  were  not,  the  experience  of  the  critics  shows  that  the 
poorest  copy  will  sometimes  enable  us  to  correct  a  better  one. 


398  APPENDIX 

As  i3  lies  before  us,  we  have  not  this  original.  We  have 
instead,  widely  different  copies,  some  of  which  represent  clearly- 
marked  recensions.  What  makes  these  variant  copies  valuable  is 
that  they  represent  additional  MSS.  of  the  Hebrew.  For  one 
object  of  the  editors  in  making  their  different  recensions  was  to 
bring  their  Greek  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  in  their  hands.  In  the 
various  Greek  copies  we  have  therefore  testimony  to  Hebrew 
MSS.  of  different  dates,  but  probably  all  of  them  as  old  as  the 
archetype  of  our  ^,  some  of  them  older. 

Now  we  cannot  doubt  that  there  was  an  autograph  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel,  from  which  all  these  copies  both  of  (3  and  f^  are  ulti- 
mately derived.  Their  differences  show  corruption  of  this  auto- 
graph. The  textual  critic  cannot  be  called  over-ambitious,  if  he 
sets  as  his  goal  the  restoration  of  the  earliest  reading  attainable, 
that  is,  the  reading  of  the  autograph.  Professor  Noldeke  says  (as 
cited  in  the  book  under  discussion)  :  "  To  introduce  single  more 
or  less  certain  corrections  into  a  connected  text  of  a  later  recen- 
sion gives  in  any  case  a  bizarre  result  —  a  text  which  has  never 
existed  in  this  form  even  approximately,  and  which  makes  my 
philological  taste  shudder." 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  great  name  of  Professor  Noldeke 
should  give  weight  to  such  an  argument.  Philological  taste, 
indeed,  hardly  constitutes  an  argument,  tastes  being  proverbially 
not  subject  to  discussion.  So  far  as  argument  is  discernible  behind 
the  sentence  just  quoted  it  seems  to  be  to  this  effect :  Because  |^ 
has  been  current  for  so  many  centuries,  we  should  refuse  to  cor- 
rect it  until  we  can  restore  the  autograph  in  its  integrity.  This 
would  reduce  the  labour  of  the  textual  critic  to  the  task  of  restor- 
ing the  most  accurate  form  of  the  Massoretic  text.  But  this  is 
not  the  real  meaning  of  Professor  Noldeke  or  of  Professor  Lohr. 
Neither  one  supposes  that  we  are  to  comment  on  |^  as  the  seven- 
teenth century  scholars  did,  without  trying  to  correct  its  most  obvi- 
ous errors.  For  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned,  it  is  evident  that  the  Massoretic  text  swarms  with  errors. 
Whether  we  call  it  a  recension  or  not,  its  present  constitution  is 
due  to  the  accumulated  mistakes  of  centuries.  It  is  dotted  all 
over  with  impossible  collocations  of  words,  glosses,  lacunae,  false 
readings.     The  bizarre  effect  at  which  the  philological  taste  must 


APPENDIX  399 

shudder  is  already  there.  It  remains  true  that  to  remove  part  of 
the  errors  while  leaving  others,  is  to  reproduce  a  text  which  never 
existed.  But  this  is  incident  to  all  textual  criticism.  The  mate- 
rial in  hand  is  never  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  retrace  the  exact 
steps  of  transmission  and  remove  the  errors  in  the  order  in  which 
they  came  into  the  text.  Restoration  of  a  lost  autograph  is  always 
approximate,  the  degree  of  approximation  being  determined  by 
the  amount  of  evidence  at  hand.  To  stop  at  a  certain  amount  of 
correction  when  the  material  is  not  exhausted,  is  to  be  unfaithful 
to  our  opportunity. 

The  reaction  in  favour  of  ^  represented  by  Professor  Lohr 
seems  therefore  unjustifiable.  This  comes  out  clearly  in  his  own 
statement.  For  he  formulates  his  principles  of  textual  criticism 
in  a  series  of  theses,  and  it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  reproduce 
them  here. 

"  I.  Where  f^  and  (3  show  an  equally  good,  t'.e.  grammatically 
unobjectionable,  text,  there  is  no  reason  for  changing  the  reading 
of  %" 

The  argument  is  fallacious.  It  is  well  known  that  a  grammati- 
cally unobjectionable  text  often  arises  by  deliberate  alteration  on 
the  part  of  a  scribe.  In  fact,  the  most  dangerous  corruptions  of 
ancient  documents  have  come  in  where  a  scribe  attempted  to 
substitute  a  smoother  reading  for  one  which  was  to  him  obscure 
or  ungrammatical.  The  well-known  dictum  that  the  more  diffi- 
cult reading  is  to  be  preferred  derives  its  force  from  this  fact.  No 
doubt  the  dictum  has  sometimes  been  abused  ;  but,  rightly  under- 
stood, it  is  the  foundation  of  sound  criticism.  The  grammatical 
correctness  of  ^  is  no  argument  for  its  originality,  and  our  rule 
should  read  :  Where  (§  and  ^  sho7v  variant  readings,  both  being 
grammatically  intelligible,  they  have  prima  facie  equal  claims  to 
attention,  and  the  decision  between  them  must  be  made  on  the 
ground  of  internal  probability.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  the 
frequent  verdict  must  be  non  liquet. 

"  2.  Where  Jj^  shows  a  younger  reading,  that  is,  one  based  on 
correction,  this  may  be  remarked  according  to  (©  ;  but  we  must 
not  change  the  text  of  ^." 

If  the  author  wishes  to  publish  an  edition  of  the  Massoretic 
text,  there  is  no  objection  to  his  doing  so,  and  we  cannot  hold  him 


400  APPENDIX 

to  more  than  his  avowed  object.  If  he  sets  out  to  remove  only 
the  grammatically  unintelligible  readings,  he  has  a  right  so  to  limit 
himself.  But  if  he  is  endeavouring  to  understand  the  Books  of 
Samuel  (and  that  is  the  object  of  a  commentary),  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  retain  a  reading  which  he  believes  to  have 
come  into  the  text  by  the  "  correction  "  of  a  scribe. 

"  3.  Where  i3  shows  a  p/us  as  compared  with  f^,  this  must  be 
accepted  only  where  the  connexion  compels  us.  But  even  here 
we  must  remark : 

"  {a)  The  inserted  sentence  of  (3  may  have  been  interpolated, 
and  so  we  cannot  be  certain  that  we  do  not  accept  with  it  matter 
which  did  not  belong  to  the  text. 

"  (^)  Often  the  p/us  of  (3,  even  though  (according  to  our  ideas 
of  style)  it  fits  smoothly  in  the  context,  lies  under  the  suspicion  of 
being  an  addition  of  the  translators ;  and  if  it  is  that,  it  cannot 
come  into  consideration." 

To  this  it  should  be  remarked  that  the  longer  text  is  always 
open  to  suspicion.  Observation  shows  that  an  ancient  document 
is  more  likely  to  be  interpolated  than  to  be  abbreviated.  But  this 
rule  should  not  be  turned  against  (3  alone ;  it  should  be  made 
general :  The  plus  0/  either  text  is  suspicious  unless  we  discover 
probable  cause  of  accidental  omission.  The  most  probable  cause 
of  omission  is,  of  course,  homeoteleuton,  and  this  is  as  likely  to 
affect  1^  as  to  affect  (§.  Several  cases  where  it  has  undoubtedly 
affected  f^  are  noticed  in  this  commentary.  It  cannot  be  shown 
that  the  translators  of  (^  made  insertions  in  their  text.  All  the 
evidence  goes  to  show  that  they  tried  to  render  the  text  before 
them.  The  danger  of  taking  over  interpolated  matter  from  (§, 
with  a  genuine  reading,  can  scarcely  be  called  considerable.  The 
text  of  @  has  itself  suffered  from  the  ordinary  accidents  of 
transmission,  is  all  we  need  to  say. 

"4.  (§  comes  into  consideration  only  where  |^  has  really  been 
corrupted,  and  even  then  only  : 

"  {a)    In  case  (§  had  not  itself  the  corrupt  reading  before  it. 

"  {b)  In  case  (§  does  not  show  a  correct,  but  wholly  divergent, 
text. 

"  {c)    In  case  |^  cannot  be  emended  from  its  own  resources." 

The  rule  thus  formulated  proves  useless  in  practice.     The  task 


APPENDIX  401 

of  the  critic  is  precisely  to  discover  when  his  text  has  really  been 
corrupted  i^entsiellt).  The  most  dangerously  corrupt  passages  are 
those  which  seem  to  read  with  perfect  smoothness.  The  great 
value  of  (§  is  that  it  calls  our  attention  to  just  such  passages. 
The  limitation  of  our  use  of  (§  to  the  cases  '  where  @  had  not 
itself  the  corrupt  reading  before  it '  is  also  useless  in  practice. 
The  critic  must  always  bear  in  mind  the  possibility  that  (§  tried  to 
render  the  text  which  we  find  in  our  copies.  This  is  so  much  a 
matter  of  course  that  it  is  needless  to  state  it.  Textual  criticism  is 
always  more  or  less  subjective ;  in  many  cases  that  arise,  opinions 
will  differ.  Some  will  suppose  the  rendering  of  (§  to  be  based  on 
a  divergent  text,  where  others  see  in  it  an  attempt  to  translate  our 
1^.  We  are  compelled  to  make  allowance  for  this  difference,  with 
the  hope  that  there  will  be  a  growing  consensus  of  judgment  as 
time  goes  on. 

When  (§  has  a  '  correct  but  wholly  divergent  text,'  its  testimony 
is  of  the  highest  value.  It  may  have  preserved  for  us  a  reading 
which  became  illegible  in  one  of  the  ancestors  of  5^,  and  which 
was  then  filled  in  on  conjecture  by  a  scribe.  Or  it  may  show 
where  a  text,  really  original,  has  been  purposely  obscured  so  as 
not  to  offend  later  religious  susceptibilities.  Or  again,  it  may 
show  a  gap  which  has  been  differently  filled  in,  in  the  different 
copies.  In  none  of  these  cases  is  it  right  to  refuse  the  help 
of  #. 

What  is  meant  by  emending  ^  from  its  own  resources  {aus  sick 
heraus)  is  not  clear.  The  phrase  might  describe  emendation  from 
Hebrew  MSS.,  and  it  is  evident  that  these  must  not  be  neglected. 
Our  trouble  is  that  they  are  entirely  inadequate  —  they  do  not 
suggest  a  remedy  for  the  most  desperate  passages  in  the  Books  of 
Samuel.  Even  where  they  seem  to  give  us  help  they  may  be  sim- 
ply proffering  ingenious  conjectures  of  the  scribes.  In  any  case 
they  cannot  claim  the  antiquity  which  certainly  belongs  to  the  text 
of  (g. 

But  emending  f^  aus  sick  heraus  may  possibly  mean  construct- 
ing a  text  by  analogy,  on  the  basis  of  parallel  passages,  or  ac- 
cording to  known  Hebrew  usage.  But  this  is  simply  conjectural 
emendation.  We  cannot  do  without  conjecture,  but  it  should  be 
our  last  resort,  and  it  should  not  be  put  in  the  same  class  with 

2  D 


402  APPENDIX 

emendation  on  the  basis  of  evidence,  even  the  evidence  of  a 
version. 

Our  conclusion  is  that  the  exegete  cannot  consistently  set  his 
aim  short  of  the  earliest  attainable  text. 


II.     LUCIAN   AND   THEODOTION 

As  has  been  pointed  out  (Introduction,  p.  xxxi),  a  distinct 
recension  of  the  Greek  Old  Testament  is  preserved  for  us  in  the 
edition  of  Lagarde.  This  recension  has  been  identified  by  Lagarde 
himself  with  that  of  Lucian,  of  which  we  are  informed  by  Jerome. 
What  is  actually  established  about  it  is  that  it  represents  the  text 
current  in  Constantinople  in  the  fourth  century. 

The  existence  of  two  such  divergent  texts  as  are  embodied  in 
this  (^')  and  in  the  Codex  Vaticanus  (^)  presents  some  problems 
which  are  yet  far  from  solution,  but  to  which  the  attention  of  the 
reader  may  be  directed. 

To  begin  with,  we  are  unable  to  say  when  and  where  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made. 
The  traditional  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint  is  con- 
cerned with  the  Pentateuch  alone,  and,  even  if  it  were  trustworthy, 
it  could  throw  no  light  upon  the  translation  of  the  historical  books. 
It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  various  attempts  were  made  for  these, 
and  that  our  copies  represent  the  mingling  of  these  various  trans- 
lations. We  have  internal  evidence  that  two  distinct  versions  of 
the  Book  of  Judges  were  current,*  and  that  they  have  been  con- 
founded in  our  editions  of  (3.  The  conditions  which  invited  to 
independent  attempts  at  translation  are  the  same  for  the  Books 
of  Samuel  as  for  the  Book  of  Judges.  Even  if  there  were  one 
version  which  served  as  a  substratum  for  all  the  copies,  the  scribes 
of  that  day,  so  far  as  they  had  some  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  would 
feel  at  liberty  to  alter  or  expand  their  archetype,  so  that  there 
would  soon  appear  to  be  "  as  many  versions  as  there  were  copies,'' 
as  was  afterwards  the  case  with  the  Latin  Bible. 

The  state  of  things  when  Christian  scholarship  began  to  interest 
itself  in  the  Biblical  text  is  made  known  to  us  by  the  labours  of 


*  Moore,  yud^^es,  pp.  xliv-xlvi. 


Ari'F.xDix  403 

Origen.  These  labours  arc  visibly  illustrated  by  a  recently  recov- 
ered fragment  of  the  Hexapla,*  as  well  as  set  forth  in  the  descrip- 
tions of  the  Fathers.  They  interest  us  here  because  they  make 
known  to  us  a  number  of  different  translations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment into  Greek.  Besides  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  original 
Septuagint,  Origen  had  in  his  hands  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theo- 
dotion.  Besides  these  four,  he  was  acquainted  with  portions  of  a 
fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that 
all  the  Greek  translations  then  in  existence  were  known  even  to 
this  indefatigable  scholar.  The  contrary  is  the  case,  for  one  of  the 
two  translations  of  the  Book  of  Judges  seems  to  have  escaped  his 
notice. 

It  is  necessary  for  us  therefore  to  exercise  caution  in  treating 
the  Greek  material  in  our  possession.  We  should  not  confuse  our- 
selves by  assuming  that  all  our  ]\ISS.  or  recensions  are  influenced 
by  one  or  another  of  the  versions  known  to  Origen.  It  seems 
especially  undesirable  to  postulate  various  forms  of  these  versions, 
as  though  we  could  distinguish  a  first,  second,  and  third  edition 
of  Symmachus,  as  many  of  Theodotion,  and  so  of  the  others. 

That  this  caveat  is  not  uncalled  for  is  illustrated  by  Mez  in  his 
essay  on  the  Bible  of  Josephus.t  In  this  book  the  author  gives  a 
very  instructive  comparison  of  Josephus  with  the  historical  data 
of  Judges  and  Samuel.  The  statements  of  the  Antiquities  are  set 
side  by  side  with  those  of  our  ^  and  with  those  of  the  different 
recensions  of  (§.  His  conclusion  is  that  Josephus  follows  the  text 
of  Lucian.  The  necessary  inference  is  that  the  text  of  Lucian  is 
older  than  Lucian  —  for  Josephus  wrote  two  centuries  before  the 
time  of  Lucian.  "  There  were  two  Greek  Bibles  before  the  time 
of  Origen,  the  text  of  ^  and  its  congeners,  probably  native  to 
Egypt,  and  a  Syro-Italian  Bible,  best  preserved  in  the  so-called 
Lucian  text "  —  this  is  the  conclusion  of  Mez,  and  it  is  one  which 
we  may  provisionally  accept. 

Doubt  begins  to  assert  itself  at  the  next  step  in  the  argumenta- 
tion. Our  author  goes  on  to  point  out  that  Origen  knew  a  Greek 
Old  Testament,  which  he  called  by  the  name  of  Theodotion.     On 

*  Klostermann,  "  Die  Mailander  Fragment  der  Hexapla,"  ZA  TW.  XVI.  p.  334  ff. 
t  Die  Bibel  des  Josephus  untersucht  fur  Buck  V-  VII  der  Archdologie.     Basel, 
1895. 


404  APPENDIX 

the  basis  of  certain  resemblances  between  our  Lucian  and  the 
fragments  of  Theodotion,  he  concludes  that  the  two  were  allied  in 
some  way.  He  formulates  his  conclusion  in  the  words  :  "  The 
primitive  Lucian  has  become  a  primitive  Theodotion  ;  "  by  which 
he  means  that  '^  is  only  a  copy  of  Origen's  Theodotion,  and  that 
an  earlier  copy  of  the  same  version  was  the  Bible  of  Josephus. 
The  proposition  is  sufficiently  important  to  warrant  examination. 

In  order  not  to  confound  things  that  differ,  we  should  avoid 
assuming  that  there  were  other  Lucians  than  the  Lucian  known  to 
us,  or  other  Theodotions  than  the  Theodotion  whose  fragments 
have  been  preserved  to  us.  Our  two  known  quantities  are  the 
recension  of  ^  in  the  edition  of  Lagarde  (or  the  MSS.  on  which 
that  edition  is  based),  and  the  fragments  of  Theodotion  collected 
by  Field  in  his  edition  of  the  Hexapla.  Our  task  is  to  compare 
these  known  and  tangible  entities,  and  not  to  confuse  ourselves 
with  their  unknown  predecessors.  Predecessors  they  doubtless 
had,  but  these  are  as  yet  out  of  our  reach. 

Bringing  the  text  of  ^  and  ^  into  the  comparison,*  the  relevant 
facts  are  as  follows  : 

1.  Of  144  instances  adduced  by  Mez,  there  are  twenty-five  in 
which  Josephus  agrees  with  the  text  common  to  the  three  Greek 
witnesses  -^^  ^  l^  There  are  eighty-eight  in  which  he  agrees  with 
neither  one  of  the  three.  Out  of  the  remainder  we  discover  seven- 
teen in  which  he  may  be  fairly  counted  for  ^,  in  seven  he  agrees 
with  ^^,  in  four  with  ^^,  in  two  with  ^^,  while  in  only  one  can  he 
be  said  to  go  with  ^  as  against  the  other  two  witnesses. 

The  result  is  a  negative  one.  The  large  number  of  instances  in 
which  Josephus  agrees  with  neither  one  of  our  three  forms  of  text 
shows  that  his  Bible  cannot  be  identified  with  either  one  of  these. 
But  as  between  these,  his  Bible  appreciably  resembled  ^,  whereas 
it  seems  to  have  had  no  connexion  with  the  type  of  text  preserved 
in  ^.  Although  negative,  this  result  is  an  important  one.  It 
indicates  that  the  Josephus  text  should  be  counted  as  a  separate 
recension  of  (§. 

2.  Comparison  of  the  two  Greek  texts  shows  that  ^  is  notice- 
ably fuller  than  ^.     In  the  first  six  chapters  of  Samuel,  about  one 

•  The  inquiry  is  confined  to  the  Books  of  Samuel. 


APPENDIX  405 

tenth  of  the  words  in  ^  are  not  in  ^  —  over  4400  in  one,  to  about 
4000  in  the  other.  The  disproportion  in  other  parts  of  the  Book 
is  not  so  marked.  But  it  seems  safe  to  say  that  they  differ  by  seven 
or  eight  per  cent,  the  p/us  being  almost  uniformly  on  the  side  of  ^. 

3.  Examination  into  the  nature  of  this  additional  matter  shows 
that  a  part  of  it  is  due  to  a  desire  to  make  good  Greek.  Thus, 
the  most  frequent  insertion  is  that  of  the  definite  article,  which  is 
needed  by  the  Greek  idiom  but  is  not  expressed  in  Hebrew  (and 
is  consequently  omitted  by  ^).  For  ku/jiw  ^  we  find  tw  Kvpiw  ^,  for 
Ki^wTos  Kvptov  ^,  r}  KtySwros  Tov  Kvptov  ^.  The  shorter  form  is  here 
more  exactly  representative  of  the  Hebrew,  the  longer  is  better 
Greek.  For  the  same  reason,  we  find  a  preposition  used  in  ^ 
which  is  lacking  in  ^ ;  in  a  few  cases  the  conjunction  is  inserted, 
and  in  a  rather  larger  number  the  subject  or  object  of  the  verb, 
unexpressed  in  ^  and  ^,  is  supplied  in  ^.  In  saying  that  such 
words  have  been  supplied  in  ^,  or  in  calling  them  insertions,  we 
must  be  careful  to  guard  our  words,  for  we  do  not  mean  to  imply 
that  ^  is  the  earlier  text  which  forms  the  basis  upon  which  ^  sup- 
plied what  was  lacking,  or  into  which  it  inserted  these  additional 
words.  The  number  of  these  additional  words  is  such  that  we 
can  hardly  think  of  an  editor  going  through  a  previously  existing 
text  and  inserting  them  into  it.  They  are  entirely  consistent  with 
the  theory  that  the  translator  of  ^  was  independent  of  any  prede- 
cessor, and  that  he  was  less  slavishly  bound  to  his  text  than  the 
translator  of  ^.  If  Lagarde's  canon  be  correct,  that  the  more 
exact  conformity  shows  later  date,  we  should  argue  for  the  priority 
of  ^ 

4.  There  are,  however,  indications  that  the  plus  of  ^  is  some- 
times due  to  interpolation  of  a  shorter  text.  One  of  the  first 
examples  we  meet  is  i  S.  i'',  where  |^  has  mxa::  miT'b.  In  ^  this 
is  rendered  by  tw  Kvp'n^  6(.<^  aa/SawO,  whereas  we  find  in  ^  raJ  Kvpto) 
<ra(3au)6  dec^  TravTOKpaTopt.  It  is  evident  that  aa^a(L6  and  TravTO- 
KpaTopi  represent  the  same  Hebrew  word,  and  therefore  that  ^  has 
been  interpolated.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  its  original  was  the 
text  of  ^.  In  fact  it  seems  pretty  certain  that  its  earliest  form  was 
TO)  Kvpiw  Oe<S  TravTOKpaTopL,  which  is  a  complete  translation  of  f^ 
or  rather  of  a  variant  Hebrew  text,  and  that  o-a/Jaw^  was  injected 
into  this  by  a  scribe  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  phrase.     In  some 


406  APPENDIX 

cases  the  argument  is  not  so  clear,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
^  has  sometimes  been  expanded  by  insertion  of  a  new  translation 
alongside  of  the  old.  But  it  seems  impossible  in  any  large  pro- 
portion of  the  variations  to  prove  that  ^  was  the  original  on  which 
^  is  fashioned. 

5.  One  point  of  considerable  importance  seems  demonstrable  : 
the  Theodotion  of  Origen  is  not  identical  with  our  ^.  This  is 
established  by  more  than  one  line  of  argument : 

a.  According  to  Field  {Hexapla  Origenis,  I.  p.  xxxixf.),  one 
mark  of  Theodotion  is  leaving  Hebrew  words  untranslated,  trans- 
ferring them  in  Greek  letters.  This  editor  gives  a  list  of  such 
words,  six  of  which  occur  in  the  Books  of  Samuel.  Out  of  these 
six  only  one  is  found  in  ^,  namely,  e^  avadwO  for  n:ni7a,  i  S.  15^^^ 

I'.  Origen's  diacritical  marks  give  us  a  criterion.  It  may  not  be 
superfluous  to  remind  the  reader  that  in  the  Hexapla  the  text  of  (3 
(what  Origen  regarded  as  the  original  Septuagint)  was  emended 
to  conform  to  the  type  of  Hebrew  then  current.  Where  it  was 
deficient,  words  and  phrases  were  inserted.  These  inserted  words 
and  phrases  had  prefixed  to  them  an  asterisk  (made  in  the  Greek 
form  y^),  and,  what  especially  interests  us  here,  they  were  gener- 
ally taken  from  Theodotion.  Although  the  greater  part  of  these 
marks  are  no  longer  preserved  to  us  (for  the  Books  of  Samuel), 
yet  we  have  occasionally  in  Greek  MSS.  some  words  sud  asierisco, 
and  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  these  asterisks  for  the  most  part  go 
back  to  Origen.  Their  testimony  is  exhibited  by  Field,  and  in 
I  Samuel  we  find  29  asterisks.  In  fourteen  cases  the  asterisked 
words  are  found  in  '^ ;  in  six  cases  the  same  matter  is  found  in  ^, 
but  in  different  words.  In  the  remaining  nine  the  insertions  are 
not  made  in  ^  at  all.  The  conclusion  seems  not  remote.  Our  ^ 
cannot  be  a  faithful  representative  of  Theodotion.  The  cases  in 
which  the  additional  matter  is  inserted  ///  other  words  seem  inex- 
plicable if  ^  was  in  any  sense  dependent  on  Theodotion. 

c.  The  early  Fathers  sometimes  directly  cite  Theodotion,  and 
the  MSS.  also  sometimes  designate  his  reading  by  the  initial  letter 
of  his  name.  This  testimony  also  is  conveniently  reproduced  for 
us  by  Field.  In  the  first  fifteen  chapters  of  Samuel  I  find  49 
words  or  phrases  assigned  to  Theodotion.  ///  only  three  cases  is 
the  reading  found  in  our  ^.     Two  of  these  are  the  insertion  of  the 


APPENDIX  407 

single  word  iKadrjTo,  i  S.  i^  4^-  The  word  is  lacking  in  ^,  but  it 
must  be  evident  that  the  insertion  is  one  that  could  be  made  by 
different  editors  in  entire  independence  of  each  other's  labours. 
In  the  third  case  (i  S.  2^^*')  where  we  find  a  sentence  ascribed  to 
Theodotion  which  we  now  find  in  ^,  there  is  room  to  doubt  the 
accuracy  of  the  ascription,  for  Theodoret,  who  is  one  of  our  best 
authorities  on  the  various  Greek  renderings,  says  nothing  of  Theo- 
dotion in  this  connexion.  In  general,  we  must  view  the  testimony 
of  these  scholiasts  with  some  reserve.  It  is  always  conceivable 
that  by  some  blunder  a  reading  of  Theodotion  has  been  wrongly 
labelled.  But  all  the  weight  of  this  testimony,  which  is  the  best 
we  have,  is  against  the  identification  of  Theodotion  and  ^ ;  for  it 
must  be  evident  that  three  cases  out  of  forty-nine  cannot  establish 
influence  of  one  recension  on  the  other.  Out  of  this  same  list  we 
find  three  cases  where  Aquila  and  Theodotion  agree,  two  where 
Symmachus  and  Theodotion  agree,  and  two  where  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus,  and  Theodotion  agree.  Yet  the  independence  of  these 
three  Greek  translators  is  universally  acknowledged. 

For  the  Books  of  Samuel,  therefore,  we  must  conclude  :  {a)  that 
the  recension  of  Lucian  cannot  be  treated  as  a  descendant  or  near 
relative  of  Theodotion ;  and  (d)  that  the  type  of  text  used  by 
Josephus  must  be  classed  by  itself,  though  showing  features  of 
resemblance  to  our  ^,  rather  than  to  the  recension  represented  by 
the  Codex  Vaticanus. 

III.    THE   LITERARY  PROCESS 

Professor  Lohr  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  already 
mentioned  (Thenius^  1898),  gives  a  useful  conspectus  of  the 
recent  literary  criticism  of  the  Books  of  Samuel.  He  puts  in 
four  parallel  columns  the  analyses  of  Budde,  Cornill,  Kittel,  and 
Wellhausen.  The  practical  unanimity  of  these  four  authorities  is 
thus  brought  forcibly  to  view.  In  the  additions  or  corrections 
which  he  offers,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  he  frequently  agrees  with 
opinions  which  I  had  reached  independently  —  as,  for  example,  in 
denying  the  coherence  of  i  S.  7,  and  12  with  E,  and  in  asserting 
the  Deuteronomic  character  of  these  chapters. 

It  is  a  matter  for  congratulation  that  the  agreement  in  the  criti- 


408  APPENDIX 

cal  analysis  is  so  marked.  The  separation  of  the  different  sources 
may  be  taken  as  virtually  settled.  The  further  question  of  how 
they  came  to  be  united  still  needs  discussion,  though  here  also 
some  points  are  practically  agreed  upon.  I  can  best  indicate  the 
points  of  agreement  and  the  points  of  divergence  by  a  sketch  of 
what  I  suppose  to  be  the  actual  process.  What  really  took  place 
in  the  literary  history  of  Israel  ? 

1.  There  was  an  author  who  undertook  to  write  a  history  of  the 
rise  of  the  monarchy  in  Israel  with  an  account  of  the  reign  of 
David.  Whether  he  included  the  life  of  Solomon  also  does  not 
concern  us  here.  He  wrote  soon  after  the  death  of  Solomon,  and 
his  work  (which  I  call  SI.)  included  the  following  sections  of  our 
Hebrew  Bible : 

(a)  A  brief  life  of  Saul  beginning  with  his  genealogy  (i  S.  9^), 
recounting  his  search  for  the  asses  and  the  meeting  with  Samuel 
(9.  10^"^^),  the  battle  with  Nahash  which  brought  him  to  the  throne 
(11),  and  his  campaign  against  the  Philistines  (13.  14). 

(d)  An  account  of  David  at  the  court  of  Saul,  where  the  interest 
already  turns  more  distinctly  to  David.  It  included  his  coming  to 
court  (i  S.  16^*"^),  an  adventure  with  the  Philistines  now  lost  to 
us,  Saul's  jealousy  ( i S^'".  2o-29a  ipU-i-),  David's  flight  (2i2-i»)  and 
his  life  as  an  outlaw  captain  (22.  23"*  25-27.  29.  30),  ending  with 
the  death  of  Saul  (31). 

(c)  David's  reign,  embracing  2  S.  2-4.  7.  9-20,  the  history 
being  originally  concluded  by  the  account  of  Solomon's  corona- 
tion and  the  death  of  David  (i  K.  i.  2). 

For  the  most  part  Professor  Lohr  agrees  with  this  statement, 
and  he  seems  to  represent  the  consensus  of  recent  opinion.  A 
difference  however  emerges  into  view  at  the  next  step  of  the 
reconstruction.     My  own  theory  is  as  follows  : 

2.  A  writer  with  a  theocratic  bias  was  dissatisfied  with  the  com- 
paratively worldly  view  of  David  presented  in  the  history  just 
defined,  and  also  with  its  lack  of  serious  condemnation  of  Saul  — 
for  he  argued  that  the  rejection  of  Saul  must  be  accounted  for  by 
something  in  his  character.  This  author  therefore  rewrote  the 
history,  making  use,  for  the  most  part,  of  the  data  given  by  SI., 
though  he  seems  to  have  had  some  other  source  at  his  command. 
His  design  was  to  show  how  Samuel  was  the  ruler  of  Israel  by 


APPENDIX  409 

divine  right  until  the  choice  of  David.  His  work,  which  I  call 
Sm.,  included : 

{a)  For  the  life  of  Samuel ;  an  account  of  his  early  life  and  the 
fall  of  Eli's  house  (i  S.  1-6),  the  deliverance  from  the  Philistines 
(7),  the  demand  for  a  king  and  its  answer  by  the  sacred  lot 
(8.  lo'^'^),  the  farewell  address  (12),  and  the  rejection  of  Saul 

(15)- 

(d)  For  the  early  Hfe  of  David;   his   anointing   (16^"'^),  his 

exploit  with  Goliath  (17  in  some  form),  the  consequent  intro- 
duction to  court  (18'"^),  the  jealousy  of  Saul  and  the  insult  in  the 
matter  of  Merab  (18'*"'^),  various  attempts  upon  David,  his  flight 
to  Samuel,  to  Achish,  and  to  Moab  (i8*'-i9i*'.  19^^-^  2i"-i«.  22^-^), 
his  generosity  to  Saul  (23^^-24^®),  concluding  with  Samuel's  last 
appearance  (28)  and  the  death  of  Saul  (2S.  i). 

(c)  For  the  reign  of  David  he  was  content  with  mentioning  the 
coronation  by  all  Israel,  some  account  of  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  removal  of  the  Ark,  and  the  detailed  Messianic  promise 
(2  S.  7),  with  a  summary  of  David's  wars.  Probably  he  gave  also 
some  additional  matter  now  lost  to  us,  the  Redactor  having  found 
that  it  too  obviously  duplicates  what  has  been  preserved  from  the 
other  document. 

3.  The  union  of  these  two  accounts  into  one  history  would  give 
us  substantially  our  present  Books  of  Samuel,  and  the  process  is  so 
much  like  what  actually  took  place  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  we  may 
claim  analogy  as  an  argument  in  its  favour.  The  alternate  theory 
sees  in  the  sections  which  I  have  classed  together,  fragments  of 
different  origin  inserted  into  the  framework  of  SI.  at  different 
times.     Lohr's  statement  is  : 

"Interpolations  are:  (a)  i  S.  15  and  28  —  Saul's  rejection, 
dating  from  the  prophetic  period ;  {l>)  2  S.  7  —  the  prophecy  of 
the  eternal  continuance  of  David's  house,  later  than  the  preceding 
but  preexilic  ;  (<r)  i  S.  10*  13^"'^  —  a  parallel  to  15,  older  than  the 
reception  of  the  younger  source  into  7-12,  and  dating  from  the 
Exile. 

"Additions  are:  (a)  1  S.  1-3  —  an  account  of  the  youth  of 
Samuel,  probably  taken  from  some  outside  history,  here  intended 
as  an  introduction  to  7-12;  (^)  i  S.  4-6  —  an  ancient  narrative 
of  the  experiences  of  the  Ark,  adopted  with  the  intention  of 


4IO  APPENDIX 

showing  the  straits  of  the  Philistines ;  (c)  i  S.  23^-24^  2  S.  i** 
I  S.  i6^'^^  19^^^  2i"'^® — these  are  late,  even  very  late,  sections; 
(//)  I  S.  17-20  —  these  chapters  are  seriously  reelaborated  or 
intermixed  with  material  from  other  sources." 

The  theory  thus  stated  seems  to  be  a  revival,  or  survival,  of  the 
now  discredited  supplement-hypothesis.  The  process  which  it  sup- 
poses is  unlike  anything  with  which  we  are  acquainted  elsewhere 
in  the  Old  Testament.  As  we  now  know,  the  complicated  process 
by  which  the  Pentateuch  (Hexateuch)  received  its  present  form 
was  not  of  this  kind.  The  repeated  redactions  to  which  this  work 
was  subject  were  the  putting  together  of  documents  already  com- 
plete in  themselves.  They  were  not  the  injecting  of  diverse  sec- 
tions by  successive  interpolations,  into  one  history.  The  Books  of 
Chronicles  cannot  be  adduced  in  favour  of  Professor  Lohr's  the- 
ory, for  they  are  to  all  appearance  the  work  of  a  single  author, 
making  copious  use  of  the  previously  existing  history. 

For  these  reasons,  the  hypothesis  already  advanced  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  this  commentary  seems  to  stand. 


INDKX 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Abel  Beth  Maacah, 

371 

Ammah, 

272 

Abel  Meholah, 

172 

Ammonite  invasion, 

75 

Abiathar, 

209,  211,  246 

Ammonite  war. 

312 

Abigail, 

221 

Amnon's  crime, 

326 

Abishai, 

230,314,  386 

Amnon's  death, 

331 

Abner, 

127 

Analysis  of  i  S.  1-15, 

xvi 

Abner  and  David, 

279 

Analysis  of  i  S.  16  ff., 

xxii 

Abner's  arrogance, 

275 

Analysis  of  2  S.  2-24, 

XXV  i 

Abner's  death. 

279 

Anthropopathism, 

140 

Abner's  dirge, 

281 

Aphek, 

31.  244 

Absalom's  beauty. 

337  f- 

Arabah, 

273 

Absalom's  death. 

358 

Araunah, 

391 

Absalom's  return, 

339 

Ark,  The, 

31  f-.  344 

Absalom's  revenge, 

331 

Ark  brought  up. 

291 

Absalom's  usurpation, 

339 

Armour  bearer, 

104 

Abusive  language, 

193 

Aroer, 

390 

Achish, 

201,  234  f. 

Asahel, 

271 

Adjuration, 

29 

Ashdod, 

37 

Adoniram, 

373 

Astarte, 

51 

Adoram, 

373 

Adriel, 

172 

Baal, 

XXXV,  52 

Adullam, 

203 

Baal  Hazor, 

331 

Adultery,  David's, 

317 

Baal  Judah, 

292 

Agag, 

134.  141 

Baal  Perazim, 

290 

Ahijah, 

104 

Bahurim, 

277.  347 

Ahimaaz, 

359 

Balsams,  The, 

291 

Ahimelech, 

197 

Bamah, 

62 

Ahinoam, 

228 

Ban,  The, 

131 

Ahithophel,                  34 

i>  350  f-  354  f- 

Barzillai, 

356:  366 

Aijalon, 

116 

Bathsheba, 

317 

Altar, 

117 

Battle  of  Gibeon, 

270 

Amalek, 

131,  246 

Beeroth, 

283 

Amasa, 

355 

Belial. 

10  f. 

Amasa  murdered, 

368 

Benaiah, 

38b 

Ambassadors  insulted. 

313  f- 

Besor, 

247 

411 


412 


INDEX 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Bethel, 

91 

David's  flight. 

183,  342 

Beth  Horon, 

100 

David's  grief  for  Absalom, 

361 

Bethlehem, 

144 

David's  house  besieged. 

.        '78 

Beth  Rehob, 

314 

David's  last  words. 

381 

liethshan, 

253 

David's  magnanimity. 

216 

Beth  Shemesh, 

46 

David's  officers. 

372 

Bezek, 

78 

David's  Psalm  of  Triumph, 

378 

Blood, 

116 

David's  severity, 

305 

Blood-guiltiness, 

374 

Death  of  Saul, 

251 

Blood-money, 

374  f- 

De  Wette, 

xxvii 

Blood-revenge, 

334 

Dirge  over  Saul, 

257  f- 

Booty,  Division  of, 

249 

Disarmament, 

lOI 

Bozez, 

104 

Diviners, 

42 

Bread  in  the  sanctuary. 

198 

Documents, 

xviii 

Bribery, 

84 

Doeg, 

206 

Budde, 

xxix 

Driver, 

xxxix 

Burnt-offering, 

53 

Duplicate  narratives. 

XV 

Carmel, 

136,  221 

Edom, 

308 

Census,  The, 

388 

Egyptian  oppression. 

85 

Cherethite,                      247  f., 

309.  343 

Eichhorn, 

xxvii 

Chimham, 

366 

Ekron, 

40 

Clericus, 

xxxviii 

Elah,  Valley  of, 

152 

Codex  Alexandrinus, 

xxxi 

Eli, 

6 

Codex  Vaticanus, 

XXX 

Eli's  sons, 

17 

Commentaries, 

xxxvii 

Endor, 

240 

Composition  of  the  book, 

XV 

Engedi, 

216 

Covenant, 

77,  166 

En  Rogel, 

353  f- 

Ephes  Dammim, 

152 

Dagon, 

38 

Ephod,                 19,  104,  III 

246,  295 

Damascus, 

305  f- 

Ephrathite, 

156 

Dances  of  the  vi^omen. 

168 

Evil  Spirit, 

147,  169 

Dancing  in  worship, 

295 

Ewald, 

xxviii 

David, 

155 

David  a  musician. 

149 

Famine, 

374 

David  and  Goliath,   ' 

150 

David  anointed  by  Samuel, 

143 

Gad, 

204 

David  anointed  over  Israel, 

286 

Gallim, 

229 

David  marries  Michal, 

172 

Gath, 

40 

David's  adultery, 

317 

Geba, 

91.93 

David's  dynasty, 

300 

Geshur, 

274 

David's  family. 

274 

Gezer, 

291 

David's  feigned  madness. 

201 

Gibeah, 

68 

David's  fidelity, 

310 

Gibeon, 

270 

INDEX 


413 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Gibeonites, 

374 

"^O'D, 

354 

Gilboa, 

240 

SjpD, 

158,  231 

Gilgal, 

80,96 

njn;?D, 

142 

Gizrites, 

,^6 

l>itD, 

106 

Goliath, 

•53 

T|i3  jiniyo, 

226  f. 

Government,  Oppressive, 

57 

riDNn  jriD, 

306 

Gramberg, 

xxvni 

ntt>ipnD, 

318 

Greek  apparatus, 

xxxii 

NiJJ, 

71 

ureek  version. 

XXX 

riMj, 

182 

Greek  version.  Use  of, 

399 

nT3DJ, 

»35 

Grotius, 

xxxviii 

nniDH  niyj, 

^94 

nxj. 

141 

Hachila, 

214  f.,  230 

3''XJ, 

69 

Hadadezer, 

305.  307 

PO, 

41 

Hamath, 

308 

d^Sdj?, 

40 

Hannah, 

4 

-lUX, 

289 

Hannah's  Psalm, 

14 

mx, 

8 

Hanun, 

313 

mnnn  ntf, 

262 

Hebrew  text, 

XXX 

f\DX', 

142 

Hebrew  words : 

Hebron, 

266 

aiN, 

239 

Helam, 

316 

niy3"tt"N, 

269 

Hexapla, 

xxxii 

D'fiN, 

7 

Hiram, 

289 

3J1K, 

191, 196 

Holiness, 

49 

JJIN, 

45 

Horesha, 

213 

DB-N, 

45 

Hushai, 

346,  349,  351 

DN, 

102 

0>D  miXDH, 

103 

ICHABOD, 

37 

n>Sj;n, 

65 

Incubation, 

27 

nicnn, 

354 

Infinitive,  Periphrastic, 

58 

jnM, 

134 

Instigation  by  Yahweh, 

232 

tfin, 

187 

Ishbaal, 

127,  267 

^n, 

172 

Ishbaal  assassinated, 

283 

vnn. 

102 

Ishbosheth, 

267  f. 

ifin. 

102 

Israel  deprived  of  arms, 

lOI 

1% 

137 

Ittai  the  Gittite, 

343 

injim. 

176 

Ithra  the  Ishmaelite, 

356 

■iSiiV^s 

164 

• 

UIS", 

124 

Jaazer, 

390 

1>33, 

180 

Jabesh  Gilead, 

76,  253,  267 

o>DDn  njns, 

330 

Jerachmeel, 

236 

hS, 

187 

Jerusalem, 

287 

rtsvh. 

65 

Jeshimon, 

214 

nifnnc, 

102 

Jesse, 

144 

414 


INDEX 


PAGE 

PAGK 

Jezreel, 

228,  ?4/\ 

Meholah, 

172 

Joab, 

270 

Mephibosheth,  see  Meribbaal. 

Joab  rebukes  David, 

361 

Merab, 

171 

Joab's  device, 

334 

Meribbaal, 

284,  311,   364 

Jonathan  and  David, 

166 

Messianic  expectation, 

297 

Jonathan  conciliates  Saul, 

176 

Mez, 

403 

Jonathan  mourned, 

263 

Mice, 

41 

Jonathan  warns  David, 

175 

Michal,                172,  174 

276  f.  .   295  f. 

Jonathan's  attack, 

90,  104 

Michmash, 

91  f. 

Jonathan's  friendship. 

184 

Milcom, 

325 

Jonathan's  heroism, 

122 

Millo. 

288 

Jonathan's  son, 

310 

Mizpah, 

52 

Josephus, 

403 

Moab, 

305 

Judah  and  Israel, 

366  f. 

Monarchy  sinful; 

56 

Judges, 

86 

Music, 

148 

Judges  and  Samuel, 

4 

Nabal, 

221  f.,  225 

Keil, 

xxxviii 

Nahash, 

76 

Keilah, 

210 

Nathan, 

298 

Kenites, 

133 

Nathan's  rebuke, 

321  f. 

Kidron, 

344 

Necromancy, 

xxxiv,  238  {. 

King  demanded, 

55 

Negeb, 

236 

Kirjath  Jearim, 

49 

New  Moon, 

185,  187 

Kittel, 

xxxix 

Nob, 

197 

Klostermann, 

xxxix 

Noldeke, 

398 

Kuenen, 

xxix 

Oak  of  Tabor, 

67 

Lagarde, 

xxxi 

Obed  Edom, 

293 

Lame  and  blind,  The, 

288 

Old  Latin  version. 

xxxii 

Latin  version. 

xxxii 

Omen, 

107 

Levites, 

47 

Ophrah, 

100 

Literary  process,  The, 

407 

Lo-Debar, 

310,312 

Palti, 

229 

Lohr, 

395 

Paran, 

220 

Lot,  The  sacred. 

73.  121 

Parched  corn. 

156 

Lucian, 

402 

Peace  offerings. 

81 

Pelethites, 

309 

Maacah, 

314 

Periphrastic  Infinitive, 

58 

Mahanaim, 

269,  355 

Peshitta, 

xxxii 

Man  of  God, 

22 

Philistine  war. 

31 

Maon, 

214,  221 

Philistines, 

31  f- 

Marriage  by  purchase. 

173 

Phinehas, 

6,  105 

Massacre  of  the  priests. 

207  f. 

Plague, 

39 

Massoretic  text, 

xxix,  396 

Prayer  of  David, 

302 

INDEX 


415 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Presents. 

61 

Saul  the  deliverer, 

62 

Price  paid  for  a  wife, 

173 

Saul's  death. 

254 

Priesthood  at  Nob, 

197 

Saul's  disobedience. 

133 

Prophets, 

68,71,  181 

Saul's  family. 

126 

Saul's  jealousy, 

167 

Rabbah, 

317 

Saul's  journey, 

58 

Rabbah  taken. 

325 

Saul's  piety, 

121 

Rabbinical  commentaries. 

xxxvii 

Saul's  rejection, 

128 

Rachel's  tomb. 

67 

Saul's  sin. 

97  f. 

Ramah, 

5>69 

Saul's  table. 

192 

Religious  ideas, 

xxxiii 

Saul's  wars. 

125 

Rephaim,  Valley  of. 

290 

Schmid, 

xxxviii 

Resident, 

91 

Schrader, 

xxviii 

Reuss, 

xxxviii 

Seer, 

61,63 

Revelation, 

xxxvi,  26  f. 

Seneh, 

104 

Ritual  purity. 

200 

Shades  in  Sheol, 

241 

Rizpah's  devotion. 

376 

Sheba, 

367 

Runners,  The  king's, 

207 

Sheep  shearing. 

221 

Shiloh, 

-> 
0 

Sacred  bread, 

198 

Shimei, 

347  f-  Z(>3 

Sacrificial  feast. 

62 

Shocoh, 

152 

Sacrilege, 

18 

Shunem, 

240  f. 

Samuel,  The  name. 

12  f. 

Shur, 

133 

Samuel  a  prophet, 

30 

Simon,  Richard, 

xxvii 

Samuel  as  deliverer, 

50 

Sling, 

162 

Samuel  as  ruler. 

54 

Sojourner, 

256 

Samuel  as  seer. 

62 

Spinoza, 

xxvii 

Samuel  at  Ramah, 

181 

Spirit,  Evil, 

147 

Samuel  deposes  Saul, 

128 

Spirit  incites  to  heroism. 

78 

Samuel,  the  Books  of.  Contents,        xii 

Spirit  of  God, 

182 

Division, 

xiii 

Spirit  of  Yahweh, 

68,  145,  177 

Originally  one. 

xi 

Stone,  memorial. 

47  f. 

Plan, 

xiii 

Suicide, 

355 

Title, 

xi 

Syriac  version, 

xxxii 

Samuel's  birth. 

3 

Samuel's  call. 

25 

Taboo, 

113,  120 

Samuel's  death, 

220,  238 

Tamar, 

326 

Samuel's  farewell, 

81 

Tamarisk, 

205 

Saul, 

58 

Targum, 

xxxiii 

Saul  among  the  prophets. 

70 

Tekoah, 

334  f- 

Saul  anointed. 

66 

Tekoite  woman. 

334 

Saul  at  Gibeah, 

78 

Telam, 

133 

Saul  chosen  by  lot. 

72 

Temple  at  Shiloh, 

9 

Saul  rejected. 

97 

Temple  proposed, 

297 

4i6 


INDEX 


PAGE 

PAGP 

Tent  (in  marriage), 

350 

VVellhausen, 

xxviii,  xxxviii 

Tent  of  Meeting, 

20 

Wrath  of  Yahweh, 

120 

Teraphim, 

xxxiii,  179 

Textual  criticism, 

398 

Yahweh,  God  of  Israel, 

XXXV 

Thenius, 

xxxviii 

Yahweh  and  Dagon, 

38 

Theodoret, 

xxxvii 

Yahweh  Sebaoth, 

5 

Theodotion, 

402 

Yeshana, 

53  f- 

Thirty  heroes,  The, 

383 

Threshold, 

39 

Zadok, 

344 

Thunder  storm, 

53 

Zadok  predicted. 

22  f. 

Tob, 

314 

Zeboim, 

100 

Tournament, 

270 

Zeruiah, 

231 

Trespass  offering. 

43.45 

Ziba, 

3".  347 

Tyrants  of  the  Philistines, 

40 

Ziklag, 

235 

Uriah, 

Urim  and  Thummim, 

Uzzah  smitten, 

317  ff- 
122 

292 

Ziklag  invaded, 

Zion, 

Ziph, 

Zobah, 

246 

288  f. 

213 

305.  307 

Versions,  Ancient, 

XXX 

Zuph, 

5,60 

Vow  of  Hannah, 

9 

ABBREVIATIONS 


Aq.,  The  Greek  translation  of 

Aquila,  fragments  of 
which  are  collected  in 
Field,  Hexapla  Origenis. 

AV.,  The    Authorized    English 

Version  of  the  Bible, 
1611. 

Baedeker,  Palestine  and  Syria,  Hand- 
book for  Travellers. 
Second  edition.  Leip- 
zig, 1894. 

Baer,  Liber  Samuelis.     Textum 

Masoreticum  accuratis- 
sime  expressit  S.  Baer. 
Lipsiae,  1892. 

BDB.,  A    Hebrew    and    English 

Lexicon  of  the  Old  Tes- 


tament edited  by  Fran- 
cis Brown,  D.D.,  with 
the  cooperation  of  S.  R. 
Driver,  D.D.,  and  C.  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  1891  and 
following.  Not  yet  com- 
plete (1898). 

Benzinger,  Hebraische  Archaologie 
von  Dr.  J.  Benzinger. 
Freiburg,  1894. 

Bertholet,  Die  Stellung  der  Israeliten 
und  der  Juden  zu  den 
Fremden  von  Lie.  Al- 
fred Bertholet.  Frei- 
burg, 1896. 

BN.,  Bildung  der  Nomina.    See 

Lagarde. 


INDEX 


417 


Bonk,  De     Davide     Israelitarum 

Rege.  Dissertatio  histo- 
rica  inauguralis,  auctor 
Hugo  Bonk.  Regimonti, 
1891. 

Bottcher,  Ausfiihrliches  Lehrbuch 
der  Hebraischen 
Sprache  von  Friedrich 
Bottcher.  Leipzig,  1866, 
1868. 

BR'^.,  Biblical  Researches.     See 

Robinson. 

Bu.,  Karl  Budde. 

Bu.  RS.,  Die  Bucher  Richter  und 
Samuel,  ihre  Quellen 
und  ihre  Aufbau,  von  D. 
Karl  Budde.  Giessen, 
1890. 

Bu.  Text,  The  Books  of  Samuel; 
Critical  Edition  of  the 
Hebrew  Text  printed  in 
Colors.  Baltimore,  1894. 
See  SBOT. 

Buhl,  Frants  Buhl. 

Buhl,  6^f(?f.,  Geographic  des  Alten  Pa- 
lastina  von  D.  F.  Buhl. 
Freiburg,  1896. 

C,  The  passages  of  Chronicles 

parallel  to  i  and  2  .Sam- 
uel. 

Co.,  Carl  Heinrich  Cornill. 

Co.  Einl*.,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Tes- 
tament von  C.  H.  Cor- 
nill. Vierte  Auflage, 
Freiburg,  1897. 

COT.,  The  Cuneiform  Inscrip- 
tions and  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, by  E.  Scrader. 
Translated  by  White- 
house.     Lonilon,  1885. 

Dav.,  A.  B.  Davidson. 

Day.  Syntax,  Hebrew  Syntax  l)y  Rev. 
A.  B.    Davidson,    D.D., 
LL.D.       Edinburgh, 
1894. 
2£ 


DeR.,  Variae    Lcctioncs    Veteris 

Testamenti  .  .  .  J.  B.  De 
Rossi.    Vol.  H.    Parma, 

1785- 

Doughty,  Travels  in  Arabia  Deserta, 
by  C.  M.  Doughty.  Cam- 
bridge, 1888. 

Dr.,  S.  R.  Driver. 

Dr.  Deut.,  A  Critical  and  Exegetical 
Commentary  on  Deuter- 
onomy, by  the  Rev.  S. 
R.  Driver,  D.D.  (The 
International  Critical 
Commentary.)  New 
York,  1895. 

Dr.  ZOT'^,  Introduction  to  the  Lite- 
rature of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, by  S.  R.  Driver, 
D.D.         New    York, 

1897. 

Dr.  Notes,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text 
of  the  Books  of  Samuel, 
by  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D. 
Oxford,  1890. 

Dr.  Tensed,  A  Treatise  on  the  Use  of 
the  Tenses  in  Hebrew, 
by  S.  R.  Driver,  DD. 
Third  edition.  Oxford, 
1892. 

Erdm.,  C.  F.  D.  Erdmann.  Com- 
mentary on  the  Books 
of  Samuel  in  the  series 
edited  by  J.  P.  Lange; 
Am.  Edition  edited  by 
Philip  Schaff,  D.D.  New 
York,  1S77. 

EV.,  The  English  Version  of  the 

Old  Testament. 

Ew.  G  VP.,  Geschichte  des  Volkes 
Israel  von  Heinrich 
Ewald.  Dritte  Ausgabe. 
Gottingen,  1866.  Eng- 
lish Translation  under 
the  title:  History  of 
Israel.     London,  1871. 


4i8 


INDEX 


Field,  Hex.  Orig.,  Origenis  Hexaplo- 
rum  quae  Supersunt  .  .  . 
Fridericus  Field,  AA.M. 
Oxonii,  1875. 

GAS.,  (leorge  Adam  Smith. 

Geiger,  Abraham  Geiger,  Urschrift 
und  Uebersetzungen  der 
Bibel.     Breslau,  1857. 

Ges.'-*,  Gesenius'    Hebraische 

Cirammatik  vollig  um- 
gearbeitet  von  E. 
Kautzsch.  Sech  und 
zwanzigste  Auflage. 
Leipzig,  1896.  An  Eng- 
lish translation  of  this 
edition  is  announced 
(1898). 

Gesch.  Z>^.,Geschichtliche  Bilcher.  See 
Graf. 

Ginsb.  Christian      D.     Ginsburg, 

Massoretico-Critical  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  (with  Hebrew 
Title).  Two  volumes. 
London,   1894. 

Ginsb.  Introd.,  Introduction  to  the 
Massoretico-Critical  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  by  Christian  D. 
Ginsburg.  London,  1897. 

Graf.  Gesch.  BB.,  Die  Geschichtlichen 
Bilcher  des  Alten  Testa- 
ments, von  K.  H.  Graf. 
Leipzig,  1866. 

GVL,  Geschichte      des     Volkes 

Israel. 

NCO^.,  Historisch-Critisch  Onder- 
zoek  naar  het  Ontstaan 
en  de  Verzameling  van 
de  Boeken  des  Ouden 
Verbonds,  door  A.  Kue- 
nen.  Zweede  Uitgave, 
I.     Leiden,  1885  ff. 

HP.,  Vetus  Testamentum  Grae- 

cum.     Editionem  a  Ro- 


berto Holmes  inchoatam 
conlinuavit  Jacobus  Par- 
sons. Tomus  II.  Ox- 
onii, 1 8 10. 

HSAT.,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des 

Alten  in  Verbindung  mit 
Baethgen  u.  a.  iibersetzt 
und  herausgegeben  von 
E.  Kautzsch.  Freiburg, 
1894. 

HWB^'^.,  Gesenius'  Hebraisches  und 
Aramaisches  Handwor- 
terbuch,  iiber  das  Alte 
Testament.  Zwolfte  Auf- 
lage bearbeitet  von  Dr. 
Frants   Buhl.      Leipzig, 

1895- 

JBL.,  Journal  of  Biblical  Litera- 
ture, published  by  the 
Society  of  Biblical  Lit- 
erature and  Exegesis. 

Kautzsch,  Emil  Kautzsch,  editor  of 
Gesenius'  G  r  a  m  m  a  t  i  k 
and  of  HSA  T. 

Ki.,  Rudolph  Kittel. 

Ki.  GH.,  Geschichte  der  Hebraer 
von  R.  Kittel.  Gotha, 
1888,  1892. 

Ki.  in  Kautzsch,  The  translation  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel  in 
Kautzsch's  HSAT. 

KI.,  August  Klostermann,  Die 

Bilcher  Samuelis  und  der 
Konige  ausgelegt.  Nord- 
lingen,  1887. 

Konig,  Grain.,  Eduard  Konig,  Lehrge- 
baude  der  Hebraischen 
Sprache.  Leipzig,  1 881  ff. 

Konig,  Syntax,  Historisch-Compara- 
tive  Syntax  der  Hebra- 
ischen Sprache.  Leip- 
zig, 1897.  Forms  the 
third  volume  of  the  work 
just  preceding. 

Ku.,  Abraham  Kuenen. 


IXDEX 


419 


l.agarde,  BN.,  Uebersichl  iiber  ilie  iin 
Aramaischen  Arabischen 
und  Hebraischen  iibliche 
Bildungder  Xomina,vc)n 
Paul  de  Lagarde.  Got- 
tingen,  1889. 

Lange,  J.  P.  Lange,  Commentary 
on  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Levy,  NHWB.,  Neuhebraisches  und 
Chaldaisches  Worter- 
buch  von  Dr.  Jacob 
Levy.     Leipzig,  iSjSff. 

Moore,         George  Foot  Moore. 

Moore,  Judges,  A  Critical  and  Exe- 
getical  Commentary  on 
Judges  (International 
Critical  Commentary), 
by  George  Foot  Moore. 
New  York,  1895. 

Nestle,         Eberhard  Nestle. 

Nestle,  Marg.,  Marginalien  und  Mate- 
rialien  von  Eberhard 
Nestle.   Tiil^ingen,  1893. 

Nowack,  Lehrbuch  der  Hebraischen 
Archaologie  von  Dr.  Wil- 
helm  Nowack.  Frei- 
burg, 1894. 

OS.,  Onomastica   Sacra    Paulus 

de  Lagarde  edidit.  (iot- 
tingae,  1870. 

rnnle,  Matthew    Poole     (Polus), 

compiler  of  the  Synop- 
sis Criticorum. 

FRIi'.,  Realencyclopiidie  fiir  Pro- 
testantische  Theologie 
unil  Kirche.  Zweite 
Auflage.  Leipzig,  1877- 
1888.  The  third  edition 
is  now  appearing. 

RLbG.,         Kabbi  Levi  ben  Gerson. 

Reuss,  Edouard  Reuss,  La  Bible; 

Traduction  Nouvelle 
avec  Introductions  et 
Commentaires.  Paris, 
1874. 


Robinson,  Etlward  Robinson.  Biblical 
Researches  in  Palestine. 
Second  edition,  1856. 

R\'.,  The  Revised  Version  of  the 

Old  Testament,  pub- 
lished in  1885. 

SBOr.,  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Critical  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew 
Text,  printed  in  colors 
.  .  .  under  the  editorial 
direction  of  Professor 
Paul  Haupt.  Baltimore 
and  Leipzig,  1893  ff. 

Schleusner,  J.  F.  Schleusner.  Novus 
Thesaurus  Philologico- 
Criticus,  sive  Lexicon  in 
LXX  et  Reliquos  Inter- 
pretes  Graecos  Veteris 
Testamenti.  Lipsiae, 
1820  ff. 

Schm.,  Sebastian  Schmid.  In  Li- 
bros  Samuelis  Commen- 
tarius.  Argentorati, 
1687,  '89.  The  name 
is  usually  given  in  the 
form  Schmid,  and  I  have 
conformed  to  this  usage. 
Now  I  discover  that  he 
signs  both  his  prefaces 
Sebastianus  Schmidt. 

Schrader,  Eberhard  Schrader,  author 
of  .  Die  Keilinschriften 
und  das  Alte  Testament ; 
Zweite  Auflage,  Giessen, 
1883.  The  English 
translation  is  registered 
as  CO  T. 

SK.,  Theologische  Studien  und 

K  r  i  t  i  k  e  n,  well-known 
theological  review. 

Sniend,  Rudolph  .Smend.  Lehr- 
buch der  Alttestament- 
lichen  Religiuns-ge- 
schichte.  Freiburg,  189J. 


420 


IXDKX 


GASmith.  Geog^.,  Historical  (Geogra- 
phy of  the  Holy  Land. 
Third  edition.  New 
York,   1895. 

WRSmith,  William  Robertson  Smith. 

WRSmith,  Kinsliip,  Kinship  and  Mar- 
riage in  Early  Arabia. 

WRSmith,  OTJC-^.,  The  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Jewish 
Church.  Second  edi- 
tion. Edinburgh, 
1892. 

WRSmith,  Rel.  Sem.,  The  Religion  of 
the  Semites.  Funda- 
mental Institutions. 
Edinburgh,  1889. 

SS.,  Siegfried  und  Stade.     He- 

braisches  Worterbuch 
zum  Alten  Testamente. 
Leipzig,  1893. 

Stade,  Grain.,  Bernhard  Stade.  Lehr- 
buch  der  Hebraischen 
Grammatik.  Leipzig, 
1879. 

Stade.  G  VI.,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Is- 
rael.    L     Berlin,  1887. 

Syni.,  The  Greek  translation   of 

Symmachus,  fragments 
of  which  are  collected 
by  Field  in  his  Hexap. 
Origenis. 

TBS.,  Die  Text  der  Biicher  Sam- 

uelis  untersucht  von  J. 
Wellhausen.  Gottingen, 
1871. 

Th.,  ( )tto  Thenius.    Die  Biicher 

Samuels  Erklart.  Zweite 
Auflage.    Leipzig,  1S64. 

J hLZ.,  Theologische  Literaturzei- 
tung  herausgegeben  von 


D.  Ad.  Harnack  und  D. 

E.  Schiirer.      Leipzig. 
Theod.,        Theodoret. 

Toy,  Crawford  H.  Toy,  Ameri- 

can editor  of  Erdmann's 
Commentary  on  Samuel. 

Vercellone,  Variae  Lectiones  Vulgatae 
Latinae  Bibliorum  Edi- 
tionis,  quas  Carolus  Ver- 
cellone digessit.  Romae, 
1864. 

We.,  Julius  Wellhausen. 

We.  Comp.,  Die  Composition  des  Hex- 
ateuchs  und  der  Histori- 
schen  Biicher  des  Alten 
Testaments,  von  J.  Well- 
hausen.    Berlin,  1899. 

We. /'ro/3.,  Prolegomena  zur  Ge- 
schichte Israels  von  J. 
Wellhausen.  Dritte 
Ausgabe.     Berlin,  1886. 

We.  Skizzen,  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten 
von  J.  Wellhausen.  Ber- 
hn,  1 884- 1 896. 

We.  TBS.,  Wellhausen,  Der  Text  der 
Biicher  Samuelis. 

WRS.,  William  Robertson  Smith. 

ZA  TW.,  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Wissenschaft. 
herausgegeben  von  D. 
Bernhard  Stade.  Gies- 
sen,  1881-1898. 

ZDMG.,  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen 
Morgenliindischen  Ge- 
sellschaft. 

ZKW.,  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchliche 
Wissenschaft  und  Kirch- 
liches  Leben. 

ZVVT.,  Zeitschrift  fiir  Wissen- 
schaftliche  Theologie. 


INDEX 


421 


SIGNATURES    FOR   THI')    HEBREW    TEXT   AND    VERSIONS    OF   THE    OLD 

l-ESTAMENT 

lt>      The  received  consonantal  text  of   I  The  Old  Latin,  derived  from  some 

the  Hebrew  Bible.                        |  form  of  (3- 

ffl    The  Hebrew  text  with  vowels  and  |  iL  The   Latin   version  made   by  ]e- 

accents  —  Massoretic.  rome. 


(5     The  Greek  version  in  its  various 
recensions  —  see   Introduction, 

§7. 


&     The     Syriac    version,    ordmarily 

called  the  Peshitta. 
3E     The  Targum. 


1 


Smith,  H.  P.  ^ 

Samuel.  ^Z 

.16 

V.9