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

SAMUEL

HENRY PRESERVED SMITH

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
MORRISON ANb GIBB LIMITED

FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS

FIRST IMPRESSIOH . . 1899

SECOND IMPRESSION . . 1904

THIRD IMPRESSION . . 1913

FOURTH IMPRESSION . . 195!

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

HENRY PRESERVED SMITH

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION
IN AMHERST COLLEGE

EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK; 38 GEORGE STREET

TO MY WIFE

jjflaciuale

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

AND TO THE MEMORY OF OUR BELOVED

NtaU

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 I
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

viii 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 1842, 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
sufficiently 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,

AMHEKST, 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. Commentaries xxxvii

COMMENTARY 1-393

APPENDIX 395-4*

INDEX 411-416

ABBREVIATIONS 416-421

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. 2S 24 . 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 J at the close of i S. that
hopfa. 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 primum 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.

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 in 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 S&ODe&gt; iflDn VIDD DWD, the verses of the
two books together being reckoned 1506. The edition which introduces
D^SDHD OJB&gt;) ptfxn ISD along with ( 3) N SxiDtt is the edition of Plantin,
1680. In &lt;S we find jSacriAeiwv TT/OWTTJ, Seurepa, represented in some Latin
MSS. by Regnorum instead of Regum. In & KethUhfr dashmtiil nebhiya.

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 Xlii

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
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 life 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.

1-7. Samuel as fudge.

i 1 -^ 1 *. Birth, consecration, and call.
4 ib-22. The house of Eli.

XIV INTRODUCTION

5 1 -7 1 . The capture and return of the Ark.
7 2 - 17 . Deliverance from the Philistines.

8J2. 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.

/J-/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.

i6 1 -2i 1 . David at the Court.
I6 1 13 . The secret unction.
ID i4-23. The service of Saul.
ly^iS 5 . The encounter with Goliath.
iS 6 - 30 . Saul s jealousy.
19. Attempts upon David s life.
20 1 -2i 1 . David s flight.

2i 2 -2d. David an Outlaw Captain.
2 1 2 - 10 . The help of the priest.
2i n -22 5 . 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.

27-2 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 1 ~3 1 . The civil war.
3 W . David s family.
3 6 - 3y . Death of Abner.
4. Assassination of Ishbaal.

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.

2 1 1 - 14 . The Gibeonites avenged.

2 1 15-22 Sundry exploits.

22 1 -23 7 . Two Psalms.

23 8 ~ 39 . 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 clairvoyant,
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 I.-XV. xvii

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 lo 17 " 25 . 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 to 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 jure
deposed, for the prophet consents to pay him outward honour.
But, to the author s view, the experiment with Saul has turned out

XV111 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*" 17 , 8, lo 17 " 25 , 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 g l -io lG . 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 u, i3 2 -i4 52 , 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 ,57.

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 I.-XV. XIX

signed to either of our two sources. The most marked in its indi
viduality is the account of the Ark in the country of the Philistines,
5 1 -; 1 . 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 individuality 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 12 17 , followed
by a panegyric of Samuel 18 ~ 21 . The next four verses take up
Eli s sons again, while v. 26 recurs to Samuel. Finally, we have a
denunciation of Eli (2 27 ~ 36 ) by an anonymous man of God who
reminds us of the similar character in i K. I3 1 .

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 Eli 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 2 27 - 36 . 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 27 " 36 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 s7 - 36 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 12 , for in this verse Yahweh says : In that day I will
execute upon 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 12 17 - 22 - 25 - *-& 4 lb ~7 1 .
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 8 without introduction. As a Philistine oppression of forty
years is known to the author of Judges (I3 1 ), from which Samson only began
to deliver Israel (Jd. I3 5 - 25 ), it is not unlikely that this Eli document was once
read in that connexion. The argument that 2 27 ~ 36 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 I.-XV. XXI

Books of Samuel. The original independence of the document which we
have called SI. accounts for the insertion of one section which has puzzled the
critics. I refer to I3 8 ~ 15a , 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 138-15* was 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 io 8 . 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 i3&-i5a f 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 vA 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.

xxii 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 i6 1-13 , while 14" certainly prepares the way
for i6 14ff . The paragraph i4 47 " 51 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 12 " 14 where the proposi
tion to renew 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 affirmative 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
byj.

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 XVI.-2 SAMUEL I. xxiii

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 16 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. 1 " 13
are the logical sequel to 15 (Sm.) ; since the rejection of Saul
must be followed by some provision for his successor. The other
account I6 14 " 23 continues 14" (SI.), as has already been pointed
out.

The first definite clue in what follows seems to be i8 13 where
we read that Saul removed David from his presence (loua) by
giving him a command of troops engaged in service away from
the court. This points back to i6 21 where David had been made
his armour-bearer; iS 6 " 13 therefore belongs with i6 14 ~ 23 . It did
not follow immediately on that paragraph, however, because the
song of the women i8 6 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 iS 20 " 298
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 ffi is to be preferred to that of 3? in 17
and 18 will be discussed in the commentary. The presumption is in favour of the
shorter text, which is that of &lt;E.

XXIV INTRODUCTION

still more. This would properly introduce one of the attempts
upon David s life. Among several that offer themselves, the one
which fits most naturally in the story is i9 11 17 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, 2I 2 " 10 , and
the conclusion to this is the massacre of the priests 22* 2 - 6 " 23 .

The most striking duplicate in what follows is 23 19 -24 23 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 warrior
who invades the enemy s camp. The intervening matter offers
23 1 * 14 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: I6 14 - 23 ig 6 - 13 - 20 29 * i 9 u - 17 2I 2 - 10
2 2 i. 2. 6-23 2 ^-i4 25. 2 2 y^ 2 g ^o. 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 (iS 1 5 ). Saul, on the other hand, is his
enemy at once and tries to pin him to the wall (i8 14 " 16 ) the evi
dent reference to I6 14 " 23 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 1M9 ,
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, iS^-ig 7 .
But at the next exhibition of prowess Saul tries again to murder

ANALYSIS OF I SAMUEL XVI.-2 SAMUEL I. XXV

David with his own hand, ig 8 " 10 . David escapes and comes to
Samuel at Ramah, where he is miraculously saved from Saul s
various attempts to take him, ip 18 " 24 . This, it should be noticed,
is a duplicate account of what we have in io 10 " 12 , and as that be
longs to SI., this is naturally attributed to Sm., where we have
already placed it. The natural continuation is 2I 11 16 , David s
flight to Achish, with which we may perhaps connect 22 3 5 . It
has already been pointed out that 2^-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 21 23 , seems to point
in the same direction. Further, 23 15 18 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 M3 i^-iS 5 (in the text of (&) iS 14 " 19
i&-ig w I9 18 - 24 2i n - 16 22 W 2 3 11 -2 4 26 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 2I 1 ). 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, iS 9 11 . 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. 9 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, 1 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 2O 23 " 26 . A similar description is given in
8 16 " 18 . It 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 1 1 * and 24 seem to
belong together, and to have been originally continuous. Between

ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL II.-XXIV. XXvii

them was first inserted an old catalogue of exploits and of heroes,
2 1 15 - 22 23 s " 39 . This was in turn rent asunder by the two Psalms,
22 and 23 1 - 7 . 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 2I 1 14 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 Tractatus 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 we 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 I6 1 *- 23 and i; 11 ^ are inconsistent.
The last-mentioned paragraph he strikes out of the text, on the ground of its
omission by @. 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-
trdge (II. p. 14 ff.). The same scholar J gives the evidence of compilation,
beginning with the contradiction between i6 14-23 and i7 12ff - 5S . He adds that
these last are not consistent with 1 7 31 - 40 - 64 . Besides other inconsistencies, he
points out the duplicate nature of 23 19 -24 23 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 into
English by H. D., London, 1682 ; pp. 4, 22, 62.

t Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Fiinfte Auflage, Gottingen, 1823, III. pp.
464-533-

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

xxviii INTRODUCTION

He does not make a thoroughgoing analysis, and contents himself with refut
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 of
Judges. He 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 16.
From that point on, his analysis is not so successful.

Ewald f divides the historical books Judges to 2 Kings among six different
authors. He supposes the earliest materials to have been statistical, like 2 S.
23 8 - 39 , and that these were taken from the public records it is unfortunate
that he should class with them I Chr. u 10 -*? an( j I2 i-22. Next to these was a
narrative, near the events in point of time, which embraced such sections as

1 S. 13. 14 and 30 26 - 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 s - 4 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 27ff - 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. i4 52 -2 S. 8 18 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 Religionsideen des Alien Testament, Berlin, 1830,
p. 71 ff.

t Gesch. des Volkes Israel*, I. pp. 193-244; ETr. I. pp. 133-168.

J In De Wette s Einleitung, Achte Auflage, 1869.

In his edition of Bleek s Einleitung, 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 hisforischen Bucher, Berlin, 1889.

THE TEXT AND VERSIONS xxix

genuine member of the older document." 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. 1-14 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.f 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
clone before.

Kuenen (HCCP.} comes to substantially the same conclusion with Well-
hausen. A careful statement of the phenomena is given by Driver, LOT**.
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 (Einleitung*} 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 few exceptions,
Protestant scholars were dominated by them down to the present
century. The integrity of the Massoretic text was mildly ques-

* Die Backer Richter und Samuel, 1890.

t Budde s book was preceded by a study entitled " Saul s Konigswahl und
Verwerfung," ZATW. 1888. Cornill treated the same subject under the title "Ein
Elohistischer Bericht tiber die Entstehung des Israel. Konigtums," ZKWKL.
1885, an d in the Konigsbergcr Studien, 1887, and 7.ATW. 1890. His discussion
seems to have been of material help to Budde.

t 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 Ltctiones 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 (&gt; 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 @ 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 ( B ). 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 B 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 ( A ) .
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 A with B , 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 ( L ). 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 J^, 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 5b is remarked by Dr. and others. Cf. Stockmayer in
ZATW. XII. p. 218 f.

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 Super sunt, London, 1875.

The most complete apparatus for &lt;t is the well-known edition begun by
Holmes and continued by Parsons (HP.}, Oxford, 1798-1827. 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 (S^BL a g re e in a particular reading.
The text of B 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 A 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 (31)
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 it 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 Gothicm
Legionensis.

The Syriac version known as the Peshitta has apparently under-

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL xxxiii

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 & Where this version dif
fers materially from J^ 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 & 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 (2T). 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 (.1 S. 19).
We cannot doubt that this was an image in human form and that

* The need of a critical edition of S&gt; 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 ZATW.
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. 3I 19 - 30 - 35 (E), 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 earlier 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. i5 22 ) 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 BOOKS 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 19 ) : They have driven me forth from union 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 &gt;21 ), 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

XXXVI 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 Eli 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 Philistines. 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 dealing
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 XXXV11

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 alive 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 Questiones in Libros 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 Libros 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 (Kamchi) 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.

XXXV111 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 Annotationcs
of Grotius are embodied in the Biblia Illustrata 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
Wellhausen 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 Hebrew
Text of the Books of Samuel (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 Alten
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.

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 from what has been said in the Introduction
(see above p. xviii).

I. 1-IV. l a . 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. i; 1 19* (cf. i3 2 ). 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

4 t SAMUEL

the author of the Book of Judges had in mind the story of Eli or
of Samuel, or even of Saul, when he credited Samson with only
the beginning of deliverance (Jd. i3 5 ). Shiloh appears as the
sanctuary of Israel in the Book of Joshua in at least one passage
ascribed to JE (i8*" 10 ) as well as in others of later date, also in
Jd. i8 31 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 27 ~ 36 )
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 27 ~ 36 a barefaced insertion, I have
given reasons above (Introduction, p. xix f.) for supposing that it
was already a part of the account of Eli s sons which the author
used in writing the life of Samuel.

That the earlier 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~7 2a 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.
4.18 7^-17. The latter passage, however, uses the term, judge 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. 7 2 ~ 17 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 Ramathites, a

* Gesch. BB. p. 98. I have not seen the dissertation De Templo Silonensi to
which he refers.

J Cf. Bu., RS. p. 201, Ki. GH. II. pp. 29-32.

I. i-3 5

Zuphite of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah~\
cf. similar openings, Jd. i3 2 , i S. 9 1 . There has possibly been
conflation in the description. That he was a Ramathite would
be enough to indicate that he was of the hill country of Ephraim,
without the addition of those words. Ramah is a common Old
Testament name, designating at least eight different places. Four
localities 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 inclines 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 5 . 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 Israelis favoured
by the fact that niK3 does designate these armies in many pas
sages (Ex. 7 4 i2 17 Num. i 3 , 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 accomplishment of his ends,
Am. 3 13f&gt; 4 13 5 15 . He is therefore God of the nations, not of
Israel alone. Shiloh is the modern Seilun, and its situation is
described in Jd. 2i 19 as north of Bethel, east of the road which
goes up from Bethel to Shechem. There was a yearly festival there
in the time of the judges, Jd. 2 i 19ff -. In order to an understanding of
what follows, the narrator adds : And Eli and his two sons, Hophni
and Phinehas, were there priests to Yahweh~\ the text is that of (&gt;.

1. OTiDnn-fD] 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. 19 ) 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 av?D"\n,
for which we may cite &gt;nD~\n I Chr. 27 27 . D^DIX ovnoin] is grammatically
impossible. For the second word we have 2et0d B , which indicates suffi
ciently that the D has come from the following word. 5E seems to feel the
difficulty in the received text, for it renders NOJ n-aSriD. The restoration
of We. is now generally adopted, as above. am- 1 ] renders S^cmi, but
i Chr. 6 19 seems to go back to JQ. THDN] seems to have been originally
equivalent to Ephraimite, Jd. I2 5 I K. II 26 . In this place, however, &lt;& has tv
Nao-ei/3 E0pdt/t, so that the original may have been onsN rpx p as suggested
by We. 2. nnx] a number of MSS. have nnsn. anS JIN] otic TJV iraidlov
(5 seems more forcible. 3. nS&gt;n] the perfect with Waw Consecutive is used
of customary action, Dr., Tenses^, 120; Dav., Syntax, 54; Konig, Syntax,
367-6. TV?D Ni nri t"N ~i] &lt; B has simply 6 Avdpuwos; the shorter text has the
presumption in its favour. nn D&gt; D^D] Ex. I3 10 Jd. n 40 2i 19 , cf. Kon.,
Syntax, 266 a. nisax rum besides the Bible Dictionaries the student may
consult ZATW. VI. p. 17; PRE?, article Zebaoth; Smend, Alttest. Religions-
geschichte, p. 185 ff. On the pronunciation of the name of Israel s God,
ZA TW. III. p. 280 f., IV. p. 21 ff. ^Sjnja W] HXel xai ot dvo viol avrov .
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 @ 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 OEM. The
name Phinehas is said to mean negro in Egyptian (Lauth, ZDMG. XXV.
P-

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 Elkanah sacrificed (now he used to give portions to
Peninnah 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 BM, 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 (5 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 wilt thou weep and wilt not eat,
and luhy does thy heart reproach thee ?~\ The rhetorical question
is followed by another : Am I not better to thee than 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 njpSx nan ovn TPI as though he were going to relate
what happened on one particular occasion. He then drops into the frequen
tative tense frui as though what followed was a common experience, and this
is kept up until the end of v. 7 , where we find roam which would naturally
connect with mm. The result is an obscure sentence, and 4 unfortunately
gives little help. ovn TPI] i S. I4 1 2 K. 48-11-18 Job i 6 . There seems no
reason to separate the phrase from others like NTin n&gt;?3 ^rm, cf. also ttnnn ^rvi
i S. 2O 24 , Ges. 26 126^. frui] one is tempted to change to frm, which is
apparently favoured by &lt;&. But this would involve change of the following
verbs. rvrnjai rvja-S^i] &lt; B has simply /cai rots vZo? j avrfjs, which is original.
The expansion of such phrases by a scribe is too common to call for remark.

5. D^DN] is impossible; ir\V STL &lt;S B points to &gt;D~DDN, cf. Num. I3 28 Dt.
15* Jd. 4 9 Am. 9 8 , where it evidently means nevertheless. It is awkward, how-

8 i SAMUEL

ever, to say : Nevertheless he loved Hannah and Yahiueh had shut her womb.
We expect the author either to say only one portion ( ~naV) 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 ID. There is reason to suppose, therefore, that the corruption is
incurable in the present state of our knowledge: Kara TrpdtruTrov @ L ; tristis
3L seem to be attempts to render the text of p. -vna 3C 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 D^DN no. 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, I. 1 25 ff. In this place, however,
@ B renders /caret TTJV 6\tytv aiirrjs, evidently reading nmxa. This would join
very well to the preceding clause of (5 B . 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 nojnn, an abnormal form, Ges. 26 22 s. The
verb in the Hiphil is always to thunder, in the Qal to roar (Ps. 96 11 ). The
word is probably corrupt here, as neither of these meanings is appropriate.
After -naya we expect mention of the cause of Hannah s grief nnmn -napa
would give a good sense. @ B seems to have read nr iiaya. 7. na^] must have
Elkanah in mind as the actor, which indeed he was. There seems to be no
reason for changing to niryn (Dr.). The nrhf which follows must be flhSp of
course, though 3L seems to favour on 4 ??; maa] should be ma. The words
naam njoyan p make a difficulty by their abrupt change of subject. It is not
unlikely therefore that run is represented in the last three letters of the first
verb. Kl. s proposal to read run Dam, and Hannah covered her face in sign
of grief, is attractive. 6S&gt; seems to have read Djfani, /cat i)0u/u6i. With no
nnSy cf. DHNX no I S. i8 30 . 8. After run (& introduces /cat elirev atfxcp ISou
y6, Kvpie Kal clirev afcy. This is entirely appropriate, but if original it is diffi
cult to see how it was lost. For nnS has : ri tari aoi Sri, which has no claim
to be more original, but probably goes back to a variant Hebrew text. jrv
-paS] TVTrret 0-e i] KapSla &lt;rov, which indicates laa*? ^a\ This is more appro
priate, for aS jj-v is used of the heart that hardens itself against its neighbour,
Dt. 1 5 10 . 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 Yahwefi] the read
ing is that of (. The condition of things is described in the fol-

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 5 . 10. She was greatly distressed] lit. bitter of soul,
cf. 2 K. 4 27 , 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 19 . 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*~ 22 (E) : If 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 shalt 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. Q& carries the like
ness to Samson further by adding : and wine and fermented
liquor he shall not drink~\ cf. Jd. i3 5 . And wilt remember me~\
reads like a reminiscence of Gen. 3O 22 , where God remembers
Rachel in giving her a son.

9. nWa nSsN nns run opm] the last word is unnecessary, and difficulty is
found in accepting nSsN, because she had not eaten. The latter is somewhat
relieved by reading oSsN with . The objection that she finds the family still
at their meal in v. 18 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

10 i SAMUEL

njwa, which is possible, only I should take a letter from the preceding word
n?teon SDN nnw = after the eating of the boiled flesh, 2 13 . The conjecture of
Kl. rwVa nSjN nnns rum, which is adopted by Bu., seems too remote from
any external testimony. It seems necessary, however, to insert with &lt; 3X&gt;nm
mrp ^jflS (Th., We., al.). atB" . . . ^; i] a circumstantial clause, nine is else
where used in the plural, and should, perhaps, be so pointed here, with (.
10. roan roai] the emphatic adverbial infinitive. The imperfect tense indi
cates continued action : she kept weeping bitterly. 11. ^ncN nN naBTTN 1 ?! is
superfluous and is also lacking in @ B ; we may disregard it. o^tww jnr] 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 lips, 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 i3 24 : why 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 away thy wine and go from the presence of Yahweh] the
second half is found in ( only, but seems to be original. In (
Eli 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 : No, my Lord ; an afflicted woman am I, and I
have not drunk wine or intoxicating drink] the two are often men
tioned together. But I poured out my soul before Yahweh, cf. Ps.
62 9 (pour 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. ip 22 ,
i Sam. 2 12 . 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 20 . 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 now. The soft answer
turns away wrath. 17. Eli not only dismisses her in peace, but

I. 12-18 II

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

12. mm] is possible, as one of the rare cases of the perfect with weak
i (so Dr., Notes, and Tensed, 133). But it is more likely that it is the
mistake of a scribe who thought the verb continued the preceding sen
tence. Restore wi (Bu.). yjonn 1 ? nnann] the main verb expresses the
idea which we express adverbially : she prayed much. Similar cases are
r\\v$-) a^an : he did well ; mry 1 ? nnc : he did quickly. i*?y\ introduces the
circumstantial clause : she continued praying while Eli was observing her
mouth. 13. N^n njm] the casus pendens : As for Hannah, she was speak
ing in her heart ; only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard^ *
the whole sentence is explanatory of what Eli was observing. The name of
Hannah is here omitted by &lt; BL . na^m] resumes the story introduced by
the \mi at the beginning of v. 1 2 . maa] on the form of the adjective, Ges. 26
84 b, 24. 14. p-onsri] one of the few cases of the old feminine ending,
Ges. 26 47 o. TS&gt;*c] &lt; substitutes Kctl iropevov (/ecu #7reA0e L ) tic irpoff&trov
Kup/ou. The clause seems to me one likely to be changed, to avoid the seem
ing identification of Yahweh with the Ark. 15. niTr.iir&gt;] harsh of spirit
seems impossible. Most modern scholars have adopted Th. s emendation to
DT n^p : i} &lt;TK\rjpa Tj^pa &lt;&, cf. Job 3o 25 , where DV na&gt;,i is one in misfortune.
"O" ] fruit-wine or cider, cf. Benziger, Hebr. Arch dologie, p. 96. 16. *?N
^flS . . . pr] would naturally mean do not give . . . into the power 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 pj followed by D, and we should
probably emend to pa?, throwing out ^*h. Kl. s &gt;sS does not occur with this
verb, and Dr. s ^ is also without parallel. Cf. Gen. 42 30 , a^jnna uns p" 1 ) :
and took us for spies. Sj^a] is an obscure word, cf. BDB. s.v., Moore on
Judges I9 22 , Baudissin in PRE? II. p. 548 f., Cheyne, in the Expositor, 1895,
and in the Expository Times, June, 1897, witn Baudissin s reply, ibid., Nov.
1897, and Jensen s remarks, ibid., Apr. 1898. D&gt;ai TW] &lt;5 seems to have
found but one of the two words, probably TPiy which was not definite enough
for a Hebrew scribe, so that an explanatory word was added. \~nat] decid
edly less forcible than tuT^ra. @, probably TOixn. 17. ( - L &gt;^ for -]nSwr,
cf. Ges. 26 23 c. 18. SDNHI] 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-

* &lt;S L 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 @ : and came into the chamber and
ate with her husband and drank will be a further expansion. If original, we
cannot account for its abbreviation. n^-prTN 1 ? rvjfli] KCU TO irpbawirov aur^s
ov &lt;ruve / 7re&lt;rej&gt; . The only parallel cited for ^ (Job 9 - 7 ) is of doubtful integrity.
It seems better therefore to correct nS vn to n^oj, 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 1 .
And Yahweh remembered her] as he remembered Rachel Gen.
30 22 . 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, 2 233 . 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 up 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 ofwine~] 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 19 . "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 Eli] 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 I, on my part, have
given him to Yahweh. All the days that he shall live he is givtn 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 J^ adds and he bowed to Yahweh. If this refers
to Samuel, it seems appropriate enough. It is, however, lacking
in ( B , 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 Ramah. The Song was inserted in J^
between the two halves of this sentence ; in (&gt; it comes before the
first half.

20. D-IDTI nispnS] similarly njtrn nepn 1 ? Ex. 3422 2 Chr. 24 28 .* run nnrn
iSri] (85 puts K.a.1 &lt;rvv\Q.pev at the end of v. 19 . The word has been interpo
lated in both recensions. Before o, and 1& insert and she said; a case of
explicative expansion. pn*?lW nvTD o] as Kimchi sees, the theory of the
author is that ^}*\E& is a contraction of VND SWB. But such contraction is
unheard of elsewhere. There is an exegetical tradition in favour of SNJIID&&amp;gt;
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. rnjTNi] 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, KO.\ rets etfx&lt;*s aurov KCU 7rd&lt;ra5
rets Se/cdras TTJS 7175 ayroD. 22. SSP -9] a parallel case is Jd. i6 2 , so that
there is no need to insert ou/c ava^a-ofj-at @ L . n&gt;nji] apparently intended
by the punctuators as a Niphal. It is better to read it as the Qal imperfect
on account of ^s~nN which follows perhaps the well-known cohortative
with weak i : / will bring him up that we may see the face of Yahweh.
23. TOTON] must be understood of some promise. The only one of which

* According to these passages we should expect the singular nopn 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 fulfilled in the birth
of Samuel. It seems better therefore to read TUT with $ TO tt-e\dbi&gt; K TOU
o-T6fj.ar6s &lt;rov. 24. ny ^y nnoa] tv n6&lt;rx&lt;t&gt; Tpteri^ovrt, @ = tt V& a ifl3; cf.
Gen. I5 9 . The reading of &lt;J| is to be restored. At the end of the verse nyjm
"W is unintelligible; /cat TO iraiSdpiov per* aiirdv &lt;S is superfluous, though &lt;S L
helps it by reading Ka.1 flvrjKdov for inssm. In the present state of our
knowledge we must be content to omit the words; the boy was young is an
impossible rendering, and besides, the sentence is superfluous. Dr. conjectures
that the words HD? ijnni belong at the end of v. 25 , 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 ^y SN nyjn DN Nan)
nnj? ijMrn. 26. ^IN o] a phrase claiming the favourable notice of the one
addressed, Jd. 6 15 . 28. For the DJ&gt; corrclativum (Th. after Clericus) cf.
Gen. 2O 5 , NVTOJ she for her part. Swpn is to encourage a person to ask
by granting his request, then to give without a previous request. .TH IS&gt;N]
seems impossible : Ti iS N seems indicated by @2TJ5 and is found in one
codex. nimS D^ ima"i] some MSS. have wntpM. The whole clause is lack
ing in @ BA which give a substitute at the beginning of 2 11 . It is represented
in &lt; 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. i-s 15

A translation is given by Professor Briggs in his Messianic Prophecy (N.Y.,
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 Yahweh,

For there is none righteous like our God,

And there is no rock besides thee.

1. nDNrn run SSenm] &lt; B has simply KO.\ eiirev, which is enough. ySy]
tffTcpeudr) (& may go back to fDN; but as this verb with aS might convey the
meaning of obstinacy (cf. Dt. 2 30 ), it seems better to adhere to J. Vhe
elevation of the horn and the widening of the mouth are familiar figures
in Hebrew poetry, Ps. 92 11 Is. 57*. The second rnrro should doubtless be
^nSwa with &lt;S and 28 MSS. 2. The second member is -jnSa fN o. Evi
dently something has been lost ; and as has S/KCUOS, we cannot do better
than to insert it. But having followed &lt;& in this, it seems better to go with
it also in the interchange of "jnSj and irnS&o. The parallelism is thus
improved. For iw, cf. Ps. i8 32 .

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 natn mn are duplicates, and that the same is true of the double nnaj.
It answers every purpose to read nnaj nann SK. For pnp, cf. Ps. 3i 19 .
rnjn SN] Job 36*. The plural is probably emphatic, and might be rendered
all-knowing (Briggs). niSSj? uaru xVi] et les crimes ne passent pas impunis
(Reuss) is hardly justified. At least the rnSSj? should be described, in order
that we may understand that crimes are meant. The Qre, reading i s i (also

I 6 i SAMUEL

in the text in some copies), makes a possible sense: And by him actions are
weighed. But (, reading KCU 0eds eroifjuifav eTriT^Seu/iara aurou, makes us
suspect the original to have been mSSy fph Sxi (SS). 4. D\TI] Th. and
Dr. cite Is. 2i 17 in favour of the reading. But it seems simpler to correct
to nnn : 170-0^770-6 . 5. i-orj] hire themselves out would be appropriate,
but the verb is nowhere found in this stem, and non, suggested by &lt;J|, is
preferable. iVin] needs something to complete the sense. Briggs takes
n? 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 "Oj? iStn,
which is adopted by Bu. : iraprjKav yijv @ does not seem to help us, but
habitaverunt \ points to irapyicrja-av, which is also confirmed by the Armenian
(according to HP). I have, therefore, ventured to restore p-m r.rv, cf. Ps.
25 18 . -i&gt;7] could undoubtedly be spared. Sb omits, but ( represents it by
rt . nSScN] Ges&gt; 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. IN] is represented by /ecu alone in : et 3L. 8. Si and p&gt;2N
are parallel, Ps. 72 18 . PD^ND] Many codd. have net^NDi, which is also the
reading of (3L. The nstPN is the mound of rubbish which accumulates near
an Oriental town. Beggars often spend the night upon it in default of a
lodging. aonj] dwaffruv \a&v ( B : dwaffruv Xaou ( L , evidently reading
ojronj, which seems more vigorous. The couplet in brackets is not found
in (, and is therefore probably not original. In place of it we find : 5i5oi&gt;s
fvx^v r&lt;$ i&gt;xo/J.tv(i&gt;, Kal ev\6yrj(Tv err] dcKaiov, 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. mm] read nn&gt; with
(g. _ -one] is confirmed by (5, but is of course to be taken collectively :
vano Qre. V?y] vhy Qre. Bu. proposes ]vV&gt;% which would not be out of
place. In this verse &lt;& inserts six lines from Jer. 9 22f -. For mrv in line 3
&lt; has simply auro s. irv^s] 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
dedication and originally read : And she left him there before
Yahweh and went to Ramah ; bi4t the boy continued ministering
to Yahweh in the presence of Eli the priest.

11. KO.I KaTtXurev atirbv &cei hAiriov nvplov (5 is represented in pj by the
last three words of I 28 . It is scarcely possible to doubt that @ has the original,
and that its proper place is here. nnmn njpSs ^i] can scarcely be original,
as Hannah has been the prominent character in what precedes. We should
read nns^n Y?m or nnnin W^M. The words in*3~Sp are lacking in &lt;J| B and
superfluous. mtt 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 be Hal, is parallel to daughter of belial used in i 16 . We must be
careful not to assume that belial was at this time a proper name.
Whatever its origin, it denotes extreme depravity. They knew not

I 8 i SAMUEL

YahweK\ 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 pries fs servant used to
come and say to the offerer : Give roa sting-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. HN o^nan BDPDI] had nsa pan BBPDI; this is confirmed by 9 MSS.
and seems preferable. The nearest parallel is Dt. i8 3 TND D^njn BB .PD.
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. i8 3 , where it certainly means the due of the priests from
the people. On this account it belongs with the preceding, though we expect
an nN to precede BBPD. For o&gt;jan B^P We. and Dr. read D&gt;JP wW. 14. rom
doubtless should be the pointing, with &lt;@&gt;. Instead of four vessels &lt;& has but
three. la] should be corrected to V? with &lt;&%&. nVtJO DP] the tautology
is relieved by &lt;J| B 00&lt;rai Kvply tv S^X^/i, and this should be restored. It is
not certain that ac should be retained with this reading (Kl., Bu.). 15. DJ]
evidently introduces the climax. np&gt;] Xcu&gt; (5J5. The reading of | geems
more likely to be original. 16. IDNM] as pointed by ffl would describe a
single case. It seems better to point "ictoi and to understand it as stating a
hypothesis. vSx is not represented in &lt;&. iS A?.] sS Qre and in 19 codd.,
besides &lt;5j$. ^nnpS] is justified by analogy, cf. Dr. Tenses* 1367; but it
is smoother to change to NTpSl (Kl.). 17. nirv ^TPN, which is inserted in
different places in different recensions of (5, is possibly not original, as it is

II. 12-21

superfluous and may have crept in from the next verse. D tPjsn] lacking
in &lt;5, seems to be an insertion intended to lighten the categorical assertion
that the priests treated the offerings with contumely.

18-21. The narrative returns to Samuel who continued serving
Yahweh~\ lit. the face of Yahweh, which means Yahweh himself.
Samuel is described as a lad girded with a linen ephod~\ where
the ephod is evidently a priestly garment, 22 18 2 S. 6 14 . 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 seems 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 28 , where Hannah expressly says she has given him to Yahweh.
21. And Yahweh visited Hannah~\ as he did Sarah, Gen. 2I 1 , so
that she gave birth to three sons and two daughters ^ in addition to
Samuel. But the lad Samuel grew up in the presence of Yahweh.

19. pp S&gt;&gt;2i] the ^"3 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 pp Kl. proposes fir^, cotton, which, however, occurs
nowhere in Biblical Hebrew. 20. DE"] would perhaps answer our pur
pose. But airorlaai (5 B indicates bS&lt;n as does dprairoSctKret &lt;5 L . SC
mm 1 ?] cannot be right, though the attempt is made to translate it, which
one asked of Yahiveh. But there is no reason for the indefinite verb here :
Eli would certainly have said nSt&lt;B&gt; or nSNS&gt; and would also have used jc.
On the basis of I 28 we naturally restore nS NS n (Bu.). has e^pTjo-as which
is evidently r\Ss:rn, cf. Ex. I2 36 . But it seems unfair to give the merit to Elka-
nah. icpc 1 ? rjSm] better to make the suffix plural as in some codd.; &lt;S
however makes the verb singular. 21. ips"^] seems without motive : ipBM
&lt;J5 should be restored. inm] is lacking in ( B , cf. I 20 , which shows how
easily such insertions are made. After iSm insert ~\Y; @ B .

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

2O i SAMUEL

22-25. Eli s ineffectual rebuke. The paragraph joins di
rectly to v. 17 , 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 ivhat 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 : Why 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 . . . the
people of YahweJi} 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 Yahweh
was minded to slay theni\ , 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
larger and better in the estimation of Yahweh, and in the estima
tion of men.

22. Su] is lacking in &lt;S BL . The second half of the verse brings as an
additional accusation against the priests that they used to lie ivith the women
who ministered at the gate of the Tent of Meeting] the sentence is suspicious;
first, because it is lacking in &lt;S B . 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 8 . For these reasons the half verse is to be regarded as a late inter
polation (We., Kl., Dr., Bu.). 23. D jn DonaTnN] is lacking in (S B and
difficult to construe: for I hear of your evil dealings (RV.) cannot be the
meaning. It seems better to leave the words out. HND] IK frd/maro* is
more vivid. !r?x oyn] is impossible. The n*?x has come in by false duplica
tion of the following SN. has Kvpiov which perhaps represents DTI^N; but

II. 22-26 21

notice the phrase nvr op at the end of the next verse. 24. jJDty -OJN IIPM
o^3&gt;D] seems unintelligible : which I hear the people circulating @C would
require oyn to be expressed before the participle : You make the people trans
gress would require the addition of ODN, 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 omaj?n or omaxn, ye lead
astray. But Sx at the beginning of the verse suggests a negative command,
in which case there has been radical corruption. 25. i^ci] as the direct
object is without analogy we may read V? S^fli; We., Bu., al., point
26. S"m] is lacking in &lt;S B .

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 7ff- i K.
i3 ltf -, where a prophet is sent with a rebuke, and of others, Jd. 2 1 " 5
lo 11 16 , 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 25 , might
be continued perfectly well by the account of the capture of the
Ark beginning at 4 1 . 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 27 ~ 36
were already in his text, while the interpolator would have no
motive to insert 2 27 36 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." Bu., 1?S. 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. 6 ,

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. i3 6 8 , in a passage ascribed to J. by Prof. Moore, once applied
to Moses in Deuteronomy (33 1 , E), and once also in Joshua (i4 6 ,
a passage Deuteronomistically coloured). Thus saith Yahweh~\
is a standing phrase in the prophetic books. / certainly revealed
myself to thy father s house, while they were in Egypt, servants to
the house of Pharaoh~\ 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 J^, 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 Alttcstamcntlichen 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, and they that despise me
shall be lightly esteemed. 31. The prediction to which this leads
up : / 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 shalt look, being in straits and with
envioits 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 1
do not cut off from 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 Eli there shall be a faithful priest : All that is
in my heart and in my desire he will do, and I will build him an
enduring house~\ that is, a continuous posterity, cf. 2 S. 7 11 , Yahweh
makes known to thee that Yahweh 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. Eli 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
hotise 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 i 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^ns no 1 ?] might in connection with anvm mean belonging
to the house of Pharaoh. But &lt; is probably right in inserting 5ou\wv; read,
therefore, fl n^V DH3&gt;. 28. nrai] as an infinitive absolute representing a
finite verb, the word might pass. But it is simpler to restore imsi with (g!L.
The scribe probably thought he was going to begin the verse with Tom nrai
corresponding to vnSju nSjj above; mSyS seems to stand for mSyn ? or
to be corrupted from it. nNB&gt;S] probably nsc Si with (511. At the end of
the verse ets f3pw&lt;ru&gt; @ should be restored. 29. nsS] prefix 1 with (fH.
i3j?an] the verb occurs only Dt. 32 15 , where it means to kick. But whether it
would take 2 in the meaning to kick at is not certain. {& evidently read JO^P
which makes good sense. pyn THIS -irs] is unintelligible in this context:
dvaidei 600aX^v &lt;J| may represent p&gt;D i8 9 (Kl.). This makes good sense,
and we must suppose &gt;nM* ns&gt;x inserted to help out the unintelligible p&gt;D
after the pj?D had become mutilated. DDsnjn^] may be conjecturally
altered to DHN snsnS, for it is Eli s indulgence to his sons that is rebuked :
cvev\oyeiff6ai would be T^snS. For ID;? 1 ? we should perhaps read ^&gt;j?S
(Bu.) although it is equally good simply to leave off the h as a duplicate
of the preceding letter. 30. THEN -HDN] only the second word is indicated
by &lt;8f. 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. rnni-DNj] is frequent in the prophets.
31. ^P ] TO air^pua, &lt;rov . The latter alone seems to be justified by the
concluding words of the verse (contra Dr., KL). jnrnN should be made to
conform to the word just discussed. 32. The verse, down to "jn&gt;33, is
omitted by B , 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 1. But to make sense of it is another matter.
p^D ix nc32m] is nonsense; Kl. is probably right in seeing a reference to
the pjJD which we have changed to ppc above (very possibly the form may
have been fipp). In that case, the simplest correction will be to read pyni
instead of p?D. For ^tO" I have ventured, in so desperate a passage, to put
3^N. 33. Trp] read vry &lt;5. ^nsSi] is pointed as a Hiphil with the
n dropped. The reference to Dt. 28 65 is so evident, however, that the correc
tion to ITX-H 1 ? seems obvious. -po:] read itfoj . D^N cannot mean
cum ad virilem aetatem venerit 3t. Read with &lt;& DV&gt;JX 2in3. 34. ODrrSx
DHJCI] is superfluous and perhaps a gloss. -35. JDNJ no] cf. 25 28 . 36. ^o]
is lacking in &lt;S B and superfluous. onS"^3Di] also lacking in (H B . orr | (5 1 *
adds TOV Kvpiov, confirmed by I, and doubtless original,

II. 36-IIL 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. Eli 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 u " 14 ; 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 the word of Yahweh was rare in those days,
there was no . . . vision] the qualifying word may mean public
or widespread, 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. 4 . So
the sentence is : // came to pass in that day, when 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 i SAMUEL

renthesis is difficult to maintain. The other items are important for
the picture they present of the sanctuary. It is evident that Eli 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 dwelling 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. 2f\ 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 9 . 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 3 . 4. The text must be restored at this point, where we ex
pect the most detailed account, so as to read : Yahweh stood and
called : Samuel ! Samuel ! The repetition of the name is one of
the marks of E among the Pentateuchal documents, Gen. 22 11 46 2
Ex. 3 4 . 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 catting the

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

III. 3~io 27

fad t 9. Hence his instruction : Go and lie down ; 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. VID]] seems to give no good meaning. v?r&gt; which We. substitutes, is
too violent in meaning for this place, though it is possible that the 3 has come
from the preceding word. 2. vr&gt;*i] should be read with the Qre. niro 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 SPIN Dt. 2 25 - 31 , SnK
*f?"U Jos. 3 7 . It is better, therefore, to point nimj. sS] should perhaps
be N 1 ?) (&lt;&). 3. DTJ is usually construed with the imperfect tense as here,
Dr., Tenses 3 , 27/8. 4. fropii] In v. 10 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 @ r ACCU Kar&rrTj /cai ^/cdXeae KI//HOS.
The omission of 3^m 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. SNisty Ss] should be ^MtDP
SiOCi? as below, and here also in &lt;@&gt;. 5. Jjn] the regular answer when one s
name is called. 6. Qp^i] is lacking in &lt; BL . By its omission we lose
nothing, and the second call is made uniform with the first. 7. Dit3]
dov\eve irplv 77 L seems to be a case where a Greek editor tried to make
sense out of a text he did not understand.* &gt;m] should be pointed as an
imperfect after mo (Bottcher, followed by Th.). 9. f^t*] Tj adds 6 Ka\uv t
which is a correct interpretation of the writer s meaning. mm -m] (5 B has
simply XdXet, which is what Samuel actually says in v. 10 . It seems to me
more likely that the name is a later insertion than a later omission.
10. nvD3~a&gt; OD] cf. Jd. I6 20 . 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 i SAMUEL

Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But 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, Darstd-
lungen aus d. Sittcngcsch. Roms*, III. p. 571 ff.

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. 2i 1:J Jer. iQ 3 ,
both describing the effect of news of calamity. The verb is used
once of the trembling of the lips from fear (Hab. 3 16 ). 12. In
that day I 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 shalt tell him ] a slight change from the received
text that 1 will punish his house forever for the guilt of his sens,
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 (. 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 smelling an
offering, 26 19 .

It has been supposed by some that the revelation to Samuel
was 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. 12 to the preceding
message to Eli has already been pointed out, as has the bearing of
this fact upon the comparative age of the whole chapter.

11. nry] on the use of the participle in divine announcements, cf. Dr.,
y 135, 3. 12. SN] in the first occurrence at least we should read
The interchange of the two prepositions is so common as scarcely to call

in. n-is 29

for remark. 13. iS \-njrn] cannot mean for I have told him (RV.), but
must be and I will make known to him. This seems unnecessary, and the
conjecture of Kl. (adopted by Bu.) that we should read iS rn.i.-n 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. pjn] the construct, govern
ing the clause which follows, is doubtless possible, Ges. 20 130^. It seems
awkward here, however, and the word is left out by Bu. on conjecture. As it
seems better to have some authority, I prefer to emend according to @ AB which
reads vja fij?3 but omits jrv IPS. anS D^po] cannot mean made themselves
vile, AV., or bring a curse upon themselves, RV. All the analogies are in
favour of DTI^N D^SpD which was read by &lt;&. The passage is one of those
altered by the scribes (tiqqune sophertnt], cf. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueberset-
zungen, p. 271. nro] is used in the sense of restrain only here, so that there
may be an error of the text. 14. yivi] is regularly followed by DN giving the
oath a negative force, or by sS~DN where the force is affirmative. "ID:TH] 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., Deuteronomy, p. 425, BDB., s.v.

15-18. The message delivered. Samuel lay until the morn
ing, when he rose and opened the doors of the house of YahweJi\
a part of his regular work as servant of the sanctuary. That he
was afraid to make the vision known is easily understood.
16, 17. Eli s adjuration, so may God do to thee and more too, if
thou conceal 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: It is Yahweh, let him do what
is good in his sight] compare David s expression in 2 S. I5 26 .

15. After npan, add np23 oatPM which has fallen out of f$ on account of the
resemblance of ipan and "ipaa; it is preserved by &lt;&. The doors here men
tioned are another evidence that the House of Yahweh was not a tent.
16. S*oo3&gt;~nK] some MSS. have f v~^K. 18. UBD] &lt; L adds prjfj.a (=-m),
which seems necessary to the sense. wya] the Qre substitutes vrya as

30 l SAMUEL

usual. With the phrase the good in fits eyes, compare the right in his eyes, the
evil in his eyes. Strictly parallel with the present passage are Gen. i6 6 19*
(both J) and Jd. I9 2 * (late). But we find aiani itt"n once in Dt. (6 18 ) and
ararr^M in Jd. io 15 (E). Exactly like the text are i S. I 28 1486.40 2 S. I9 28 ,
representing both the main streams of narrative from which our history is
made up.

III. 19-IV. l a . 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
Yahweh. Yahweh was with him and let none of his words fall to
the ground^ that is, he confirmed them, so that they were not
useless. 20. And all Israel knew, from Dan to Beersheba~\ cf.
Jd. 2O 1 2 S. 3 10 17"; that Samuel was authenticated as a prophet
of Yahweh ] the evident idea of the author is that the people came
to the sanctuary to consult the prophet. 21, IV. l a . The verse
as it stands is tautological. By the change of a single word, we
get an excellent continuation of the preceding : And 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 was established as a prophet from one end
of the land to the other) but Eli was exceeding old and his sons
kept on doing worse and worse before YahweJi] what is here in
parenthesis is duplication of m , but the rest is possibly original.

19. For ^Dn] (5 may have read SDJ, cf. Jos. 2i* 8 2 K. io 10 . 21. Bu.
proposes to interchange this verse and the following, partly on the ground of
&lt;&, and partly because that order seems more natural. The difficulty, however,
is caused by nxnn 1 ? mrp ^D^ 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 mrp to *?JO2 the difficulty is avoided, and the verses
fall into a natural order. njonS is an unusual form for an infinitive construct,
but occurs Jd. I3 21 , cf. Ges. 26 75 c, Stade, Gram. 622 b. nw -^:na nStw]
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 (, apparently without exception.

III. I9-1V. 2 31

IV. l b -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. l b -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 J^ by the same cause which made the last
words of 3 21 illegible. Restoring the reading from (, we get :
And it came to pass in those days that the Philistines gathered for
war against Israel~\ 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 7 ),
who derives them from Caphtor. Cf. Dt. 2^ Jer. 47*. At the
opening of this campaign the Israelites camped at Ebenezer.
According to y 12 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. i2 18 ((). 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 in 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 &lt; which begins Kal iyevfjdij tv rait
tKelvais Kal &lt;rvvadpolovrai d\X60iAoi els Tr6\e/j.ov tirl I&lt;rpa^\. 1 his is

32 I SAMUEL

now generally adopted as the original beginning of the section. It seems to
he found in all MSS. of (@. OT^S n*o,iS] should probably be Dns-ipS &lt;S.
On the Philistines, Ebers, Aegypten und die Biicher Mosis (1868), pp. 130-
237; Max-Miiller, Asien und Europa (1893), PP- 387-390. iryn psn] can
not be right. The first word must be IUN (We.). PBN] We. (Comp., p. 254)
identifies this with the Aphek of 2Q 1 I K. 2O 26 2 K. I3 17 . Cf. Buhl, Geog. t
p. 212. 2. nopS iDiri] cf. 2 S. io- 10 . tram] gives no suitable sense here :
KCU K\ivev ( points to am (adopted by We. al.). It should be noticed, how
ever, that nsj is nowhere used of a battle, so that the emendation is doubt
ful; tt pni would give a good meaning and would easily be corrupted into ran,
cf. 2 S. 2 17 . S*ott"] prefix "N with &lt;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 the Sheikhs determine what is to
be done. They recognize that Yahweh has smitten them~\ the de
feat of course could not be because their God was less powerful
than the deities of the enemy. Let us bring 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. n 11 . The cry which was
raised when the Ark set out at the head of the people was (Num.
xo 35 ) : Rise, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let thy
haters flee 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. 5o 2tt , and of the box set by the side of the
altar to receive the money contributions of the worshippers, 2 K.
1 2 10 . The author of Deuteronomy ( io 3 ) 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 Yahweh s 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. 3-1 1 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. 3 16 . The com
moner name in the historical books is Ark of Yahwch 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. mn&gt; nna pis] TTJV Kifturbv rou 0eou TJ/J-UV B ; both readings are com
bined in &lt;S L . The original is evidently imVs piN, for which a scribe substi
tuted the Deuteronomic phrase. We must judge in the same way of the
insertion of nna in v. 4 (twice) and in v. 6 . So far the revision was car
ried and then given up. In all these cases the testimony of B 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 pns with its expansions, are Deuteronomistic, and
nnj?n p^N belongs to P. The original name must have been simply mn&gt; jnN,
for which might be substituted DTI^N pns or D^nSn jm. The only one of
these used in the Hexateuch is nin&gt; 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 oTiS^n pn 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. mn&gt; nna jnx in vv. 3 - 6 is the result of interpolation, as already noted,
and so is D^nSsn nna pnx, which occurs in v. 4b .

2. ViOB" inSs pis which is used in 5 7 - 8 - 10 - n 6 8 , in the mouth of the Philis
tines is the natural expression for them to use.

3. nw pis is used 4 6 ; it then gives place to DTi^n pns, but is resumed
5 3 - 4 , interrupted by 5 10 , but again resumed in 6 1 , being used throughout the
rest of the chapter and in j l , which belongs with it.

4. D-riSs p-\s is used only once (4 11 ) ; but nSnn pis characterizes 4 13 -
5 2 , in which it occurs eight times. It recurs again twice in 5 10 .

The verse 5 10 can well be spared and is probably an insertion. The section
4.11-22 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 L 2 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 s^i should be N3P\ which was read by 6.
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 5 m (E). 6. The Philistines 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 ( B . 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 every sort of plague and with pestilence] the received
text has with every sort of plague in the wilderness. This might be
condoned in the mouth of the Philistines, but it would hardly occur
to an Israelitic writer to impute the inaccuracy to them. 9. Take
courage] Jd. 2O 22 ; 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. i8 17 i9 9 . The slaughter in Israel
is given as thirty thousand footmen] cf. Jd. 2O 2 i S. 15* 2 S. io 6 .

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 f^ so-on 3t&" rnto* rnnvnna jvw of which 6 B
omits nna and nisax. The presumption is in favour of the shorter form, and it
is probable that aonon 3a &gt;&lt;) also is a later insertion, for no reason can be given
why the author should so describe Yahweh here, cf. 2 S. 6 2 . aan] is inappro
priate. The word D2&gt; is not represented in &lt;8F. an proposed by Kl. would not
be out of place. But on the testimony of &lt;S it seems better to read simply
the i. The names Hophni and Phinehas read like an afterthought. 5. r na]

iv. 4-1 S 35

is to be omitted, with (5. 3 " 1 ? 1 ] n the form Ges. 26 72^, who makes it
Oal. 6. n;npn Sip] cf. np;xn k ip v. 14 . np] on the pointing, Ges. 26 37 f.
7. The speech of the Philistines varies somewhat in the different recensions
of , and all differ from f|. The latter has simply DTI^N o. But it must be evi
dent that 2rvn L N is the appropriate word. As this is rendered by @ we naturally
adopt it, and with it the context as translated above. The reading of @ L OUTOS 6
0e6s auTiDv seems to be a correction of the phrase in &lt;5I B . jo] should be read
1N3 with B . u 1 ? MX] &lt; adds ee\ou rj/j.ds, Kvpie, o-rjucpov, 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. VCPN
cr*?^] cf. Ex. 5 7f - 1 S. I4 21 IQ 7 . 8. an-nxn] ffrepeuv ( B seems to render onoNn,
which is more appropriate, so Cappellus, Notae Criticae, p. 433. -o^a] 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, ( reading /ecu tv rrj epi^y. This is of course ungrammatical, but
may conceal "0131 as conjectured by We. and adopted by Dr., Bu., al.
9. The two imperatives are continued by two perfects with waw consecutive,
Dr., Tenses 9 , 112. annrtai] &lt;@l seems to render oinsnSji. 10. irnS i] as
(f| B 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 Benjamitc
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 2 is 32 . 13. The verse is difficult to understand.
The received text ( Qre) makes Eli sit by the side of the road,
watching] 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 9 . 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 i SAMUEL

rupts the narrative and is apparently a redactional insertion. If
original, it belongs after the first clause of v. 14 . 16. I am he that
is come from the ranks ] the speaker takes for granted that some
one was expected. 17. To Eli s question the answer is given in
four particulars : Israel fled before the Philistines ; there was a
great slaughter of the people ; thy two 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 Eli s solici
tude, the old man fell from his seat backward by the side of the
gate, and his neck was broken, and he died] the author adds in ex
planation that the man was old and heavy. The additional re
mark : he had judged 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. fWja B^N] is possible, but more natural is &gt;j&gt;n^a tt"N, which is
favoured by (5. 13. -p] ^&gt; Ore and some MSS., is undoubtedly correct.
It seems unnecessary to change to Ta or T 1 ?, however, as is done by some
commentators. HCXD pn] would naturally be interpreted the Mizpah road.
But the punctuators give us nsxp, which is confirmed by @. This version,
however, reads irapct TTJV irvXyv CKOTTCVUV rty odbv = Tnn ncxD "ijjtfn "p, which
is restored by Th. 14. pnn is the confused noise made by a crowd of people.
15. The verse is expanded in &lt;& by the repetition (substantially) of the
greater part of v. 14 . 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 ninety-eight years @ has ninety. nnp p^jn] for which the
Orientals give icp Qre, seems harsh in spite of the parallels adduced by Dr.
Notes. The confusion of n and t is so easy that it seems better to restore the
plural here. Cf. I K. 14*. Twelve codd. read nop wjn here. 16. If the
preceding verse be omitted, we may also omit SjH?M B"NH with &lt;S AB . For
the first nD-^ cn (g seems to have read njnnn. 17. -upaan] 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 &gt;JoS read ^JDD with 16 MSS. and probably &lt;S.
The successive stages of the disaster are emphasized by DJI. The names of
the two sons are omitted by &lt;S BL . 18. warna] some MSS. have wana.
The two prepositions are not infrequently confused. *v nya] can hardly be
right. Probably an original no was corrupted into ijn, and then the "P was
inserted in the endeavour to make sense : 4x&i*evos &lt;& AB , Ixcf/tcpa @ L else
where represent no or T-SN, Ps. i4i 6 i S. I9 8 . inpiBD] here only. It means
the neck as dividing (pifl) the head and trunk.

iv. i5-v. i 37

19. The effects in the family of Eli are set forth. His daugh
ter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with 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 answered nor heeded] lit. set her heart, Ex. y 23 Prov. 27.

21, 22. The account is over-full, probably by conflation, 22
being almost an exact duplicate of a part of 21 . Leaving out the
latter we get : And they called the boy Ichabod, saying; the glory
from Israel is taken 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. nSS mn] the nearest parallel is Is. 26 17 : mSS anpn mn rar. On the
form nSS, Konig, Gram. I. p. 402, Ges. 26 69 m. The form here may be a
simple scribal error, no parallel to the contraction having been pointed out
except nnN for rnnx. After npSrrSs we should expect PDM, which should there
fore probably be restored for PCI. Still an infinitive may have been intended,
6 MSS. read PD SN\ With nnx cf. Is. 2i 3 . hy IBHJ is found in the sense of
being poured suddenly upon, Is. 6o 6 . 20. nmo Ppi] in itself gives good
sense, but the reading of &lt;S /ecu iv T&lt; KCU/&gt;&lt; ctur^s a.irodvr]&lt;TKei : nnn nnj?3) which
seems to fit the case better. 21. Ntpni] 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. 1133 &gt;] Inglorious is the evident intention
of the writer dSo^ta. (Josephus). The only instance that can be cited for
IN as an equivalent of }^N is Job 22 30 , where the text is doubtful. @ seems to
point to IIN as the first member. Ss] should probably be hy. 22. The
verse is omitted (on grounds already stated) by We., and is put into the
margin by Bu.

V. 1-12. The devastation wrought 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 I 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 83 * ii 4 .

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 23 . 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 domus 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 23 , Baudissin in PRE Z . II. p. 171, Movers,
Phonizier, I. p. 590. For the god of the harvest Sanchuniathon is
cited by Movers. Cf. Wellhausen, Skizzen, III. 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 25 , Gen. 1 7 3 - 17 ; 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 upon the threshold,
only his trunk was left of him] the received text has only Dagon
was left, which is manifestly impossible. 5. The narrator traces
a peculiar custom of the worshippers at this temple to this event
therefore the priests of Dagon and all who enter the house of

v. i-6 39

Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until
this day, but step over it~\ the last words are not in J^ 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 9 , 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, BR*. II. p. 33; GASmith, Geog?
p. IO/ 2. 2. w^i] elsewhere of setting upright as Gtn. 3O 38 Jd. 8 27 . It seems
to imply that worship was to be offered to the captive God as well as to
Dagon. 3. mnoD] is lacking in @ B , which, however, reads /ecu el&TjXdov ei s
oiKov Aaytiv, Kal eldov lacking in J^. Probably &lt;& is right in both respects,
the mnDD can be spared here though it is needed in v. 4 . *?DJ] the participle
describes the state of the idol. TOD 1 ?] would mean before it, which is super
fluous. vjfl S^ should be restored, following @ (We). inp^i] KCU yyeipav
( points to )D &lt;1 p &gt;i, which alone is in place. la^i] Kal Ko.r^Tt\^o.v
indicates 12^1, which, however, would scarcely be followed by iDipnS. At
the end of the verse &lt; AB I add a sentence taken from v. 6 , but which here
interrupts the sequence. 4. IE:^!] &lt;JI seems to have read iD-otfn ^ TP%
adopted by Bu. But the wording in @ may be due simply to free transla
tion. vjo 1 ?] should doubtless be vjo 1 ?^ as above. fin pY] ir\r)v ij pdx 1 *
Aaydtv &lt; : Dagon solus truncus IL. The emendation TO for p.n is due to
Lagarde, Prophetae Chald. p. li. & has .-PDU and & fim fiDiwi; and Ew.,
GVI*. II. p. 586 (English Trans. II. p. 415), had already proposed to insert
*pj or DMJ before p.n. We. suggests m, which does not seem natural
without some explanation. 5. At the end of the verse &lt;& adds : 8rt virep^ai-
vovres virfpf3a.tvovo-iv. 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 |^ 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 Hebr dern, 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 35 . And he wasted them~\ in Hos. 2 14
the same verb is used for destroying the vines and fig trees ; and

4O i SAMUEL

smote them with tumours] we can hardly go astray in seeing a
description of the bubonic plague. The same word is used
Dt. 28 27 in connexion with the boil of Egypt, cf. Driver, Dt., p. 310.
At the end of the verse ^ adds epexegetically Ashdod and her
borders, probably a late insertion. 7. Let not the Ark of the God
of Israel remain with us, 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 officers bear a special title.
Whether they were kings (as Jeremiah calls them, 25 20 ) 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 them] 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 me to slay me and my people] the pronouns represent the speech
of each individual man. For Ekron (f 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. 7 s3 , Is. 22 5 , J^
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 s3 .

6. D&gt;Sj&gt;73] The word D^Vap occurs only in this passage and in Dt. 28 27 ,
though the singular occurs as a proper name Sey. 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 bgen^applied only to hsemorrhoids, and to

V. 6-12 41

have become a vulgar word. No other reason can be given for the Massoretic
substitution of onrua in the Qre, than that the latter was a more decent name
for the same affliction. The copies of show much variation Kal ^feo-ev avrois
eis ras vavs B : Kal $-{f3pa&lt;rav els ras vavs avruiv L . The ships seem out of place
here, so that we are unable to accept this reading. (g L has, along with the
rendering just quoted : Kal tiraTa&v avrovs eis ras ZSpas avruv, which shows
the earliest meaning given to n^oy, cf. 2L et percussit in secretiori parts
natium. 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 D^oy may have
been in the mind of the author of Ps. yS 66 ; cf. also @ B in its rendering of Dt.
28 27 ets TT]V ZSpav. Whether vavs in the passage before us ((&) is equivalent
to Z8pa, as supposed by Schleusner, must be decided by a Greek scholar.
rpSia:rnN) Tna&gt;N-nx] is evidently superfluous, and, as it is not rendered by
(&, we may safely omit it.

in its turn has an addition : Kal ptaov TTJS x&pas avrrjs av(pvT]&lt;j-av pves
Kal tytvero &lt;rvvxv&lt;ris davarov /j.eyd\-rj ev T# ir6\ei. The mention of mice here
is consistently carried on by similar additions in v. 10 (lacking in (Si L but con
firmed by I) and in 6 1 . In 6 4 - 1L 18 the mice appear also in $f . 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 f!f 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 was 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. nss i] seems to
be a mistake for nDfcoi. The phrase ^mn ^nStt jnx is appropriate in the
mouth of the Philistines, as has been remarked above. 8. Sa] is lacking in &lt;.
&gt;,no] is evidently the native name, Jos. I3 3 Jd. 3 3 . Conjectures as to their
powers are found in Stark, Gaza, p. 136 ff. ru] cf. GAS., Geog. p. 194 f.
3D 1 -] We also speak colloquially of coming around to a place even where no cir
cuit is necessary. @ adds ets IV00a at the end of the verse. 9. IHN laon nn&&amp;lt;]
seems to have read ison nn or IDK 3Dn nnx, but the construction of ^ is
not without analogies. IND nVnj nmnn -vpa mrp-T vim] is confused, and
Kl. (followed by Bu.) proposes to omit mm m. It seems to me more prob
able that the words IND nSru nninn are secondary. The panic is here prema
ture. nnM] 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. papy] on the site, cf. Robinson,
BR*. II. 228; GAS. Geog. p. 193; Buhl, Geog. p. 187. iaon] rl airevrpt-
if/are @ is more animated, and perhaps original. 11. asm] &lt;& points a?l\
For niDTDino has only noinn and is perhaps right, for a death-dealing

42 I SAMUEL

panic would hardly be accurate DVD might arise from duplication of the
two letters just preceding. rnao] is abruptly introduced; we should expect
133.11 or maa vj. omits T and connects maa with riDinc. For the rest
of the verse, also, has a different reading : &lt;J&gt;j darfkdev Ki/Jwrds deov lap.
^ccei. This may have arisen by the corruption of "r nxn n-OD into jnx N2r, or
the reverse may have taken place. But the sense is complete at -vyn without
either of the additions. 12. This verse joins very well on to the preceding
in the shorter form that has been suggested. For inD~N i ? n^ N o^jNm : /coi oi
fwjrej Kal OVK a,Troda.vt&gt;vTts &lt;. a^can] no OBTi 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 field 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 God 5 12 , to the
Ark of Yahweh, 6 1 .

1. The Ark of Yahweh was in the field of the Philistines} David
dwelt in the field of the Philistines while in possession of Ziklag
2 7 7 - n , so that we cannot here claim the field as the open country
in distinction from the cities, cf. Jd. 5 4 . 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 Philistines 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 2 Jer. 2f 29*. Balaam
is called a diviner Jos. I3 22 . Micah speaks of the priests as giving
an oracle, and the prophets as divining (3"). In Arabic also the

VI. i-s 43

kahin (the same word is in Hebrew the priest} is a diviner. Tdl
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 offering : If ye are sending the
Ark away} the participle treats the future action as already begun
in the intention of the actors, cf. Jer. 3i 8 , Is. 65". You must not
send it away empty} the phrase is elsewhere used of sending one
away with empty hands, Job 22 Gen. 3I 42 Dt. i5 13 . 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. i4 16 2O 7 2 S. g 7 . The transi
tion is easy to the requiting of a wrong either by punishment,
Jd. 9 7 , or by reparation, Ex. 2I 34 . 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 yoii} 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 one 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 J^ has already
been noted. It should be remarked that Budde, who is large-
hearted enough to admit the mice in v. 1 , 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. i3 16 . Perchance he will lighten his
hand} which had been heavy upon them. The first half of the
verse, which duplicates the preceding verse, is best omitted.

44 * 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 : Why 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 11( K p 34 ( 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. io 2 (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. ig 2 , and cites from Ovid:
nullum passa jugum. 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 : and 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 : Jf 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 : // he goes on his way
to his own border, etc. But if not, then we shall know 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. i5 10 , and lay on one of the natural roads from the Shephela to
the hill country.

1. After o^enn /cai ^ferey TJ 777 atruv jiivaj &lt;@. 2. On the kind of divina
tion practised by the DDp we have light in Ezek. 2i 26 . Cf. also Stade, GVI, I.
p. 505; Wellhausen, Skizzen, III. p. I26f.; Driver on Dt. l8 10 . ujnin] with
two syllables written defective to prevent the accumulation of vowel letters,

VI. 6-9 45

no?] on the pointing Ges 28 . 102 k. 3. DVWO] we should add c.~s with 7
MSS. (SJ5 (Dr.). D- N] the meaning of the word seems sufficiently evident
from the examples given above. We may add Gen. 26 10 , 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. Dtt&gt;x. iNinn] as the priests were not yet certain that
Yahweh was the sender of the plague (cf. vs. 9 ) the assurance seems premature
that they should be healed. One is tempted to read win or unan. For asS jnui,
@ renders KCU ^i\a&lt;r0iJ&lt;reTcu vfuv and then reads the rest as a question : why
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 ffi. 4. anr ^Soy] anr naap rwcm which is added by % is lacking
in @ and therefore suspicious. n^nS] some MSS. aaSa 1 ? : 4& represent simply
D3V. 5. The half verse (down to jnun) duplicates the preceding verse and is
therefore superfluous. The sense is perfectly good without it, and part of it
is lacking in &lt;&. We. regards it as a gloss. *?IOB &gt;n ?N k 7] rtf Kvpi$ (S may be
original, having been changed so as not to have the most sacred name in the
mouth of the uncircumcised. 6. SSpnn] the verb in this stem seems to mean
he amused himself -with another, or at the expense of another. Saul fears that
the Philistines will amuse themselves by torturing him, 31*, cf. Jer. 38 19 . The
anthropomorphism need cause no surprise in view of such a passage as Ps. 2 4 .
7. wy inp] does not seem to occur elsewhere without designation of the mate
rial. nSjy] as the vehicle had two wheels, the word is properly rendered cart.
The word is used Gen. 45 19 , where it designates the wagon used for the trans
port of persons, and Num. y 3 , 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 was
adopted in Egyptian as the name of the baggage wagon (or cart) drawn by oxen,
in distinction from the chariot drawn by horses. nV?y] is the participle of Sij?
to give suck, cf. Is. 4O 11 . IDS] the verb is used of harnessing to the chariot,
Gen. 46 29 2 K. 9 21 . p is used of the young of animals, Job 39* and elsewhere.
nrna] the house of the family is also the home of the cattle. 8. Ss] is so
evidently a mistake for SN 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. ^a] is a word of very
wide meaning; implements, instruments, vessels, ornaments are all included
under it. aratpn] the perfect indicates that in intention they have already
given the recompense. unsa] 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 TJPN 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

evidently have no more light than wt\ ( B eV ft^ari /Sepex^dr, where the last
word is probably an attempt to transfer the Hebrew word, tv dtpari being the
translation. 0^/xa represents njn;^, 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
Ark. But the evidence is not sufficient to assure us of a variant reading here.
j$ Nnma evidently has the root u~\ in mind and makes the sense put them in
reverence 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 mx occurs
in vs. 11 - 15 both of which are late insertions into the narrative. mD] the Torah
roll was also to be put by the side of the Ark, Dt. 3i 26 . 9. V?WJ -pi] in the
direction of his own territory, cf. Ex. I3 17 Num. 2i 33 I S. I3 18 . On the site
of Beth Shemesh, the modern Ain Shews, cf. GAS. Geog. p. 219, Lagarde,
OS. p. 237; Rob. B&. II. 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 J^. 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 &lt;fi. 14. The Ark came to the field of Joshua the Beth-
shemshite 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, and 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. 2^. 15. The

vi. io-i8 47

verse is superfluous, 16 joins directly to 14 . The Ark has already
been lifted from the cart this we know because the cart has been
burnt. The burnt offering has been offered. 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 18a ) 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 Yahweh ; to the present day it is
in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemshite \ other memorial stones,
Gen. 3 1 52 Jos. 24^.

11. S] for Sy as so often. onnno . . . UINH n*o] the half verse is not
objectionable on the ground of Hebrew style as is shown by Dr., Notes. But
comparison of the copies of &lt;& shows so many variations, in the words and in
their arrangement, that we must suppose the original to have been supple
mented in various ways to bring it into harmony with |. annra in the text
is also an indication of interpolation, for the original narrative has D Sflp as the
name of the plague; though some MSS. here conform to the usage elsewhere,
reading arpSa;? in the Kt. We. strikes out all but TJPNH PNI; Bu. remands the
whole to the margin. 12. The construction is not free from difficulty.
nyv^")] older form of the third person feminine plural, Ges 26 . 47^ ; Bottcher
sees in it a dual, Lehrbuch, 931 B. 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 I5 21 . It
does not seem violent therefore to change here to nj-v^i, though analogous
verbs are followed by the direct object or by the infinitive with *?, cf. Ex. 8 24
2 S. I5 14 . Possibly "pta is an error for p-n which we expect. nn nSoca]
the one highway implies that various others were within reach. A n^DD is a

48 I SAMUEL

road made by throwing up the earth. )&gt;Ji *|Sn] the adverbial clause describ
ing continuous action, Gen. 8 5 I2 9 Jos. 6 9 2 S. 3 16 .-^13. POP no is here put
for the inhabitants and followed by the plural, cf. Hos. 5 8 , px no ij?nn.
IN-PI Drpj&gt;;rnN iN^ii] the phrase occurs in the Hexateuch several times, always
in JE, but in both J and E, e.g., Gen. 1310.14 (j) 3I io.ia ( E ) f also in j d&lt; 19 n
(assigned to J) 2 S. i8 24 Jer. 3* I3 2} Is. 49 18 60* Zech. 5 1 - 6 . The prophetic
passages are all in the imperative, in which the detailed expression is easily
accounted for. niN*V?] ets aTravrijatv atfr^j @ points to tfMHpS which should
be restored, cf. Jd. 19 (We.). 14. DPI DP lopm] Kal f&lt;mjffav ^/cet Trap
avT-fj @ B evidently renders noy DP iTDpi. It is not impossible that the
original had both verbs : it stayed and they placed there by it = wcjni "inpm
ID? DP, and that one verb dropped from one recension and the other from
the other or is DPI DP an original DP ID&gt;PM which became illegible?
nSru px] it is conjectured by Bu. that the stone was set up as a ma^ebah.
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 nia^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
matfeba according to E (Gen. 28 18 - 22 ), but it was destined to mark a per
manent sanctuary, and the same is true of the ma^eba in Gilead, Gen. 3i 46
(E). A memorial stone was raised by Joshua, 24 26f -, and the same was
done by Samuel at Ebenezer according to a late passage, I S. 7 12 . Saul s
altar, I4 33 , 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.
SN] 1 6 MSS. have hy which alone is in place. 17. nnta] is evidence of
interpolation, as already shown. 18. *?3N n;n] 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 pN, with &lt;J|, and point the
other word "ijn 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. (9
has a whole clause which has fallen out of J^ and which relieves
the difficulty : The sons of Jeconiah did not rejoice with the men

vi. 19-vn. i 49

of Beth She mesh when 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 J^ comes at the beginning of the
verse, as well as at the beginning of the next clause : And he
smote among them seventy men} 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 holiness 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. i5 9 , where it is identified
with Baalah ; in Jos. is 60 it is called Kirjath Baal, cf. i8 14 . 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 SAMUEL

brought it to the house of Abinadafr} 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. T 1 !] anticipates unpleasantly the next clause : *ai O&K ^^VHTOLV ol viol
lexoviov @. As the Greek verb does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testa
ment, we are left to surmise its original. Kl. s conjecture in&gt;j^ &gt;J3 nn N^I is
probably correct (adopted by Bu.), cf. Ex. i8 9 Ps. 2i 7 . 0^3] should be cor
rected to ona with 6. P&gt;N ^Sx DTDH] the words are a late insertion, appar
ently unknown to Josephus, and recognized as a gloss by Keil. Whether
they were a marginal note, intended to remind the reader of the later plague
(2 S. 24) where seventy thousand fell, cannot be determined. V?aNnM]
Gen. 37 s4 Ex. 33* (E). nSvu nao ron occurs Jos. io 10 Jd. n 83 (also ascribed
to E). 20. On the idea of holiness, cf. WRSmith, Religion of the Semites,
p. 135, Smend, Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte, p. 333, Duhm s Commen
tary on Isaiah, I 4 . 21. On the site of Kirjath Jearim, Moore on Jd. i8 12 ,
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 Philis
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 Philistines 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. i-3 51

strange gods. No sooner do they return to Yahweh than he
returns to them and delivers 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. 1 5 1 we find Yahweh saying : " Though Moses and Samuel should
stand before me, my soul would not be towards this people." Co. (Einfi. p.
99) argues that Jeremiah has our present account in mind and the reasoning
is adopted by Bu. (RS. p. 178) and Dr. (LOT 6 , 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 prophetic 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 Yahweh ] 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. ii 13 i 3 4 Jos. 22 5 i Sam. i2 24 Jer. 2 9 13 Joel 2 12 . You are [now]
returning to Yahweh} the expression betrays the same conception
which is contained in the phrase strange gods which follows, cf. Dt.
3 1 16 Jer. 5 19 Jos. 24 20 . 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 vocalized (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. 3i 10 . And prepare your heart

52 i SAMUEL

towards Yahweh your God~\ a late formula, 2 Chr. i2 14 2O 33 3O 19
Ezr. 7 10 . yi/zrf jmtf /foV/z] that is worship him, in this sense the
word is Deuteronomic. That he may deliver you ] 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 1 . 6. The assembly engages in public expression of sorrow
for sin : They drew water 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. We have sinned in relation to Yahweh~\ Dt.
i 41 Jd. io 10 . That Samuel judged 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. ruts Dnu&gt;p vm own ia-v\] 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 "m m D om It seems that the whole sentence is a gloss,
not merely njt^ ontrj? vrm (Bu.). Possibly, however, it is a corruption of
something which cannot now be recovered. ( L ev eip^vrjis confirmed by I, and
may point to some statement about Shiloh. inn] gives no suitable mean
ing. The verb means to lament for the dead, Mic. 2 4 Ez. 32 18 . But the return
of Yahweh could not be an occasion for such mourning. @ AB has tirt(3\e\f/ct&gt;,
(& L /cai ^TT^rr/oe^e, both which point to UDM. { conjectures only, as is shown
by Dr., and J51L seem to have read inri (Cappel, Critica Sacra, p. 364). It
seems best, with Ew., Bu., to adopt the reading of . 3. DD33S"SD3~DN]
the phrase occurs in D frequently, usually with the addition of trcj Saai. On
the literary usage which shows as*? (not aS) to be the form characteristic of
E, D, and Deuteronomistic editors, cf. BDB., s. v. najn inSwrw won] the
phrase occurs Gen. 35 2 Jos. 24 23 Jd. io 16 , all which are assigned to E 2 by
recent editors, cf. also 2 Chr. 33 15 . "ojn ^nSx are gods of foreign countries,
like "ojn ^a men of foreign countries. 4. DiVy^n] cf. Jd. 2 11 - 13 , 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 ff., WRS., Rel. 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. nncxnn] the name, which
means the watchtower, generally has the article. On the identification, cf.
Robinson, BR*. I. p. 460, Buhl, Geog. p. 168. 6. i^Dsn] adds on the
ground. Such phrases are easily inserted, and therefore suspicious. DIP]
lacking in & must be exscinded for the same reason.

7. The Philistines heard that Israel had assembled^ 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 Yahweh thy God~\ cf. Ps. 28 1 Job i3 13 ;
thy God & seems more appropriate than our God J^. Several
MSS. of ( add at the end of the verse : And Samuel said : Far
be it from 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. 29 88fft Lev. 23 12 Num. 6 14 . And
offered it as a whole burnt 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 15 and its poetical
parallel, 5 20 21 . 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. TO"), 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 14 i S. 2 10 Is. 66 6 . Cf. also Ps. 6S 34 yy 19 . 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 13 . The name Yeshana
here is restored from (g and 5b. The name in Jty is probably cor
rupt. What follows in J^ makes, further, a double difficulty, for

54 * SAMUEL

it says simply : Hitherto has Yahweh 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 Amorite~\ 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. isapnn] with pluperfect force. SN] is doubtless to be read or under
stood as S&gt;, which is the proper word when a hostile attack is described.
8. PJND] for the force of the preposition cf. his eyes were dim from seeing, i.e.,
so as not to see, Gen. 27*. 9. n^s] a rare and apparently late word, Is. 4O 11
65 26 . inSpi is doubtless to be read, with the (?;v. SSa] describes the burnt
offering as wholly consumed upon the altar, Dt. 33 10 Lev. 6 15f . 10. SNIDU&gt; TVI
nSj?o] cf. the similar construction 2 K. I3 21 ig 37 . asrvi] the verb is used of
striking with panic terror (Moore on Jd. 4 15 ). 11. "O r^a; & reads Beth
Sharon; & has Beth Yeshan as in v. 12 ; Kl. suggests Beth Horon. 12. |2&gt;n]
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 @J5 who read rwn,
evidently the Benjamite town mentioned 2 Chr. I3 19 . This reading is adopted
by Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, I. p. 157) followed by most recent expositors.
njmj, ] is not explicit enough, whether the run be taken of space or time.
Wellhausen seems first to have discovered that the first word must be ny. He
therefore restores -o ton ny, for which Bu. substitutes -o &gt;nn rny, which seems no
improvement. 13. IJTM] cf. Jd. 3 30 n 33 . toaS -np wD^ MSi] I5 85 Jd. I3 21 .
14. njatirn] there is no other instance of the active voice with cities as
the subject; perhaps we should read njasnm which is favoured by &lt;&, cf.

vii. 12-vin. 55

Jer. 2j u . From Ekron to Gath~\ &lt;S B has from Ashkelon to Azob. In Azob
We. sees an allusion to Zeph. 2*. 15. Bfltti] 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. Y?m] of customary action,
Dav., Syntax, 54 R, I. njs&gt;a nj2&gt; na] is heavy, but is supported by Zech.
I4 16 . 33D is used of going about to various places in order, 2 Chr. ly 9 .
"m Sa n Sx-W -nN] is tautological. It is probable that the scribe had in mind
the Ssitt i nK of the verse below and inserted it here. niaipan] &lt;J| had
o v Jnpan, which may possibly be original (Cappel, Notae Criticae, p. 434).
17. to os ] the pausal form seems unexplained, Ges 26 . 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 Yahweh,
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 17 27 .

The section is homogeneous down to m 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 (i; 14 20 ), 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. (7? S. p. 184), and is followed by Co. at least in the earlier editions
of his Einlcitung.

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 one in Bethel and one in
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 3 Num. I6 25 .
5. The desire for a king is here motived by the maladministration
of justice. In v. 20 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 : Hearken to
the voice of the people according 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 being 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 13 lo 13 i K. 9 9
(apparently Deuteronomistic) . 9. The people are, however, to
be left without excuse : Thou shalt solemnly testify} Gen. 43*

vm. i-i7 57

Jer. ii 7 the method of the king who shall rule over them} that
is, his customary behaviour. Yahweh will allow him, perhaps
authorize him, so to act.

1. D"^ is used of appointing officers, Dt. i; 15 2 S. 8 14 . 2. The statement
of Josephus cited above {Ant. VI. 32) is adopted by Graetz and Ewald.
3. irra A?, TO-HD Qre. There seems no reason for preferring the latter ex
cept that usage is on the side of the plural. IBM] turned aside from its
proper course, Dt. i6 19 . &gt;X3 is generally used of unrighteous gain, Ex. i8 21
Jer. 6 13 . 4. VD] is lacking in @ B , which reads &v5pes for *jpr. 6. I2in ;TIM]
Gen. 2I 11 - 12 (E) i S. i8 8 2 S. ii 25 - 27 . ^DHM] cf. Jer. 32 16 42*. 7. For
1&gt;N Sj 1 ? we should perhaps read new with @. -o] assigns a reason why
Samuel should not hesitate it was not a personal concern. 8. VJ&gt;&gt; ] @
adds ^, which is adopted by most recent commentators. ij^ryM] specifies the
acts intended by wy.

10-18. The king s method. Samuel repeated all the words
of Yahweh to the people who were 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 among 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, and to make his arms and his chariot furniture. 13. The
women would not be exempt from conscription, but would be
compelled to serve as perfumers } perhaps we should read as
embroiderers with & ; 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 : You shall cry out in that day on account of 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. ID&O)] is not frequent with the accusative, as here. 11. 1x11] for
which &lt;& seems to have read D^I% is doubtless original. 12. ov-r^i] the peri
phrastic infinitive is illustrated by Dr., Tenses 6 , 206 and and Dav., Syntax,
94, R. 4. It should be noted that several of the examples cited are of suspicious
integrity, the ) having arisen by duplication of a preceding \ In the present
case, however, the reading seems to be confirmed by {. We assume an ellipsis
of rn, the full form being DVi S vn\ Captains of Jiffies in |^ is replaced by cap
tains of hundreds in @, while & has both, and adds and captains of tens. 4
seems original. 13. rnnpn 1 ?] preparers of ttnguents, of which the Orientals
are notoriously fond. 5J seems to translate n.)2p-\ v ?, which would be equally ap
propriate. ninaaS] the cook is also the butcher. 14. map*?] Graetz con
jectures {Gesch. der Juden, I. p. 164) that we should read vja% as the servants
are spoken of in the next verse. There is, however, no external evidence for the
reading. 16. onmnai] KCU ra /3oi&gt;/c6\ia vpuv , pointing to oanpa% which
is undoubtedly original. The correction was made by Cappellus {Critica
Sacra, p. 247). iroN^D 1 ? n^i] the only parallels are Lev. y 24 Ez. I5 6 . We
should expect inDsSna nwj? 1 ?, cf. I K. 5 80 9 23 . The unusual construction led a
scribe to substitute IB&gt;&gt;N, which was read by @. 17. JNX is small cattle in dis
tinction from neat cattle (V2). 18. @ 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
Sis 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 a . 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 b . The half verse is a later insertion. The
original account joined io 17 directly to 8 22a . The compiler was

viii. i8~rx. 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 xS cf. Ges. 26 , 2Og, and Baer s dissertation De pri-
maruni vocabulorum literarum dagessatione prefixed to Liber Proverbiorum,
ed. Baer et Delitzsch (1880). Some MSS. have V? in the text, while seems
to have read xS 1 s . 20. UBfltt i] on the force of the verb cf. Moore s note on
jd. 3 10 . u\-icrV?D] is given by Ginsburg. Many editions and MSS. have
unnnSc. For the phrase go out before us cf. Jd. 4 U . 22. rOTDTn] 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.

60 I 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 Mt.
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 them] the districts of Shalisha and Shaalim are not identified.

1. pD^~po] the fact that he was a Benjamite is related again at the end
of the verse, and We. s conjecture that we should read pD^a nyajD is plau
sible. -rD 1 " tt"X-p] is not without analogy, at least yw eN is found 2 S.
2O 1 Est. 2 5 . 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. V&gt;n -ii:nj the phrase seems to mean no more than
a man well to do ; cf. BDB., s.v. STI. 2. "Ui IDOITD] the clause recurs in
io 23 , 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. nunxn]
the she-asses seem to have been especially prized, Job I 3 . B"pS] cf. Dav.,
Syntax, 28, R. 5. xj] after the imperative softens the command.
inxTiN] is unusual, perhaps a scribal error; but a precisely similar instance is
found Num. i6 15 . "inx 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. anyj is used of servants not infrequently. At the
end of this verse &lt; L J5 add : and Saul arose and took one of the servants of his
father and went to seek the asses of Kish his father one of the rather numer
ous instances of agreement of L with j$. 4. The verbs which are partly
singular and partly plural in |^ should be all plural as in . 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 42 . Shaalim has been conjectured to be an error for Shaalabim
mentioned in connection with Beth Shemesh, Jd. I 86 I K. 4 9 . It seems easier
to combine with the hyvtr V"ix of 3 17 -

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 when Saul said
. . . : Let us return, lest my father cease thinking of the asses and
be anxious about us~\ the verb means to have fears, Jer. 1 7 38 19
42 16 Is. 57 n . 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. io 4 . 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 shalt give it
to the man 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 where the man of God was~\ the city is
intended by the editor to be Ramah. The original account, how
ever, may have named another place.

5. *iis] cf. i 1 . E connects it fancifully with nsx and translates : the land
in which -was the prophet. 6. Nrnjn] cf. Gen. I2 11 I K. 22 18 ; 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. njm] the case at first sight seems to be one where we should expect
p if. But cf. BDB. sub voce. mitrn] occurs only here; the versions are
at a loss, and the word is possibly corrupt. Cappellus (Notae Criticae,
p. 435) supposes @ to have read mstyp. We expect and we have nothing elst
to bring. But this cannot be got out of the text. uns nc] also is abrupt
and awkward (some Hebrew editions have nm). I therefore suspect corrup
tion too deep-seated to be healed. 8. \nnji] (5 seems to have read nnji,
but it is better to correct to innji (Kl.), which will more readily account for
the corruption. 9. In v. 6 Samuel has been called D^nSs ttN, on which see
the note to 2 27 . The verse now before us calls him a Seer (n&gt;n), a word used
twice by Isaiah (28 7 3O 10 ), elsewhere only in this passage and in Chronicles
(i Chr. 9 22 26 28 29 29 , dependent on the account before us, and 2 Chr. i6 7 - 10
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. 11 . The conception of the prophet (NOJ) 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 &lt;i , p. 150. o \jflS] occurs Dt. 2 10 . Nip* 1 ] the
tense indicates what was customary in the past.

11. As they were going up the ascent of the city\ cf. 2 S. i5 30 ,
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 15f - 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 now 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 comes, 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 Samuel had been prepared for the inter
view : Yahweh had told Samuel] lit., had uncovered his ear, cf.
20 i2f. 22 8.ir 2 g ^ IQ About this time to-morrow } Ex. 9 18 (J)
i K. ip 2 2o 6 . Thou shalt anoint him prince over my people Israel]
the word translated prince (TJ3) is not used in Hexateuch or
Judges, but is found several times in Samuel and Kings, i S. IO 1
i3 14 25 30 2 S. 5 2 6 21 y 8 i K. i 35 , 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 8 . And he shall save
my people from the hand of the Philistines } the sentence is a
direct contradiction of 7 llff . For I have seen the affliction of my
people] the text of &lt;&gt;. The evident view of the author is that

ix. n-21 63

the king is a gift of God, and not that there is sin in asking
such a gift : For their cry is come to me~\ Ex. f. We may note
that anointing is a rite of consecration for things, as Jacob s ma$-
c.ebah, Gen. 3i 13 (E), the Tabernacle, Ex. 4O 9 (P), as well as per
sons, i K. i9 16 (prophets). There is no reason to suppose the
significance any different in the case of kings. 17. When Sam
uel saw Saul Yahweh answered hitn~\ 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 will 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: Am I
not a Benjamite, 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 lite
rally. Saul s father, as we have already seen, was a man of stand
ing in the community.

11. &hy non] the circumstantial clause, Dav., Syntax 141. In some
cases the clause is followed by njrn, which is read by &lt; L here. nn] in
this place as Ex. 24 14 (E). 12. VID^M^] why they should hasten is not
clear. As pointed out by Lagarde (Anm. zur Griechischen Uebersetz d. Pro-
verbien, p. iii) &lt;& read an^o 1 ?, which he supposed to imply that "ns was made
up of the final letter of aa^oS and the first two of njon. This last word, how
ever, is not represented in @, and it seems better to read *on oa^flS (Bu.).
ovn vj] better ovns, with &lt;S (We.) cf. Gen. 25 31 I Sam. 2 16 . 13. p-nrw]
some MSS. and edd. prefix ). Dvna] the form we have restored above. On
the repetition of the accusative cf. Dr., Tenses*, 197. 6. Of the examples
cited, 2 K. 9 27 seems the only exact parallel. 14. xv&gt; . . . D^fo] the partici
ples indicate the flow of events they were just coming into the city gate

64 i SAMUEL

when Samuel met them, "pyn "pna was conjecturally emended to npjyn *pna
by Th., and the emendation is adopted by most moderns, being confirmed by
v. 18 . 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 njjirn here
than -vyn in v. 18 (Kl.). 15. nSj] with pluperfect force, Dr., Tenses*, 76,
Obs.; Dav., Syntax ; 39 c. 16. ^Djrrw -rnNi] ^ read ic-p oynN TI&gt;JO,
which is evidently original, cf. Ex. 3 7 (E) 2 K. I4 26 . On the meaning of the
verb ns D cf. an article by Meinel, ZA TW. XVIII. p. I ff. 17. &gt;rncN T^N] con
cerning whom I said ; a similar expression in v. 28 Gen. 3 17 Jd. 7*. "^i?" 1 ] the
verb nowhere else has the meaning to rule. It means to shut up (the heav
ens) Dt. II 17 , to restrain (an animal) 2 K. 4 24 , to check (one s words) Job 4 2 .
But such a meaning seems inappropriate here, and we must suspect the text.
Kl. proposes ia" on the ground of &pei &lt;5f AB : Kardpfc @ L , cf. Jd. 9 22 Is.
32 1 . 18. VniDtTftt] the verb is generally found with VN, unless Num. 4 19
be an exception, and this preposition should probably be restored here.
n?-&gt;N] seems to imply that the object sought is in the immediate vicinity, cf.
I K. I3 12 . 19. &lt;& has I am he instead of / am the Seer. onSaNi] the pre
ceding verb is in the singular, addressed to Saul alone, so that we should
restore rtaxi here. 20. a^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 21 : it shall produce a crop sufficient for the
three years o^2&gt;n vhv^ where we must understand the three years you
have in mind, for they have not been described. 20. So] is omitted both
times by . men] 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 7 ,
where, however, we should read a plural (and so possibly here). 21. ^Jtopc]
occasional instances occur of an ancient construct ending in ^ (Jd. 2O 1 2 cited
by We.) ; such a form may be represented in the second naa&gt; (instead of
ta3 % ^). "The construction with f 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 : Bring the portion which I gave to thee,
concerning which 2 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 like 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 J^ is here
also unintelligible (in this context), and must be corrected by (.
For sleeping on the roof, we have abundant examples in modern
Oriental life, 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. nnntrS] the nDtpS is a chamber in a palace, Jer. 36 12 , or in the temple,
Jer. 35 2 " 4 ; one was also in use at Shiloh according to I Sam. I 18 &lt;t.
awipn] those invited, the guests. o&gt;e&gt;SB&gt;3] oxrei fp5o/j.-/iKOVTa . The larger
number is the less likely to be original. 23. mo 1 ?] cf. 8 13 . rucn] I*.
Tnnx ia&gt;N] as in v. 17 . 24. rpSyn] 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., Notes} ; and if the construction were allow
able, it would not be appropriate here, for pwn is, of course, the leg with
the flesh upon it. The slight change into rpSsn 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 was 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 Mater alien, p. 13. If m^Nn
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 n&gt;S was to be burned

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

66 i SAMUEL

upon the altar. The editors supposed it impossible for Samuel to be ignorant
of this " Mosaic " ordinance. Kl. proposes niSnn, 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; iNtrjn therefore cannot be right. &gt;nNip Dj?n inNS] seems absolutely
unintelligible in the context. For &gt;nxnp . . . nyiaV &gt;o (5 gives 6rt ei s fjt.aprijpi.ov
rtQeLTal ffoi trapa TOI&gt;S &\\ovs a.Trt&gt;Ki.v$ ((& L has irapartdeiKd ffoi trap& rov
XaoO). This is better than f^, but, as pointed out by Dr., pp, which we
should assume as the original of airoKvlfr (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 fall to. The conjectures of the commentators
scarcely call for attention, except that of Bu., who restores at the end "jS not?
o- N-ipn oy *?DNV. 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 iNa&gt;n for -\Na&gt;jn, ^NS&gt; being flesh prepared for the table, Ex. 2i 10 Ps. yS 20 .
Samuel says : Behold the meat is set before thee, as we should say, the meal is
served. For ^ noir I would substitute "fi inns, we have waited for thee, in
which case IJND would be the time to which Samuel and the other guests had
agreed to wait for the expected stranger. pn DJ? SDN*? I adopt from Bu. in
place of the useless TiN-ip oyn -iDN 1 ?. 25. iDDfc"! :jjn-Sy SiN^ op -DTI] is
evidently out of joint, for they certainly did not rise in the morning until after
Samuel called Saul, which follows; /ecu St^rrpoxraj T&lt;$ Saoi)\ ^?ri T&lt; StbfMTi
teal &coijui}0?7 &lt; evidently represents sotpii jjn hy SistpS na*v\ 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. ig 15 $2** Jos. 6 16 .
The original text seems to have added only : and 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
Samuel satd~\ the construction is similar to v. 11 . Say to the lad
that he pass on\ the addition of J^ : 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 67

a king, 2 K. 9* 3 . And poured it upon his head] the act of anoint
ing could not be more clearly described. And 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. ig ls Hos. 13-
can hardly be called parallel. A part of Samuel s words have fallen
out of 5^, 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 shalt save them from the
hand of their enemies round about. And this shall be the sign
that Yahweh has anointed 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 other
points mentioned, except Bethel. When thou goestfrom me to-day
thou shalt meet two 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 (3i 15 ), 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
probabilities. 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 come 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 8 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 : one carrying
three kids, one carrying three baskets of bread~\ the reading is con
jectural, based on the paucity of the three loaves in $fy. Twenty
loaves are easily carried by a man, 2 K. 4 42 , 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 : Afterwards thou shalt come to Gibeah 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 i3 3 , 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 with 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, ip 18 " 24 .

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. i4 6 , etc. And thou shalt prophesy with them and be
turned into another man\ it is worth remarking that in the later
account, i6 13 , 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 15 (E), where the rod is changed into a ser
pent and Ex. 7 17-2 (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. Q 33 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 U^M] is a corruption of aatPM, originally the conclusion of the pre
ceding verse. ni^jn] some copies have nV?;*2 (Ginsb.). rmn] Qre is
doubtless correct. amr.r] lacking in @, is superfluous. Probably the origi
nal text was without explicit subject (Bu. omits talDCn Kin following We.).
pn is whatever is outside the house. 27. larj] gives the purpose of the

X. 3-8 6Q

command. "i3J?^] is superfluous and is lacking in &lt;SJ5. DVD] it seems un
necessary to tell him to stand this very minute, whereas in contrast tothe/aw-
ing on of the servant it would be natural to tell him to stand here. We should
probably emend to oV?n with Kl. X. 1. For kissing the king, Gen. 41*
and Ps. 2 12 might be cited, but the text in both is suspicious. ^nrD-o ton]
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. inserts after sSn 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. in s ru] cf. 26 19 2 S. I4 16 2i 3 Jer. i6 18 . 2. We
have assumed that Samuel s home was at Ramah, though this document no
where so affirms. 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. (GT7 3 .
III. p. 31, E. Tr. III. p. 21) puts it at Ram Allah, about ten miles north of
Jerusalem. The tradition which puts Rachel s tomb near Bethlehem seems
to go back to Gen. 35 19 (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. nxSin] 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. 2i 14 , might be
conjectured. &lt;5 has a confused variety of readings, one of them possibly
going back to D&gt;rY?s, leaping, which is adopted by Ew. in grosser Eile ; an
other ((5 L ) seems to reproduce nnnx meridie It. js-n] should probably be
pointed as the participle (Bu.). 3. neSm] the verb is used of the quick
motion of the whirlwind, Hab. I 11 , once apparently of transgressing the com
mandment, Is. 24 s . It does not seem especially appropriate here, therefore,
and the text may not be sound. man }V?N] the conjecture which identi
fies this with the Palm of Deborah is due to Ew. (GVI. III. p. 31, E. Tr. III.
p. 21). nnaa] for reasons given above, the conjecture of Kl. oV?a is plau
sible and adopted by Bu., but ^Sa seems more likely, cf. 9 7 . 4. onS"&gt;ntp]
Svo airapxas tipruv &lt;{ evidently had maa, probably a corruption of an original
nnaa. 5. SN] found in the current editions is lacking in almost all MSS.
(De Rossi) and omitted by Ginsb. oxj] we should read a- 1 *: with &lt;3L.
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. &gt;mi] the form is unexpected; Dr. compares 2 S. 5 2 * 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 mm. The verb yjo means he came suddenly upon
something. San] a string, but, as we use band, not necessarily a company
n single file. "m omjcm] the whole is a circumstantial clause. The names
of the musical instruments here mentioned are translated, as nearly as may

7O i SAMUEL

be, in the foregoing. An elaborate discussion is found in Weiss., Die Musi-
kalische Instrumentc in d. Heiligen Schr. des Alten Testamentes, Graz. 1895.
7. Bu. inserts *?D before "c\x on the ground of . 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 t -
dently prepares for the paragraph I3 8 - 15 which also is an interruption to the
flow of the narrative. The interpolation is recognized as such by We. (Conip.
245, 248), Stade (6T7. 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 shalt 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,
dwelling 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. 6 . 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. 5 . And he played the
prophet in the midst of them~\ the verb is apparently denominative.
11. The result in the minds of the people is: that every one
who knew him in times past and saw him raving with the proph
ets said each to his fellow : What now has come upon 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 another 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 : And 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 upon 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 71

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. 11 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 down 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. rprn] should be ^m. The scribe was misled by the preceding series of
verbs (Dr.). irjon:&gt;] Jer. 48 39 is the nearest parallel. isn-n] Zeph. 3 9 ,
cited by Dr., protects the verb here (contra KL). 3*?] our word heart hardly
expresses the idea, which is that his mind was illuminated, cf. BDB. s.v.
10. Dtt 1X3^] KCU ep%ercu t/feWev . As the servant has been lost sight of for
some time @ seems to be correct. But if we adopt aaD it seems clear that
something has dropped out. 11. ijnv Va vri] the nearest parallel seems to
be 2 S. 2 23 where we have H3jH?b ^rm followed by nnjm in the apodosis. But
the point is here not that all 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 ncaoi begin the apodosis and omit oyn with 3L. For the
construction cf. Nu. 2i 8 , where however the other tense is used. nrnD] on
the form of the question BDB. s.v. PIT. 12. OB&gt;D] seems to have been read
ons by &lt;. CHON] Trarr/p atfrou (JIJ5 I seems to give no help. W interprets :
and who is their master ? which seems as irrelevant as the ordinary transla
tion. 13. naan] As Saul met the prophets coming from the Bamah he
would probably not go on thither but to his home. We. therefore conjectures
mon. 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. T&gt;jn ~un] 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. -DP IDS -WN] is lacking in &lt;5 B .

ON THE MEANING OF NO:. The word is obscure and we can do little
more than note the bounds of our ignorance. The word does not seem to be

^2 i SAMUEL

Hebrew in its origin, as the verb exists only in the denominative forms. It is
however a good Semitic form, like vxp a harvester, T&gt;p&gt; 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 *oj is in Arabic where it means: (i) he uttered a low
voice or sound, (2) he was elevated, (3) he went from a land to another land.
Hoffmann {ZATW. III. 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 NOJ to be one who rises [is roused] from his sluggishness under
the influence 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 mutter er. Later we find Saul Najnn 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 JMH&gt;D where also
the utterance of incoherent sounds is probably one of the symptoms, 2 K. 9 11
Jer. 29 26 . 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. iS 29 .

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 22a 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 25a . After this, we may
suspect that the dismission of the people to their homes is intended to prepare
the way for II the original continuation of 25a being I2 1 . I find no reason
for suspecting 17 ~ 19a , with Cornill, or 25ft , 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. The reason for the choice of Mizpah may be the same that

X. i 7 -2 4 73

influenced the author of Jd. 20. 18. Yahweh again reproaches
the people with ingratitude : / brought you up from Egypt and
delivered you from the hand of Egypt, and from the hand of all
the kingdoms that were oppressing you~\ the construction is unusual,
and it is possible that the passage has been interpolated. 19.
Their sin is rejection of Yahweh : who has been your saviour} the
same word is used of the judge, Jd. 3 15 . The author has the idea
which is illustrated in the occurrence described in 7 7 " 14 . And ye
said: No! but a king shalt thou place over us~\ the reference is
evidently to 8 19 . 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 15 . 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. y 16 " 18 , where
however there are four stages instead of three. In the first stage
the tribe of Benjamin is taken. This tribe was brought by its
clans and 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 21 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 J^ 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 him 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

* E\v., G VI*. III. 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. i6 16 i K. i 25 - 31 2 K. n 12 . 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 is 1 . 25 a . 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 9 " 18 . 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 b -27. The original document seems to have joined I2 1 (Sam
uel s farewell) directly to 25a . 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 18 is different) but the meaning is sufficiently evident.
But the base men~\ lit. sons of belial, Jd. iQ 22 , said; How shall
this fellow save us ?~\ with a touch of contempt in the form of
the question. In consistency they brought him no present^ cf. q 7 .
There is no thought as yet of fixed taxes. The two words at the
end of this verse in $fy belong to the next section.

17. P" ^] the Hiphil only here, but jvprn is found in the meaning he called
out the warriors, 2 S. 2O 5 Jd. 4 10 - 13 . 18. mm -ICNTO] the usual beginning
of a prophetic speech as 2 27 . TnSyn] of the deliverance from Egypt, usual
in E but not confined to him. D"xnSn niaSocn] the disagreement in gender
may be accounted for by supposing the participle to be construed ad sensuni.
But I suspect the original had only niaSoDn which a scribe found too sweeping
and tried to correct by insertion. The verb pnS is used Jd. 2 18 4 s al., usually

* Doughty, II. pp. 55, 226.

x. 24-xi. 75

in Deuteronomistic passages. 19. Dros:_] of the people s rejection of Yah-
weh 8 7 Num. n 2&gt; cf. I4 31 (late ). iS] in the received text is replaced by N 1 ?
by the Qre and in a number of MSS., as well as in &E1L. nin&gt; vth I3vnn]
Jos. 24! . 20. 3ipM] exactly as in Jos. 7 17 . 21. innss n 1 ? AV./ vnnfle&gt;DS gr*. As
the next verse begins with i the original may have been simply nincK D ? (@).
After n^;.-, &lt;& AB adds: /cai irpoffdyovaiv TTJV 0u\7?v Marrapei ets Avdpas, (& L
has an equivalent, but does not agree verbally. Probably a clause of this sig
nificance has dropped out of ffi so all recent scholars suppose. 22. i^x^]
leal tir-rjpuTrjvev Sa/xovT/X B &. Probably the original was simply SNPM. For
the next clause tyx D*?n -n;? ion, @ B has: ci epx^rat 6 dvrjp evravQa. This
alone corresponds to the answer which follows, and we restore (with Th., al.)
aNn uS.i N3n. The baggage of an army is o^jn, i; 22 25 13 . 23. ix-vi] read
the singular with (5; the unexpressed personal subject with the singular is
appropriate here. 24. Dn\x-\n] with daghesh dirimens Ges. 26 22 s. u] (&
reads i-?, but -3 nn3 is found i6 8 - 9 - 10 2 S. 6 21 Dt. i8 5 2i 5 . ayn Sj3] ^ fl-aa-iv
u^f" @. The case is difficult to decide; 03^33 is perhaps more likely to have
been changed (under the influence of the oyrrVs which precedes and follows)
than the reverse. I;"TO] xal eyvuo-av @ B ; the Hebrew seems to be original.
Before V;TI Bu. inserts by conjecture ) ??: ? inn^SM, 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
I5 1 is an interpolation. The command to Samuel in 8 22 says nothing of
anointing. 26. Snn] the army is out of place here; read STID &gt;j3 with
(Th., al.). -^3 D^N juries] no similar phrase has been pointed out.
27. nt] is used in contempt, 2i 16 25 21 2 S. 13", cf. BDB. s.v. pnnoa VIM]
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 qualities, 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 io 16 . The
tone is entirely different from that of lo 17 27 . 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 g l -io 16 is evident, and the author seems to
have foreshadowed this event when he says : do as the occasion
serves, for God is with thee (io 7 ).

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 vv. 12 ~ 14 , 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 Amman. The name means
Serpent, cf. 2 S. i; 25 and Nahshon, Ex. 6 2S . This Nahash lived
until some time after David was settled in Jerusalem, 2 S. io 2 .
The Ammonites were kindred of Israel (Gen. ip 31 " 38 ), but always
troublesome neighbours, cf. Moore on Jd. 1 1 4 . In the theory of
the Israelitic writers they occupied the desert east of Gilead,
Dt. 2 16 " 25 - 37 , but they are represented as claiming the territory
as far as the Jordan. Probably they were not scrupulous about
an ancestral title, 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 supplies, 2 K. 25*. Jabesh is mentioned Jd. 21 i
S. 3 1 11 2 S. 2 4 - 5 2 1 12 and in Chronicles. It is placed by Eusebius
six miles from Pella 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 with us that we may serve thee]
the Bedawin frequently reduce the towns of the oases to the con-

xi. i-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 ottt 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 will put igno
miny on all Israel^ the disgrace of Jabesh would be a gibe in the
mouth of all Israel s enemies, cf. 1 7 10 . 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 will come out to
thee. At the end of the verse (g L adds that they sent out the
messengers, but such complementary insertions are not infrequent.

1. Kcu eyev^drj $ /J.era
evidently represents a variant of e&gt;nnna &lt;| n&gt;i which is found in f 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 and he held his peace. The reading of @ is restored
in the form cnnsa TIM by Th. and adopted by most later scholars. The form
c tnsa is possible, as we see from Gen. 38 24 vhvm, but as the p is superfluous
I think enn roa more probable. On the identification of Jabesh Gilead, Eu-
sebius in OS. 268; Moore, Judges, p. 446, who cites the recent authorities.
nna uS~ma] the usual formula, Jos. 9 15 24 25 2 S. 5 s 2 K. 1 1*. The term
seems to have originated in the cutting apart of a victim, cf. WRSmith, Rel.
Sent. pp. 297, 461 ; Doughty, II. p. 41 ; Valeton in ZA TW. 12, p. 227 ff.; and
Kraetschmar, Die Bundesvorstelling im AT. (1896). 2. rwa] apparently
the a of price. After an 1 ? 13 MSS. and @ BL add nna. But the omission
makes no difficulty. DaS nipja] iv r$ Igoptfgcu vn&v &lt; BL . That they should
do the mutilating themselves would be a refinement of cruelty. But the Bed-
awy might not so regard it. npj is used of the ravens picking out the eye,
Prov. jo 17 ; the Piel in the same sense Jd. i6 21 . rpnciri] &lt;S AB seems to omit
the suffix. Sa] omitted by @ B . 3. -up?] AvSpes (5; the latter is favoured
by Bu. on the ground of v. 1 . But the conformity is more likely to be the result
of correction by a scribe than the dissimilation. uS *pn] cf. 2 K. 4 27 . The
protasis with |&gt;s~asi is followed by perfect with waw consecutive as in Ex. 22 2
Num. 27 9 . The fact that ps has a participle under its government does not
make the sentence different from those cited. JWID] with the accusative,
as in I 4 39 Jd. 636.

78 i SAMUEL

4-7 a . The reception of the message by Saul. The mes
sengers came to Gibeah of Sauf\ the town seems to have gone by
this name later, Is. lo 29 . There were several other towns which
bore the name Gibeah. (g has, to Gibeah to Saul, which is contra
dicted by what follows. The people wept aloud~\ Jd. 2 4 2i 2 i S.
30"* 2 S. 1 3 s6 . 5. Saul was just coming 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 J^, favoured also by 2. And
his wrath became very hot] in Jd. i4 19 also the Spirit of Yahweh
is the efficient cause of wrath. 7 a . And he took a yoke of oxen
and cut them in pieces ] the verb is used of cutting up a sacrificial
victim, i K. iS 23 - 33 and elsewhere; in one instance it describes
the cutting up of a human body Jd. ip 29 2O 6 . 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. N2] is apparently the participle. np3] 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. nSxm] the same verb in io 6 .
D obs] some MSS. have mm which is favoured also by (5. v:cE 3 Kt., IJ?D D
Qre ; the latter is more vigorous. S&OBP iriNi] is a redactional insertion
(Co.).

7 b -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
$%. 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 enormous numbers the Bne

XI. 4-n 79

Israel 300,000 and the men of Judah 30,000 are to be judged
like similar data elsewhere, cf. Jd. 2O 2 . 9. And he said~\ Saul is
the subject (() : To-morrow deliverance will come to you when the
sun grows hof\ 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 18 I4 36 - 40 2 S. io 12 Jd. ip 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. y 16 ,
and Abimelech Jd. p 43 . The advantage of attacking on different
sides at the same time is obvious. And they came into 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. i4 24 ; the night was divided into
three watches, notice the middle watch, Jd. 7 19 . And they smote
Ammon 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 were
not left two together.

NOTE. The reason for rejecting the numbers in v. 8 is that in the time of
Deborah the total fighting strength was 40,000 men, Jd. 5 8 , 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 &lt;5 here which doubles the 300,000 of $), while Josephus raises it to
700,000.

7b. INPI] does not give a bad sense, but as &lt; renders ip&gt; XM, this is restored
by We., al.; the phrase ins ti W is used with verbs meaning to gather, Jd. 2O 1
Ezra 3 1 Neh. 8 1 ; nowhere with NX\ 8. A Bezek is mentioned in Jd. i*
where it would be supposed to be in Judah. ( seems to have read in
Ramah, which however was early corrupted to Bamah or Bala (I). The
identification of our Bezek with Khirbet lUzik is as old as the fourteenth
century, cf. Moore on Jd. i & . 9. nntoi] aJ e?7rey AB is apparently correct.
sm] DHD Qre fixes the point of time more exactly. 10. c :r lyjfc VIOKM]
adds to Nahash the Ammonite and something of the kind seems necessary.

80 i SAMUEL

But I suspect the original reading to have been only vnih nsNM and that the
second word was corrupted to ^*JN. For jorr^r, ( AB gives simply TO dya66v,
and the shorter reading is to be preferred. 11. B v &gt;rs % i] of the divisions of the
army, Jd. 7 16 g 34 - 43 I S. I3 17 . On the double accusative, Dav., Syntax, 76.
For Amman (5 gives sons of Amman which accords with almost uniform usage.
nnxsMn] can be construed (cf. ro 11 2 S. 2 23 ), but it is extremely awkward.
Some relief is given by changing TVI to orpi, 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, cf-io 16 , 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. 12 14 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 15 , on the other hand, may
be a fragment of the original narrative, but something must have
stood between it and v. 11 .

12-15. The evidences of adaptation to the present situation found in vv. 12 ~ 14
are emphasized by We. (Cotnp. p. 243) and Stade (GVL I. p. 212). The three
verses are regarded as an interpolation by Co. (in! B . p. 100), and Bu. (fiS.
p. 173). Driver specifies only v. 14 as redactional (07 6 . p. 176).

12. Who is he who says : Saul shall not reign over us ?~\ the
negative is omitted in the current Hebrew, but found in (&& 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 reneiu the kingdom
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 m ** Jd. 2 1 ). 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. 12-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 8 22 . There before Yahweh in Gilgal~\ 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 th.e word is unknown. It designates
the offerings in which the greater part of the flesh forms a sacrifi
cial meal. The rejoicing before Yahweh is a prominent element
in early worship.

12. iSn^ SiNtr] 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
(@&{) it seems best to restore it. Kl. s conjecture : Rather let Sheol rule
over us! may be cited as a curiosity. 13. SiNtr] Sa^ouTjX &lt; B is a mere cleri
cal error. 14. Gilgal in this passage might be supposed to be the Gilgal in
Mt. Ephraim, 2 K. 2 1 . But elsewhere in the Books of Samuel the Gilgal in the
Jordan valley is intended. So in io 8 where rrrv is appropriate only to the
lower site, cf. I3 12 . 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. ii 30 , Moore on Jd. 2 1 . For the location we have Jos. 4 19 - 2, Eusebius
OS. p. 243, Baedeker Pal*, p. 167. snmi] 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. WO l] reads: /ecu ^xP t&lt;rev Sct/xouTjX &cet \jbv Sooi&gt;X]
eis jSacriXla. The shorter text seems original. n&gt;D l ?tt ] may be the offerings
which show the undisturbed relations which exist between God and the wor
shipper, Stade, G VI. I. p. 496. &lt;S inserts /cat 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, it might yet be well. But if they should be rebellious,
king and people would be destroyed. In evidence of the truth

82 i SAMUEL

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 io 17 24 . 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 n -3 6 , and repeated it in Jd. lo 6 " 18 ,
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 by the style and
vocabulary, as does Bu. s {RS. p. 182) that it belongs to E 2 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. inpcte
oaSipa] frequent in D. 2. DD ja 1 ? iSinn] Gen. 48 15 (E). 3. mrc] frequent
in Sam. and Psalms. Tip;?)?] Lev. IQ 18 Dt. 24 14 28 29 , frequent in Ezek. and
the second Isaiah. -"nxi] in connexion with pa&gt;j? in Dt. 28 s8 Am. 4 1 and in
many confessedly late authors. tea np 1 ?] Num. 35 31f - (P) Am. 5 12 . D^JW
^y] Lev. 20*. 4. mown] Gen. 39 23 4O 15 (J) Num. 22 38 (E) Dt. is 18 .
5. mn&gt; iy] occurs nowhere else, but nearly parallel are those passages in
which a sacred object is made witness to a declaration, as Jos. 22 27 (P)
Gen. 3i 44 (JE). 6. npp] of appointing men to a work, I K. I2 81 2 K. 2i 6
Is. 28 16 Eccl. 2 8 . Moses and Aaron} usually associated in P and Chr.,
nowhere in the historical or prophetical books except here Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam stands by itself (Mic. 6 4 ). nSyn] of the deliverance from Egypt
in E, D, Hos. I2 14 Jer. i6 u 23"? al. and in redactional passages. 7. mn]
Ex. I4 18 (J) I S. io 19 . JTOBBW] in this sense Jer. 2 85 Ezek. 2O 35f - Joel 4 2 and
other late passages. nirv nipnx] Jd. 5 11 and, with a different shade of mean-

XII. i-j 83

ing, Mic. 6 5 . 8. onsn apjp a] &lt;^en. 46 6 Ex. i 1 (both P).
a standing phrase of the Deuteronomistic redactor of Jd. ; cf. I S. 7 8 - 9 8 18 .
o^B"i] Lev. 23 43 Ezek. 36 11 - 33 . 9. no -USM] Jd. 2 14 3 8 4 2 io 7 . 10. yuan
U2T? \3] Jd. io 10 . 2T&gt; is used of forsaking the true God, Jd. io 10 - 13 Dt. 28 20
31 16 Jer. i6 u and often in Kings. a-^an] Jd. 2 11 , cf. 2 13 where the Ashtaroth
are brought in as here. 11. vyy me] 2 K. 17^. aooo DD^N] Dt. I2 1}
25 19 Jos. 23! Jd. 2 14 8 3i . roa IT.-] Dt. i2 10 . 12. oaaSn mmi] Is. 33 22 43 15 -

14. mm-ns wmn-aN] Dt. 6 2 - 13 io 20 Jos. 24 14 . mm ^BTK nan] Num. 2O 24
27 14 (P) Dt. i 26 - 43 9 23 i K. i3 2L2fi . 15. CD3 mm-m nnvm] Ex. 9 3 (J) Dt. 2 15
Jd. 2 15 i S. 7 13 . 16. D3&lt;r?S .127] Dt. i 30 48*29! Ex. 7(E). IT. nV?p p&gt;i]
Ex. 9 23 (E). VIN^ nrPB&gt;y -ityN] the infinitive with *?, specifying more nearly
what is meant by a preceding noun, is found Gen. i8 19 (R) Dt. 9 18 Jd. 9 53 (E)
2 S. I3 16 i K. i6 19 Neh. itf. 19. -i?a ^ar.n] Gen. 2O 7 (E) Dt. 9 20 , frequent
in jer. 20. nrwo mon-^N] 2 K. i8 6 2 Chr. 34 33 . 21. inr] notoriously a
late word, applied to false gods in Is. 4i 29 . i^vuS] Is. 44 10 Jer. 2 8 al.
22. nn^ e-^] Jd. 6 13 Is. 2 6 Jer. I2 7 Ps. 94 14 . IDV niapa] cf. Jos. 7 9 Is. 48 9
Ezek. 20 9 - 14 - 22 . mm Swi] 2 S. 7 29 and the parallel i Chr. if* Job 6 9 .
To make you a people for himself^ does not occur elsewhere in this exact
wording, but the idea is frequent in Dt. 23. -nil innvn] Ps. 25 8 27" 32 8 .

24. The first half of the verse is nearly the same as Jos. 24 14a . With all
your heart} Jer. 29 13 Joel 2 12 , frequent in Dt. with the addition and with all
your soul. assy rijn] Ps. I26 2 - 3 . 25. )&gt;nn ;nn] i Chr. 2i 17 . IBDP]
Gen. I9 15 - 17 i S. 26 10 27! Num. i6 26 .

It must be evident that the passage shows dependence on Dt. and acquaint
ance with Jer., Ezek., and possibly later writers. The identification with E 2
does not therefore seem well grounded, and Graf s theory also falls to the
ground. That the author is acquainted 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. 27 l6f - (P). The kingless people
are sheep without a shepherd. The Homeric parallel is well
known. But as for me / 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 / have walked 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 : Here am // 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-hamor mi lakdhti
We-eth mi ashdkti
Eth mi ra^dthi
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 ?
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 from whose hand have I taken a gift,
that I might blind my eyes with it? The different reading of @
will be discussed below. The verb meaning blind is found Lev. 20*
2 K. 4 27 Is. i 15 Ezek. 22 26 . That a gift blinds the clear-sighted is
declared Ex. 2 3 s , cf. Dt. i6 19 . Testify against me, and I will re store
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 in
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. *h omcN VJN S:&gt;S] is superfluous, but this author is diffuse throughout.
2. "pflno] is lacking in &. "ONI] is somewhat emphatic Saul is now
your leader, but I for my part have been your leader a long time. 3. o u&gt;]
Ex. 20 18 Num. 35 80 Dt. IQ 16 . Before each clause of the second couplet (5
inserts the conjunction or (= i). 13 ^ry o^yNi] seems to be perfectly good

XII. 3-9 85

Hebrew. &lt; AB reads Kal vir6$-rj/j.a ; airoKpWriTe KOT fyov. As pointed out by
Cappellus {Critica Sacra, p. 265), this must represent a u&gt;* D^yji. This is
adopted as original by Th., We., Dr., Ki., and has influenced Sirach (46 19 ),
as pointed out by Schleusner, Thesaurus, s.v. uTrJSr/^a (the reading is found
in the newly discovered Hebrew fragments). A shoestring is proverbial for a
thing of little worth, Gen. I4 23 , as it is in Arabic (Goldziher in Jour. Assyr.
VII. p. 296). But the coordination D^; JI naj for a bribe even a pair of shoes
seems strange. We should expect at least D^&gt;*J D.I, or D^&gt;J nsi (KL). For
this reason it seems best to retain f^. It has been supposed that the pair of
shoes in Am. 2 6 is a symbol of transfer of real estate, in which case D^&gt;J&gt; 103
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 ID wy we
may, however, restore &gt;a ir; (Bu.), the phrases being so much alike that
one was easily lost; I is conflate. 5. At the end of the verse "CNM 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 nDNM,
which is found in the text of some editions, and is represented in

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 Yahweh, though it may not be
the original. Who appointed Moses~\ is the accepted transla
tion, though who wrought ivith 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 |^, seems to give a good sense. The expanded
text of (d, that I may plead with you and make known to you
(generally adopted), seems to be secondary. The reading of f^
is supported by Ezek. 1 7 20 . 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 Jff, 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 J^, " which is just
what Moses and Aaron did not make them do" (Dr.). 9. The
deliverance was followed by ingratitude : They forgot Yahweh their
God, and he soki 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. io 10 . On
the Baals and the Astartes, cf. above, f. 11. Yahweh had sent
as deliverers Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel~\
Barak is adopted from () instead of the Bedan of J^, a name not
otherwise known except in the genealogical list i Chr. y 17 . As
the present passage is wholly dependent on the Book of Judges,
it is unlikely that it has preserved for us the name of a deliverer
otherwise unknown. Rabbinical ingenuity has identified Bedan
withy^/r, Jd. io 3 , 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 hand of your enemies round about and you dwelt in
security] almost exactly as in Dt. 1 2 10 . The point of view is pal
pably the same as that of y 13 . 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
Amman 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. run 11 ] so isolated cannot be right : \tywv /j.dprvs Kvpios represents
mrv i&gt;? nrjxS which is now generally adopted. & has Yahweh alone is God
and &lt;5 L adds 6 0e6s to Kvpios. It is possible therefore that the original was
EPfttan Nin mm which is more appropriate to this fresh start in the speech.
ns H27] the verb is unusual in the sense of appointing to a work, but the
combination occurs just below of -working with one. The rendering of 5T
who did great things by the hand of Afoses is probably only a paraphrase.
7. HIpTjrVa PN] &lt;S prefixes Kal curayye\&lt;a vfuv on the ground of which most
recent editors insert DoS JTVJNI. But the case seems to be one in which the
more difficult reading should be retained. The plus is lacking in I ( Cod. Goth.
Leg. apud Vercellone). 8. onso] &lt;S adds Kal tTairtivwfffv avrobs Myvirros =

xii. 9-17 8;

onxo OJJ7M which is probably original (Dr., al.), as the omission can be ac
counted for by homeoteleuton. On the other hand Jacob and his sons &lt;,
instead of the simple Jacob, seems to be a scribe s expansion. WXIM] as the
emphasis is laid upon Yahweh s activity all through, ei-riyayev @ AL may be
right. More attractive however is the simple change of pointing to wxvi
(We.) which makes the verb subordinate to the preceding. cu^ri] here
the singular is decidedly to be preferred (We.), supported by &lt;&. 9. For
Hazor &lt; has Jabin king of Hazor, adopted by We., Bu. The latter is in
accordance with Jd. 4 7 , but the other is not so entirely without analogy as We.
supposes; cf. i K. 2 3 - . 10. -IDNM Kt.: read VIOKM Qrg and versions.
nnnsvn] -rols &\&lt;rc(nv &lt;f| as in y 3 - 4 . 11. Syj-v] as Jd. 8 29 ; Deborah is read
here by & which inserts Gideon later. po] has given the exegetes much
trouble. { renders it p^c^ 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.
(F/ 3 . 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. I2 13 ).
*?NIC^] Samson @ L j$ 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 ^NIC^T.NI to be a later insertion (Bu. and apparently Dr.).
n jj] the accusative of condition, Dav. Syntax, job. 12. oo^n DDTI^N nirpi]
the clause is lacking in (51. The view which it expresses is found also in Jd.
8 23 (cf. Moore s note) and I S. 8 7 .

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 14 - 23 Jd. 9 16 . Be
hold the king which you have chosen] the received text adds which
you asked, lacking in (g B . 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 f^ 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. If 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.* / will call upon Yahweh and he will send thunder and
rain~\ lit. voices and rain. The thunder is the voice of Yahweh,
Ps. i8 14 29 3 . The result will be their conviction of the great sin
they had committed in asking 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. DnSxtr -^N] omitted in (S&gt; B but represented in @ AL with a i prefixed,
as is the case in many MSS. of f^. 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. Notae Criticae, p. 436, and is adopted by
most recent critics. njm] the i is omitted by 9 MSS. (DeR.) and &, but the
latter is free in its treatment of the conjunctions. 14. The text of fjfy 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 32 (Moses impassioned intercession). To begin the apodosis with arum
is grammatically the correct thing to do, but it makes an identical proposition :
if you fear Yahweh . . . then you will follow Yahweh. &lt;5 L feels the difficulty,
for it adds at the end of the sentence /cal eeAe?Tcu u,u5s, which, however, has
no other authority. We. gives omm as the reading of certain Hebr. MSS. and
in one recension of 2T we find pmni, 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 DDVI^N mm -m, which was probably added after the
corruption to amm had taken place (so Kl.). That the people may live is
frequently given as the end of obedience, Dt. 4 1 Am. 5 14 . 15. DDTUJOI] is
evidently unsatisfactory: Kal tir\ rbv &a&lt;n\4a V/JLUV @ B is what we require.
But &lt; L is probably right in adding e oAo0peu&lt;rcu VJULO.S = DrnONn 1 ?, for this alone
could give rise to the corrupt reading. The text of &lt;5 L is adopted by KL, Bu.
Tanchum and Kimchi make D3T3N31 mean and upon your kings, but this is
forced. 5u& translate : as it was upon your fathers, and are followed by EV.
but this does violence to the Hebrew. 16. nnjroj] is used for variety,
nnyi having been twice used. 17. i&gt;m] the imperative expressing the conse
quence of the preceding verb, cf. Gen. 2O 7 , Konig, Syntax, 364 i. ^INE^]
where we should say in asking. This construction is not uncommon in
Hebrew, cf. Konig, Syntax, 402*. The clause which ye have done in the eyes
of Yahweh is lacking in j$. 18. IND] is differently placed in f^ and , 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.

XIT. 17-25 89

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

19-25. The people s 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 : Ye,
indeed, have done this evil, only do not turn aside from following
Yahweh~} 2 Chr. 25^ 34 s3 . 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 Yahweh will not cast away
his people for the sake of his great name~\ for the verb cf. Jd. 6 13 :
and now Yahweh has cast us off. That Yahweh will save his peo
ple for his name s sake is a comparatively late conception, Jos. f
(P). That his reputation will suffer if he rejects them is evident :
For Yahweh has undertaken to make you a people for himself} on
the main verb cf. Moore, 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 10 27 1 and probably looks forward to Saul s death at Gilboa.

19. njn] wai KO.KIO.S r)fj.uv @ L ; we expect rather PNTH njnn. 20. So] is
lacking in L . 21. -o] is entirely meaningless (We., Dr.) and is not rep
resented in the versions. A scribe may have written nnsn under the influ
ence of the preceding verse and afterwards tried to make it fit here by chang
ing the first letter to -o. 22. ^Nin] juravit 3L indicates r^x-, but no change
is necessary. 23. ^JN DJ] the c asus pcndens, Dr. Tenses*, 196, Dav. Syn
tax, 1 06. fD ^ nS^Sn] is a common construction : it is too profane a thing
for me to do, cf. Jos. 24. -pia oans \-imrn] cf. Ps. 258- 12 32* Prov. 4".

"p-u] should probably be pointed with the article (KL, Bu.). 24. wv]
on the form Stade, Gram. 111,2. 24. With all your heart; & prefixes and.

INT &gt;a] tin flfSere = DfPNn o, is certainly smoother.

9O i SAMUEL

XIII. and XIV. 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 cattle 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 (is 4 " 15 ) gives us at Gilgal
an interview between Samuel and Saul in which the latter is in
formed of his rejection; the second (is 1 *" 22 ) describes the dis
armed condition of Israel. At the end of the section (i4 47-51 ) 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 p^io 16 .

XIII. i-3 9*

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. The
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. pp. 246-248,
Prol*. pp. 266-272; Stade, GVI. I. p. 215 ff.; Kuenen, HCO-. pp. 371, 381;
Budde, RS. pp. 191 f., 204-208, and his text in SBOT.; Cornill, AY;*/ 3 , p.
97 f., ZATW. X. p. 96 f.; Kittel, GH. II. p. 28 (the results in his translation
in Kautzsch, HSAT.}; Driver, LOT-, p. 175; W. R. Smith, 07 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 n 15 . 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 J3ethel~\ 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
Beitln, 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 27f- Neh. y 31 n 31 .
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. lo 29 which, however, makes evident that in Isaiah s time Geba
and Gibeah of Saul 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: Let the Hebrews hear!] puts the

* I should state that I have differed from the consensus in regard to the extent
of the insertion which ends at v. 15 .

92 i SAMUEL

name Hebrews in Saul s mouth, which cannot be correct. The
clause and the Philistines heard presents a further difficulty 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 seeais
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. 16 . This original datum has been expanded
into the exaggerated statement of v. 5 .

1. The verse as given in |^ can mean only one thing: Saul was a year old
when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel ] this is palpably
absurd. The earliest endeavour to give the words a sense seems to be re
corded in C : Saul was innocent as a child a year old 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 was
thirty years old. The whole verse is lacking in the most important MSS. of
(8 ( A 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^JB&gt; Tian cannot be correct, and not improbably &gt;nan 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-
ata) have now only an antiquarian interest. The whole verse should be
stricken out. 2. O^N] should be followed by ti"N as indicated by &lt;&&. On
Michmash, cf. Baedeker, Palestine*, p. 119, Furrer in Schenkel s Bibel Lexi-
kon, IV. p. 216. Mount Bethel occurs only here according to $. On the
now generally accepted identification of Bethel with Beitin cf. Moore, Judges,
p. 42. The importance of the two places here mentioned is noted by

xin. 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. pc^a n&gt;3J3] 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. 1! Saul and Jonathan are occupying Geba, which nevertheless is called
Gibeah of Benjamin in I4 lf) . It seems evident that Geba is intended through
out this narrative. In the time of Isaiah however as already noted, Gibeah
of Saul was distinguished from Geba. V^HN*? C"N] the phrase dates back to
the time when the people were nomads or at least tent-dwelling fellahin.
3. TI] the verb is used nearly always of smiting living beings, once of strik
ing the rock, Ex. 1 7. But Jonathan would do more than strike a pillar, tro
phy, or triumphal monument; he would overthrow it, for which some other
verb would be used; Am. 9 1 , which is cited as an example of this verb used for
the overthrow of columns, is obscure and probably corrupt. This reasoning
leads to the conclusion that :rsj is an officer or a garrison. 3\i^s fl y^y^
Dn3&gt;*n . . .] is one of the cruces criticorum. The somewhat violent treat
ment advocated above proceeds on the theory that for the words an^n i&gt; BC" :
T?0eTT)Kamj/ ol SoCAot we should restore cna&gt;n t/^o (Bu.). If so the words
(with or without -os--) should follow immediately on DTC ^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 a . 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. 16 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 i SAMUEL

The paragraph has usually been supposed a duplicate of ch. 1 5
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. 4f- , it is distinctly prepared for in io 8 . 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 which 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 15a . But the upper limit is not so plain. It is
generally assumed to be 7b 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. 4 . 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 we have the enormous numbers of the Philistines in v. 5 ,
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. 4 is confirmed by the
opening words of 7b which do not say that Saul came down to
Gilgal, but that he was still there. For these reasons I suppose

. 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 ( 3 ) ; that the Philistines came up in force ( 5a ) ; and then
that Saul mustered the force at his command and found it to be
six hundred men ( 15b ) . 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
have cast out of v. 3 may be prefixed here : Saul blew the trumpet
in all the land ( 4 ) 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 30 Ex. 5" 2 S. 10 i6 21 . 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 (@&gt; L &lt;S
have three thousand. This is favoured by Bochart and others,
but is still absurdly large. Egypt only mustered six hundred
chariots, Ex. i4 7 , 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. 7 12
2 S. i y 11 . The Arab s hyperbole is similar : like the sand of the
desert. They came up and camped in Michmash, 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. 2 ) 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

96 i SAMUEL

preceded. 7. And much people} the reading is conjectural
crossed the Jordan to the land 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. v;w~] is lacking in & which joins VNiK^ Sji to the preceding verse.
to give intense provocation, 2 S. IO 6 I6 21 . WXM] /cal a.vt$i\&lt;sa.v &lt;fI B is
apparently inner Greek corruption of av06rjo-av which is found in several
MSS. (HP). ^jS-in] supported by the versions, is exscinded by Bu., changed
into nnymn by Co. (ZKIV. 1885, p. 123). 5. Bochart s reduction of the
chariots to three thousand, in which he includes the baggage wagons {Hiero-
zoicon, Pars. I. Lib. II. Cap. IX.), though only a halfway measure, is adopted
by We., Dr., al. ps r^a] (5 has Beth Horon, & has Bethel. Nearly all the
passages in which the name occurs have a suspicious text. Certainly the
author who just wrote ^N n-o would have no motive to use a different form
here; for Beth Aven is another name for Bethel. 6. wi] Bu. corrects to
n.xi on the ground of , which, however, can hardly be taken so literally in a
case like this. o;n cjj &gt;:&gt;] omit ayn with We., al. ; &lt;5 B has on (rrevws a.vr&lt;f
IJL^ irpoadyeiv O.VTOV, It is possible that the text is corrupt, though what
Hebrew original is implied by @ B is hard to discover. The verb ITJJ is used
of an overseer s driving his slaves. DTiim ] is doubtless a corruption of
an mi as first suggested by Ew. DTP-IS] the word is used (as pointed out by
Dr.) in the inscriptions of Medain Salih, for sepulchres hewn in the rock.
7. na; ana,;}] at of SiafiaivovTes SiejSrjirai/ @. I am not certain that the
suggested reading 7 onajM is not correct. But as the participle in such cases
usually follows the verb, I have followed Bu. in adopting Kl. s conjecture,
na;* 21 o&gt;i. We. proposed nna&gt;a naj?i which was syntactically improved by
Dr. into m-Q"D na&gt;"\ The final clause of the verse cannot be correct. Nor
does We. s emendation of inns to innso on the basis of @ L meet the diffi
culty. The flight of the people has already been described; what we now
want to know is who remained. Kl. conjectures mnx t]T\n nyn which is
favoured by 3L. I should prefer inns TVH o&gt;n but do not feel certain that
either is correct.

8-1 5 a . Saul s rejection. He waited in Gilgal seven days for
the appointed time which Samuel had set"} the reference is to io 8
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 away 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-iS 97

monies, as is indicated by the phrase consecrate war Jer. 6 4 , al.
10. As Saul finished the ceremony 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 29 . 11. To Samuel s question :
What hast thou, done ? he replies : / saw that the people were
scattering away from me, and thou didst not come at the appointed
term and the Philistines were gathering at Michmash~^ everything
seemed to call for prompt action ; " non solum se excusat sed
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, P&gt;.
45 13 ; the phrase is also used of approaching Yahweh with entreaty,
Ex. 32 11 i K. i3 6 . And I constrained myself ~\ elsewhere in the
sense of restraining one s emotions, Gen. 43 31 45 1 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 f 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 JE see the critical note. 14. But noiu} adversatively as in
2 30 cf. 24 21 , thy kingdom shall not stand. That the language and
behaviour of Samuel are less stern and damnatory here than in 15
will be generally conceded ; the fact makes for the priority of this
account. Yahweh has sought out a man 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. 15 a . The verse as it stands in J^ 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 : And 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 Benjamin~\
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
io 8 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 l 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. Sn^i] is intended to be Piel, a not uncommon form, Stade, Gram.
p. 278. It seems unnecessary to change to ^nri Qre. ^y\v is an appointed
time or place, cf. "m njnnS 2O 35 . SNIC& n^s] is impossible; we must either
strike out T^N with j or insert a word; -ON is inserted by Th., We., Bu. on
the ground of ({; 0- is preferred by Kl., Dr., and might easily have been
lost before VNIGB&gt;. 6 Hebr. MSS. insert nrvS; 5 insert oz&gt; (DeR.), cf. Ex. 9 5 .

* Ew., G y/*. III. p. 46, E. Tr. III. p. 32.

XIII. i 5 -i7 99

YW\~\ cf. 2 S. 2O 22 . 9. nSjjm] out of the several animals that were offered,

the ola was the one specially set apart for Yahweh. 10. rum . . . inSaa]
marks the appearance of Samuel just as the burnt offering was completed.

II. :)] 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. xbj] is
probably to be pointed so (Bu.), cf. v. 8 , from which we see that the verb is
po. 12. imSn N*? mm &gt;JDI] the sentence is generally used of conciliating
God. 13. N 1 ?] is the pointing of the received text, but we should quite cer
tainly read S, that is Ni 1 ?, 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 -iS in a hypothesis contrary to
reality, is followed in the apodosis by nrj; ^, as here, in Num. 22 s9 I S. I4 80
Job 6 2 . Dr. inclines to retain the pointing of ffl, 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 @ my
commandment which. Yahweh commanded thee. 14. ifp^] on the use of this
tense, Dr., Tenses*, 13, 14, Dav., Syntax, 41. V?] the dative of advan
tage, Dav., Syntax, 101, R. i b. laaSa] the only exact parallel seems to be
Jer. 3 15 , but cf. 2 S. 7 21 . -pjj 1 ? )mx&gt;i] 25 30 2 S. 6 21 , the verb is used of ap
pointing -the Judges 2 S. 7 11 , cf. Num. 27 19 . 15. The plus of @ is already
noted by Mendoza (in Poole s Synopsis). Sy?jrrp] according to (1 (from
which the words passed into the current recension of ft) we should add:
SjSjn p 1X3^1 nonScn oy ntopS hwv nnN nSy opn nmi tTW "pH. The cor
rection is adopted by all recent scholars (except Keil). Probably Spi 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.

15 b . 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 i4 2 , 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
Benjamin] the addition made by (fi seems uncalled for. 17. The
Philistine policy is to reduce the people to submission by devas-

IOO 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. iS 28 .
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 Philistine 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 : towards 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 Philistine force settled
at Michmash which employed itself in punishing the country, not
looking for serious opposition. The valley of Zeboim is of course
one of the wadys of which the region is full. A place, Zeboim in
Benjamin, is mentioned after the exile, Neh. n 34 . Verse 18 is
continued directly by v. 23 ; what is between is a later insertion.

16. After pD^J3, &lt;& B adds K.O.\ K\aiov, which is adopted by Graetz (Gesch.
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&gt;nnn] the verb is used of laying a land waste, as the Bedawin do by
pasturing cattle on the growing crops, Jd. 6 4 , or, more seriously, by cutting
down the fruit trees, a custom forbidden in Dt. 2O 19f - as it is by Arabic common
sense. D^NI n&&amp;gt;Sts&gt;] accusative of condition, Dr., Notes, Dav., Syntax, 70,
R. I. nns] where we should expect -nNn. A similar instance is found in
I 2 , cf. Konig, Syntax, 334 s. njo&gt;] the tense shows repeated 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 I,
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. Siajn] ra/3ee points to nyajn, and, as We.
remarks, it is only a hill that can be said to overhang a valley. D^axn u]
Hyena Gorge is still the name ( Wady abu Duba } of a valley north of Wady
Kelt according to Ges., WB^., but Buhl (Geog. p. 98) makes it one of the side
valleys of the latter, or even the Wady Kelt itself. maion] is omitted by &
and looks like an explanatory insertion.

* Bg*. I. p. 447.

XIII. 17-22 IOI

19-22. The lack of arms in Israel. The paragraph intends
to represent Israel as having been disarmed by the Philistines, 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 21 42* 2 S. i6 3
i8 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. 22 . 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
2T 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
Michmash, 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.

IO2 i SAMUEL

23. The verse takes up the account of the Philistine position.
In v. 17f 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. 28 ), Co., int 8 . p. 97, and Ki. in
Kautzsch, HSA T. 19. snn] is used of a worker in wood, stone, or metal;
TtKTuv &lt;n$-f}pov (j| may point to Vna enn (cf. Is. 44 12 ), or it may be simply an
attempt to render the word as the context requires. IDN] is changed to nnx
by the @/v unnecessarily. 20. OTiipVan] the conjecture of Dr. Weir (given
by Dr.) that we should read DTiC Sfl nxix is confirmed by @C. C B ? 1 ?] 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, ni^inn is most natu
rally the ploughshare, though @ AB has the sickle, with which S agrees, while
C renders oxgoad. ins] should be pointed ins according to the form in
Is. 2* (Mic. 4 3 ) Joel 4 10 . Beyond the fact that it is a tool of some kind, we
cannot go with certainty. &lt; gives antvos simply; Symmachus translates
ffKatyiov, which is the mattock (Procop. Gaz. Com. in loco). The passages in
Isaiah and Joel speak of beating the nx 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. J5 renders ploughshare, and & the pin of the yoke.
0-np is quite certainly the axe, Jd. 9 48 . 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 u:m, influenced by the occur
rence of this word in v. 21 and the rendering dpeiravov &lt;5, which word occurs
also in v. 21 (5, though p*n is nowhere else so rendered. But in the confusion
of the text of v. 21 , 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 J5, the adze 1&, rptoSovs (Aq.), sarculum 3L, and the axe
(Ar.). To such variety it may be impertinent to add the conjecture of Ew.
(F7 3 . III. p. 47, E. Tr. III. p. 33), who reads ixnn, though his translation,
the threshing sledge, will hardly do. According to Hoffmann (ZATW. II.
p. 66), ynn 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. D&gt;D mi*Qn nmni] is ungrammatical, and unintel
ligible even if we try to correct the grammar. jwSp pVpbi] is without analogy

XIII. 23-XIV. i 103

in Biblical Hebrew (on both phrases, cf. Dr., Notes). irxnVi] coordinated
as it is (or seems to be) with names of tools, makes no sense. For the open
ing clause we find Kal ^v 6 rpuy^rbs erotics TOV QfpLfeiv = foj "vxpn &gt;m
up 1 ?, which is not very remote from |^. But this promising beginning is left
incomplete. If we were told that when 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 actually adds is : TO 8e &lt;reiv7j $v rpets
ffittAoi tis rbi&gt; 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 iran T^an, translates andJhe sharpening of the edges (for the plough
shares and the spades) was three shekels apiece. But the meaning proposed
for "vxan and for a^an is without authority, and the meaning apiece for ]&h
is also unparalleled. Retusae itaque erant acies vomerum ft 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 usque ad stimulum corrigendum.
Another attempt is made by C, which apparently supposes rrvxan to mean
a file, for it translates : and they had a file to sharpen the dulness of the
iron tools. & also has the file (if, indeed, Knm K^DIO 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 Ar.,
which says in so many words: they fashioned the broad file into a pruning-
hook, and took pegs from the harrows for picks. Thesq 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^xn 1 ?! seems to
connect most naturally with tra 1 ? 1 ? 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. piin] for
the pointing, cf. Stade, Gram. 52 a. 22. n&gt;m] should probably be made
"PI. After non^D (on the face of it a construct form) we should probably
insert C DDS with (& (Ew.). Toy proposes to read ITDDD instead of nDiV?D: in
the day of Michmash would naturally mean in the day of the battle of Mich-
mash. 23. ass 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. "ia&gt;/D] it is unnecessary to change the pointing to
-n"3 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 * 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 4 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 16 .
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 was sifting in the uttermost part of Geba~\ so
we must read, to be consistent, under the pomegranate 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. 18 we learn that Saul commanded the ephod
to be brought, cf. also 23 9 3O 7 . 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-
bearer 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 28 and the well-
known Dent du Midi. The names of the two rocks in question
were Bozez and Sen eh. We may conjecture that Bozez, the shin
ing, was the one facing the south, Seneh, the thorny, the one facing

xiv. i-5 IDS

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

1. nvn \-PI] the same expression I 4 , cf. Ges. 26 126 s. i^a Ntrj] Abime-
lech had such an attendant and so apparently had Gideon, Jd. 9 54 7 10 .
O&gt;E] Num. 32 19 Jos. 22 7 Jd. 7 25 . The passages show that the word means
simply beyond. r^n] cf. Dr. in BOB. sub vote, with his reference, Wright,
Comp. Gram. p. 117. n;ojn nxpa] as Geba is the town overlooking the pass,
it must be meant here. For nxpa describing a position on the outskirts of the
town cf. 9 27 . ps-vi] evidently a well-known tree. p~uc is meant by f^ as a
proper name, and in fact there is a Migron not far away, Is. lo 28 . 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 fj&gt;2 with the meaning of pj a threshing-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. rrnx] in 2i 2 22 9 we find the priest at Nob called y?Dn and he
also is a son of Ahitub. It is not unlikely therefore that the two names
designate the same individual, the original i^ns having been changed to
avoid the suggestion of Molech. The identification is cited by Schm. from
Sanctius. On the assumed meaning my brother is Yahweh, or brother of
Yahweh, cf. Jastrow, JBL. XIII. p. 101 ff., and Barton, ibid. XV. p. i68ff.
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.
mao"&gt;N] Io&gt;xa#7?A &lt;5 AB . Dnj o] is written Druo i 8 (by the occidentals only).
Nestle (Am. Jour. Sent. Lang. XIII. p. 173) follows Lauth in supposing the
name (borne also by a son of Aaron) to be Egyptian and to mean negro.
liss N^J] there seems to be no clear instance where j means to wear an
article of dress. In Ex. 28 12 - 29 however it describes the High Priest as bear
ing (or wearing) the names on the breastplate. The use of N2 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 18 2 S. 6 14 ) which
would indicate that it could be worn. See Moore on Judges I7 5 , with the
extended list of authorities there given. 4. nna; sn] on the daghesh cf. Stade,
Gram. 317. The form is construct, governing the clause which follows,
Ges. 26 130^:; Dav., Syntax, 25. j& however connects the first two words
of the verse with the preceding : the people did not know that Jonathan had
gone to the pass. -aynn] occurs only here and with run seems superfluous;

* So GASmith, Geog. p. 250.

IO6 i SAMUEL

one of the two words is omitted by &lt;S. pxu] the attractive conjecture of
GASmith as to the meaning of the word goes back apparently to Gesenius,
Thesaurus, p. 229 : appellativa significatio videtur splendens. Later lexicons
take no notice of this. The form in @ is Ba&e or Bale s. rnp] is thus
pointed by Ginsburg; the editions vary. The word is doubtless the same
with njD, the thorn, as for example, the burning bush Ex. 3 s - 4 , cf. Dt. 33 16 .
The word has been transferred from Arabic to English in the name of the
medicinal senna ; &lt;@&gt; has S.cwaa.p. The two names are rendered by (, Slip-
pery and Inaccessible. 5. It is a question whether pixo gives a suitable
sense. Besides this passage it is used in 2 8 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, NHWB.}. But what is required here is a word like iwa, which
however seems to be applied specifically to cities or walls. As pD is not
represented in (j|, it may be an intruder corrupted from the poxn 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 D hm defining a location, compare Ex. 34* Dt. 4 46 .

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. I4 3 15 18 i S. i8 24 27
3 1 4 2 S. i 20 . Jonathan s hope of doing something is a hope in
God : Perchance Yahweh will act for us~\ there seems no reason
to question the construction. For Yahweh finds no hindrance to
his saving power 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 %fy is awkward, and it is doubtful

XIV. 6-12

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
Philistine 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
sternate 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 i3 6 . 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 12b , we find the name of the hero spelled
jrwm whereas elsewhere in these two chapters we have fnjy. 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 im and v see Bonk in ZATW. XI. pp. 125-156.

6. rnayji] omits the i. ^Sis] expresses a hope, as in Gen. 32 21 .
uS mm ntpp] has an analogy in Jd. 2 7 ; the object ne;*s is contained in the
verb: perchance Yahweh will do a deed for us (Schm.). Some have ques-

IO8 i SAMUEL

tioned whether the text is sound, and Kl. propose? to emend to ijS jn&M\
But this seems unnecessary. iwyc] the noun occurs nowhere else, but the
verb is not infrequent in the meaning to shut up, to keep back. BJJDO IN ana]
is logically connected with iixyc. 7. The received text is awkward, and it
is a question whether it can be translated, naj certainly does not belong in
a sentence where it must be made to mean go on. @ seems to have had
another text : Tro/et irav & fav fj KapSia &lt;rov fKK\ivy would represent "i^N ^a nvy
^ naj -pa 1 ?, and this preserves the natural meaning of naj, cf. Jd. 9 3 . This
text, suggested by Ew., has been accepted by most recent scholars. laa Ja]
adds KapSia pot*, which also is generally accepted since Ew. 8. ana;*]
the participle is used of action in the immediate future and is carried on by
ij^Jj). 9. For rcr, be still, cf. Jer. 476, and, of the sun s standing still, Jos.
io 12f -. For tjy^n &lt;H has a.Trayyi\co/j.v, perhaps reading m\}n. wnnn] in
our tracks is a colloquial equivalent, cf. Ex. i6 29 Jd. 7 21 . 10. ncto] +7iy&gt;bs
r)fj.as with which S agrees. But no great stress can be laid upon the
evidence for so easy an insertion. U^;*] npbs ^uas is the rendering of &lt;,
as in v. 12 where pj has U^N, which should probably be read here. u-va] a
number of codd. have wva, but cf. Gen. 43 21 Dt. 32 27 . nn] the i is lack
ing in J53L and may have come from erroneous duplication of the preceding
letter. anay] in the mouth of the Philistines as elsewhere; here without the
article : some Hebrews, not the Hebrews as in @. According to We., Hitzig
conjectured anaa?, mice. 12. naxcn] is doubtless to be corrected to axcn,
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 climbing the cliff they were hidden from the view of the
post at the top ; otherwise there would have been no surprise.
And they turned before Jonathan and he smote theni\ this is the
reading of ( and on the whole the better, though the case is
particularly difficult to decide. J^ reads : and they fell before
Jonathan. In any case, Jonathan felled them to the ground, and
his armour-bearer kept despatching them after him\ 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 Michmash, or something like that.
@ finds an account of the weapons used ; Jt? gives a comparison

XIV. i3-i6

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
tumult ivas surging hither and thither] the remarkable thing was a
mob moving purposelessly to and fro in its mad impulse.

13. jruv iJoS V?DII] seems a little too abrupt. We expect the attack or
the terror to be asserted. &lt;& enables us to restore 03&gt;i pjv ^sh UB&gt;). 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 quam par bourn in die arare
consuevit HL, and this has passed into the modern versions. But the objections
to it are of the most serious kind, ^sras has a combination of prepositions
very rare, occurring in only two expressions, both defining a point of time
(Dr., Notes } ; nj^D in the meaning furrow occurs in one late passage, Ps. I29 3
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&gt;o is said to mean the amount of ground which a plough
man takes in hand at one time, Ges., HWB* 2 ., 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, as is nj&gt; D 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. IDS 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 10 , which is usually urged for this meaning, is not free from difficulty.

1 10 i SAMUEL

But assuming it provisionally, we cannot yet make an intelligible sentence : as
in half a furrow (?) an acre of field is redundant and ungrammatical. The
versions testify to the corruphon, but unfortunately without helping to correct
it. ( L has tv &o\i(ri KO! tv ireTpo&6\ois /cai eV /c&lt;fxA.at TOV ireS/ou, with which
I agrees ( Cod. Goth. Leg?) ; (JI AB omits from this al *v ireTpo&6\ois, 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. 4 seems to have had at least mtpn . . . DOi ra,
and between came mxa or rnao; it should be noted that nix is nowhere
used of stones as a weapon, but it is more likely than ps to be the original of
1DX. If we restore mtpn nxa we should translate among the rocks of the field,
which would not be out of place. On the basis of & we might restore ontna
mari IDS MHJDI 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 wrth
violent blows; but the language seems rather obscure. Ew. tries to translate
3^, making it mean that the slaughter was like a yoke (?) of land being
ploughed (GVI*. 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? (f seems to have read mip:n njrras 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 riDrroJ which now becomes intolerable. &lt; B reads /coi avrol OVK
Jj9f\ov iroifiv, with which we can do nothing; and I suspect the verse has
been freely interpolated. Perhaps the original was only njnDa n*nn ^nni
DDH-DJ mn runtpnni m^oi. With piNn mni compare Am. 8 8 Joel 2 10 ; the
verb is used of the mountains, 2 S. 22 8 Is. 5 25 . 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. DTI^N rvrvn] cf. the
divinely sent fear, o^nSx nnn, which came upon the Canaanites, Gen. 35 6 .
16. o^Dxn] the sentinels regularly stationed on the walls of a city, 28. I3 34
i8 24 . nym] Geba should be read, as heretofore. pcnn] &lt; renders njnnn.
But as pen is the less common word, it is to be preferred; and it seems to
give an excellent sense here, cf. Jd. 4 7 and v. 19 in this chapter. The first n,
however, is a duplicate, and we should read pan njm. What they saw was a
tumult surging. oSm -jSii] is impossible, and to be corrected according to &
oSm D*?n. For JIDJ We. suggests the meaning surge, commended by Dr.

XIV. i 7 -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, i3 15 , and also of inquiring for one absent,
20 6 : And see who is gone from us] the result is to show the
absence of Jonathan and his attendant. 18. The text of (,
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* 3O 7 . We. supposes that the remark
concerning Ahijah cannot be by the author of v. 3 . 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 J^
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? 1 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 tumult 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 drawing up the feet into the bed,
Gen. 49 33 . 20. Saul and his men march to the scene : Then

112 i SAMUEL

Saul and all the people with him raised the war cry\ such is the
natural interpretation of the words. When they came to the camp
of the Philistines : the sword of each was turned upon his fellow,
an exceeding great confusion\ as in the camp of Midian where also
friend was taken for foe, Jd. f 2 . 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 Ephraini\ although occupied by the tribe
of Benjamin, the district bore the name of Ephraim. They also
pursued 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 (S L . Beth Aven, the reading of 5^, seems
unsuitable.

17. fx] denies the presence of the subject, Gen. 37 29 Ex. 2 12 . 18. na&gt;v&gt;n
DinSxn fns] the difficulty in retaining the words is prima 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 {Gesch. 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 (& irpoaayaye rb e&lt;ou5. The Rabbinical
commentators are aware that the Urim and Thummim are intended (Isaaki
and Kimchi in loc.}. For the rest of the verse we must also adopt the reading
of (, because f^ is evidently the worse and at its close unintelligible, xin -o
SNTJ" &gt;jcS xinn DVD "naxn XIPJ 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^J rpn instead of the simple N^J and ^ja JtfJ for *&gt;}sh.
His reason in the latter case is that Sxitt" vsh is bald and against the usage of
Hebrew prose. On this it is sufficient to remark that V*oit"&gt; -ua iJO 1 ? is found
in the books Joshua, Judges, and Samuel four times, and that all four (Jos. 4 1 2

XIV. 20-23 H 3

g32 IO 12 j t i t g. S) come from a redactional hand; whereas hwv** &lt;| jo i ? occurs in
six places besides this (Jos. io 10 II 6 2O 35 I S. y 10 2 S. io 15 - 19 ) representing three
different documents. This verse is one of those in which Keil concedes the
superiority of (5. 19. lai ^&gt;] the verb should be pointed as an infinitive, cf.
Jd. 3 26 Ex. 33 22 ; the more usual construction is lain V TPI. For the tense in
1 S&lt; ", cf. Dr., Tenses 3 , 127 a; but the emendation to iSn (Kl.) is attractive.

a~n -|V?n] "double absolute object, the second being an adjective " (Moore,
on Jd. 4 24 ), cf. 2 S. 5 10 i8 25 , Dav., Syntax, 86, R. 4. 20. pj?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 10 - 13 2 S. 20 4 - 5 . If we point pypi however, we must change Sat to VaTx.
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 pvpi and suppose the shout of those who go into
battle to be intended though the verb is nowhere else used in that sense.
(S A has av(&6ri&lt;re for which BL have ai/e^Tj. ncmc] is used of the panic pro
duced in the Philistine cities by the plague, 5 9 . 21. The verse division is
disregarded by & which makes the tumult to be Hebreivs against Philistines.

ona&gt; ni] teal nl SOV\OL {. The latter is plausible, for the slaves of the
Philistines might well take advantage of such an opportunity. 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 vn it is almost neces
sary to read vn -\u N with Ew., cf. Dr., Notes. on?] is not represented in &lt;g&gt;.

on 3 ao] should be emended to DJJ )aao (Th.) with &lt;S. 22. CN] is not
represented in @, and the sense is good without it. ipaTi] is abnormally
pointed, cf. Stade, Gram. 529 a, Ges. 26 53 n.; the same form is found in
3i 2 (i Chr. io 2 ). There seems to be no doubt that a Hiphil is intended,
Jd. i8 22 20 45 2 S. i 5 (lacking ^ as here). 23. jwrpa] was corrected by Th.
to pn no, and the conjecture is confirmed by &lt; L I.

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.
i

1 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 the 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 (g, 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 Ephraim\ 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 3 ^ Gen. 28 20 - 22 . A vow

XIV. 24-29 II5

of abstinence is attributed to David, Ps. i$z* . 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 my 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. 2i 18 . 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 \orhoneycomb]
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 J^ 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&gt;
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,

II 6 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 and
the people would have smitten the Philistines from 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. 30 , and to throw out the greater part of v. 31 . That
the pursuit actually extended to Aijalon, as apparently asserted in
Jif, 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
Philistine 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 booty} 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. i2 16
Lev. i9 26 . 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 heri] 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

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. y 17 . 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. io 8 . The author has it in mind to tell of other altars built
by Saul, but his narrative is now lost.

24. Ninn ova a&gt;jj StotP i B&gt;\si] is an unexpected opening to the new para
graph. ZTJJ, I3 6 , 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 : /col I&lt;rpa^\ fa /uera 2aouA,
wad 5e /ca ^tAmSes avfipiav, KO.\ T\V 6 Tr6\e/mos 5te&lt;rjrapjuej/os tis 8\rjv T^V TT&\IV tv
rep opei Etypdi/j. (S L with which AB 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 ffi and
a scribe substituted a phrase suggested by I3 6 , 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 "ny SDH from in VDJ. The scat
tered fighting would be in the open country rather than in the towns. The
impossibility of $? was discovered by Ew. (from Th. ?) who besides adopting
emends | by conjecture. The reading of @ is also adopted by Th. with
the silent correction of ~P&gt;? to ny. The retranslation of @ AB by We. is adopted
by Dr., Bu., al. I have chosen the Israel with Saul @ L rather than all the
people with Saw/@ AB , because it probably refers to the Israel with Saul of v. 22 .
Eterant cum Saul quasi decem 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 : *col 5aoi/A. T}yvbt}aev Hyvoiav /ue7oArji/ eV TTJ
tKfivri confirmed by I. Since We. this has been supposed to represent *r
Ninn ova njjsr rut?. But it is not certain that the author could so have ex
pressed himself. As confessed by We., njjt? 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 njjty 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 : KO.\ 2ovA
v ayveiav. Bu. restores in his text "\u nnn SINKM, citing Num. 6 lff -. But,
is he himself says, usage would favour *nj "nj Swc i (or better ~nj SINS&gt; -nn)

Il8 i SAMUEL

cf. 2 S. I5 8 Is. I9 21 . SN&gt;I] is pointed as if from VN% he behaved foolishly. But
this does not agree with the context, so that we should read SKI from rV?N :
he caused the people to swear, like y&gt;aa&gt;n below. B"Nn inx] Dt. 27 15 Jer. II 8 .

TiDpj)] generally with 3, as in iS 25 Jd. I5 7 ; with p Is. I 24 . In the latter
case the vengeance is a satisfaction taken from the enemy. On the tense cf.
Dr., Tenses*, p. 134. 25. The text is corrupt, probably beyond restoration.

njpa wa jnNrrSai] is impossible, whether we understand ny&gt; of a yfcra/ or
of a honeycomb, for the simple reason that ynNn is never used for the people
of the land;* pNrrSai] may be a corruption of oprrSai though it is difficult
to see how a scribe could make this mistake here. If so, the words will be a
duplicate of the DjjrrSa in the preceding verse; &lt;S tta.1 iratra. ^ 77} rjpiffra 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 mtrn ^D~Sj7 n&gt;n nyi, and
there was honeycomb on the face of the field. This is perhaps the best that can
be done. 26. eon "n^n njni] must be intended to mean and there was a flow
of honey ; but ^Sn in the only other passage in which it occurs means a way
farer, 2 S. I2 4 . The change of pointing to ^Sn (Th.) is now generally
adopted, and as its consequence the further emendation of BOT to nan, its
bees, evidently the original of \a\uv &lt;&. 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. JPIPD is to
be read a^D with @E, cf. v. 27 (Kl.). nyaa&gt;n] perhaps to be corrected to

with @. 27. my] the nomen unitatis of njn is mj?\ njNirn Kt. :
Qre; the latter is evidently to be preferred, cf. IIN v. 29 . 28. oyn f|pi]
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 o&gt;n IJ?M, the people testified to the oath when Saul laid it upon
them, perhaps by saying amen. Or we might read opa ~\y&gt;\ and he called the
people to witness, that is, Saul did (cf. I K. 2 42 ), 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. &lt;& reads j?T), an easy corruption of nyi.
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 ojro *p", he left
off eating, which would be entirely in place at the beginning of the next sen
tence. @ also connects its *cal e-yj/a&gt; \?luva9av~\ with the following. 29. 1D&gt;]
Gen. 34 80 Jos. 6 18 7 25 Jd. n 85 . INI] read n*n with (We.). 30. VD IN]
emphatic introduction to what follows, making a climax : I have been re-

* Dr. points to one instance, 2 S. I5 23 : all the land was weeping aloud. But
there also it is doubtful whether the text is sound.

XIV. 24-34

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. nnp &gt;:&gt;] intro
duces the apodosis after Ni 1 -. But in this case we must omit the vh which
follows, and in this we have the authority of &lt;&. The change to Sn makes an
awkward sentence. Or possibly N 1 ? represents the affirmative particle of which
we have traces elsewhere. HJD] read HDDH , 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 ova (or correct it to ovn) 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., Comp. p. 248). @ relieves us of the diffi
culty so far as to omit Aijalon and to read eoo;23 for IFDDDC. But the narrator
hardly supposes the whole day s fighting to be confined to Michmash. Bu.
adopts this, and also adopts from Kl. n rSn iy for nj^N. But in this case it
would be better to take over the whole of Kl. s conjecture nSiSn iy B&gt;OB&gt;n one.
The insecurity of our footing must be obvious. On the site of Aijalon, Robin
son, BIP, 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. oyn IJJM]
pointed as if from ^y, cf. Jd. 4 21 , the more usual form is f|y, and we should
probably point rpi. The clause resumes the narrative. 32. vw\ICt.: t3&gt;?M
Qre is doubtless to be preferred, cf. I5 19 . Kl. defends the Kt. deriving it from
w\y a rare verb of uncertain meaning; al e/cAi0r? &lt;&gt; B points to O" 1 ! which favours
the Qre, which is also directly rendered by @ L . The verb is perhaps denomina
tive from w; a bird of prey. SVtt&gt; Kt.: SSa n Qre, again to be preferred. -itariE"!
nxis] cf. n^nN rooN 2 S. 2 22 . DVrSp] is probably the original phrase, Lev.
I9 26 Ex. I2 8 , and onrrSx v. 34 is to be corrected accordingly, oirrnt* proposed
by Th. is not superior though we can hardly call it un-Hebraic, cf. Lev. I7 10 .

33. I-PJM] the undefined subject is D^TJDH. D^Ntsn] on the pointing Ges. 26
74 i. D^n is given by Ginsburg as the Qre. Sn^S] for this gerundial con
struction cf. Dav., Syntax, 93, other examples are I2 17 - 19 I9 5 2O 20 . amjj] you
deal treacherously does not seem to be the verb called for. 6&gt; finds the name of
a place Gittaim, of which we have no other trace in this region. Perhaps OHMoS
would be in place. Kl. s reconstruction is too ingenious. avn] must be cor
rected to nSn with (& (Th.). 34. This command is evidently directed to those
immediately about the king and strengthens the case for on^oS in the preced
ing verse. For iSs : fvravOa ; Kl. conjectures nvr SN for which much may be
said and I have adopted it. nn] can hardly be upon this stone ; more proba
bly in this place. Dn*?3Kl] seems wanting in @ and is in fact superfluous.
no mtP B"N] we should expect the sheep to be added as above; read "NPN ttN
n&gt;a with 6 (Th., al.). nSiSn] lacking in &lt;5 B , inserted by @ L at the end of
the verse. Kl. followed by Bu. corrects to mmS, which is, in fact, what we

120 i SAMUEL

need. Some reader zealous for the Law changed it as in J^, while another
left it out as in @. 35. 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 &).
The building of altars is a mark of piety in the patriarchs, Gen. 8 20 12" I3 18
26 25 (all J) and 35 7 (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.
inx] must be circumstantial : with it he began the building of altars. nuaS
narn] the plural of the noun is not required, cf. Gen. io 8 : he was the first
to become a tyrant, and probably Gen. 9 20 : Noah was thejirst husbandman.

36-46. The penalty of the broken taboo. 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 willingness 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. Doubts have been expressed as to the section being a part of the
original narrative, and it is true that v. 35 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 I2I

gression is not complete without the present sequel. If necessary to choose,
it would be better to strike out v. 35 than to dispense with 3& - 46 . 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. i6 9 Zeph. 3 2 . 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. 3O 8 . 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 7] the chief men are called by this name
Jd. 2O 2 Is. iQ 13 . 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 (& : 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, Yahweh, God of Israel, give Urim ; but
if thus thou say : It is in my people Israel; give Thummim. The
arguments for adopting this text are : ( i ) the improbability of its
being invented by a late author; (2) the difficulty of making
sense of the received text ; (3) the loss by homeoteleuton is very
probable ; (4) the word D^n 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 @ 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 6 where Urim is mentioned as one
method of revelation, and Dt. 33 8 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 Jonathan 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 Jonathan was taken} the
abruptness of the statement is contrary to analogy, (fi 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
willingness to meet it. So Josephus correctly understands it :
" Jonathan was not dismayed at this threat of death, but submit-

XIV. 4 i-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. n 36 .
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 17 . 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 52 , 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. 1 3 13&lt; 15 34 20 ,
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. 52 .

36. nraj] on the form, Ges. 26 67 dd; Stade, Gram. 137 a, 584^. This
verb, however, is not the one we 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 HDJI (Bu.), cf. u 11 Jos. n 1 *. -IXPJ] pointed as a jussive (a
rare instance), Dr., Tensed, 50, Obs.; Ges. 26 48^-, note 2, 109 d; cf.
2 S. I7 12 . The space after r\&y, remarked in the Massoretic note, is probably
a trace of a different verse division. "ui jnon -\DXII] Bu. proposes to restore
iiaNn J-IN nSn ranpn psS -\DN &lt; &gt;I (making Saul the subject), constructed after
the analogy of the restored v. 18 . But @ agrees with |^, and the sense is good.
If any change is needed, the clause might be stricken out, with &. Against
its originality may be urged a^p (instead of tt&gt;Jj, used elsewhere in this narra
tive). 37. in:&gt;*] &lt;5 L adds Kvpios. 38. ico] the form occurs three times;
recession of the accent on account of the following monosyllable ( ? cf. Ges. 26
66 r). @ seems to have read wjn. nufl] &lt;f&gt;v\ds &lt;S L . nna] probably to be

* Joseph., Antiq. VL VI. 5.

124 l SAMUEL

emended to &gt;na with @, Th., We., Bu., Kl., Dr., Ki. 39. mm-ip] 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. 2O 3 , 2 S. I5 21 , where the two forms are found side by side. ija"] is con
fessedly a difficult form. It occurs Dt. 29", where the analogy of UJ&gt;N in the
second half of the verse suggests that we should point i:t:, also I S. 23 28
Est. 3 8 . In the present passage Th. proposes to read njs, on the ground
that the antecedent is nxan, and this seems confirmed by uiroKptQrj &lt;, which
would represent njy. But the analogy of the following verses suggests that the
original was ix &gt;a a", a combination that might give rise to f^ if one or two
letters became illegible. This is the conjecture of Kl., and a is quite in place
as the beth essentiae. 40. nay 1 ?] els 5ov\eiav &lt;& is an obvious error, but shows
a Hebrew original. 41. Sx] is an erroneous insertion, rn.-n being part of the
vocative. n^nn nan] all attempts to make sense of the words as they stand
are vain: Give a perfect (lot) would be impertinent; show the right does vio
lence to the words. The text of , apparently best preserved by &lt;J| L , retrans
lated into Hebrew gives: IN o ox ovn -pajrnx mjy vh no 4 ? VXIB ^x rnn&gt;
D^DD nan pyn o&gt;?a icxn no oxi omx nan Sxna inSx nin-" pj?n -oa jnjva. 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 B in the second half of the verse is confused, but it supplies SX-\B"
before the second nan, so that the probable reading was S*na ^Dj?a, instead of
the simple a&gt;a given above. After Ewald, who directs in general to complete
the text from the LXX (F/. III. p. 51, E.Tr. III. p. 36), this reading is
accepted by Th., We., Dr., Bu., Ki. We. conjectures SO8" T,Dya uu ox) 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 icxn na ox 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 ABL ,
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 L and Hex.) we read n?n naia
instead of nrn nain. (For K. KaraKpar-^trt 2. TOV \aov either oynn . . . PTJIM,
cf. I7 60 , or aya pjm, Dt. 22 25 .) Insert therefore after -^a the words IPN n
pa) wo iSwi oya Sixty p?m nrn -iaia m,-n N*? Vwiy-SN oj?n nox^ DID- nin&gt; irS^
ua pjv. The resemblance between &gt;ja |njv and ua |njv 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. \icyt3 oyta] 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 transgression, in which there was no

XIV. Ay-si 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. &gt;jjn] 6 L and 3L read &gt;jjm. 44. rwp ro] must have after it V?,
as indicated by &lt;S2LcS. 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 22 , where an imprecation upon David has been
obscured for the same reason). So the Arab writer changes a denunciation
of the person present (in his narrative) to a denunciation of the remote.
The formula is found in 3 17 . At the end of the verse pjv f^ : a^fpov @ AB ;
o-rj/ie/joj/ IwvaQav @ L . 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
| has the advantage (so We., Bu., Kl.). 45. n;nan] would be sufficient
without qualification, as is felt by &, which reads simply : who hath wrought
deliverance for Israel. nS^n] is lacking in 6&gt; B . The insertion is easily
accounted for by the context (Kl., Bu.), and superfluous. ON] is used in
oaths with the negative sense. mytr D] the use of jc 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.
ns&gt;y DTiHx D&gt;? -o] should mean in this context : for on the side of God he wrought.
The construction is, however, awkward, and ( had a different text : on eAeov
0eoD tnoii]&lt;rei @ L : on 6 \abs rov 6eov ^iroir\fffv (H AB . One of these is prob
ably corrupted from the other, and possibly both go back to the pronunciation
DP for 0)7. For God will be gracious this day is nearly what we require : "O
ovn DTI*?** onr. Kl. proposes DTI^S cnj -o 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. HSM] means they ransomed: KO\
irpo&lt;rr)vi-a.To &lt; would point to SSflM. There can scarcely be a doubt that $? is
original.

47-51. Summary of Saul s activity. The paragraph is a
summary such as we find in 2 S. 2O 23 26 . 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. n. 13. 14

126 i SAMUEL

in their original form. In this case it may have stood after I6 23 ,
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 (713-15) reminds us of those we find in the Book of Judges. In
regard to David we have like data given 2 S. 3 2 - 5 and 5 13 ~ 16 , both which give
the names of David s family, as well as 2 S. 2O 23 - 26 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 1 ~5 14 . 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 2 . p. 381). The theory of We.
( Camp. 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., Einfi. 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 6 , 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 kingdom over Israel and fought on all sides against
all his enemies ] the enemies of 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 Ammon, and Edom and Beth Rehob~\ as (&gt; author
izes us to read. The king of Soba~\ seems also natural, as in (,
rather than the kings of Soba |. 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*

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 J^ having been mutilated for religious
reasons. The first name means Yahweh gave ; the second, Man
of the Lord, Baal having been used quite innocently for Yahweh
in this period. The third also contains a name of Yahweh
(Melek), 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 Akinoam 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 son
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. 46 , and prepares the way for
i6 14 , where David is received into Saul s staff. The war was
severe against the Philistines 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. in 1 ? Vixan] the order of the words indicates the opening of a new sec
tion. After Edom L adds : al eis rbv fraiQpoAfri, evidently intending the
Beth Rehob mentioned in connexion with Sobah, 2 S. io 6 . The name has
been corrupted in 6 B to j8ai0eo&gt;/}. The text is emended to conform to @ L by
Kl., and the emendation is adopted by Bu. ^Sna] the singular number was
found by &lt; and is doubtless original. jwv] seems to give no proper sense
in this connexion, though We. compares Syr. :rn. Hebrew usage allows
only the meanings to convict of guilt, or to act wickedly. &lt;S iff&lt;&eru points to
JNPV which was nrst suggested by Cappellus (Critica Sacra, p. 261), and is

12$ i SAMUEL

now generally adopted. 48. STI &gt; &gt;i] and he wrought mighty deeds as in
Num. 24 18 Dt. 8 18 . Both & and & understand the expression to mean he
gathered an army and this is a more appropriate introduction to the mention
of Amalek. *?vi yap occurs I K. 2O 1 , and it is possible that n cvi may be
interpreted in this sense, cf. Ezek. 28*, thou didst acquire might. mo: ] cf.
23 1 Jd. 2 14 with Moore s note. 49. &gt;w] occurs also Gen. 46 17 and is evi
dently a corruption of VB (rtt&gt;s) = mrp C"N. This is the equivalent of fsA-
baal which has been altered in the other direction into Ishbosheth. 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 (GVI*. III. p. 148, E. Tr. III.
p. 108), who also reconstructed V" from @. The exact state of the case was
demonstrated by We., who is followed by Dr. (with some reserve), Bu., Ki.
@ L adds icai EurjScEaA at the end of the list. JJIB^O] MeAxureSSi @ L . In
stead of three sons, four are ascribed to Saul in 3i 2 (where three are slain)
and i Chr. 8 33 9 89 . Sans] MeA X &lt;fA (5 and SvjS D & would point to SNoSe, cf.
G. 46 17 . 50. The first two names are compounded with PIN (brother) like so
many which have come down to us. irax] occurs elsewhere in the shorter
form njax. 51. ^N-ox p] should obviously be read L &gt;N&gt;aN- 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. ns-u] the tense indicates what was repeatedly or habitually done, Dr.,
Tenses^, 120, 148, i. With IHDDXM 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. 129

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 earlier commentators postulated, in order to
harmonize the two accounts. This chapter, like i3 4 " 15 , 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 i3 4 - 15 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. io 17 " 25 . 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
obligation 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 (i5 2 , cf. i 3 - 11 ). There is distinct reference to
the people s coming up out of Egypt (i5 6 8 8 io 18 ) ; Samuel cries
to Yahweh (15" 7* i2 8 ) ; Saul, like the people, is reproached with
having rejected the word of Yahweh (1$* 8 7 ). 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

I3O i 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 I3 8 " 15 ,
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 6 , 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. 1 2, 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 following
chapter (iS 1 - 13 ). The 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 hostility 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. i-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 3 - u 4 4 , cf. also 1 7 45 . 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. I3 29 . 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. ly 8 - 16 we find that Amalek made
war with Israel in Rephidim. Again, they opposed Israel s en
trance to Canaan from the south, Num. I4 45 . In Deuteronomy
also (25 17 ~ 19 ) 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. y 12 and in David s life, i S. 30.
The comparatively late text 2 S. 8 12 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. i? 14 been in this writer s mind he would have
made some reference to it. 3. Go and smite Amalek and devote
him and all which belongs to him~\ such solemn devotion to
Yahweh (and therefore to destruction) is well known from Dt. f
20 17 , where it is commanded as the duty of Israel in dealing with

132 i SAMUEL

the Canaanites, and from Jos. 6 21 , 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 19
Everything else must be destroyed, including the human beings,
as is made clear by this verse : And do not spare him, but slay
man and woman, 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 21 ; cf. Dt. 2O 16 , 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 fats 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. TN] is emphatic by position. n^j 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. Y?^] Jd. 9 15 2 S. 2 4 . inp" 1 ??] is
lacking in &lt;g B , whereas ht*-\w&gt;-hy is not represented in @ L . nan ^ipV] Dt.
4 12 5 25 . 2. Tnpa] this tense is quite justified in the meaning I have deter
mined to do thus, Dr., Notes, referring to Jd. I5 8 , and Tensed, 13. The attempt
to make the verb here mean I remember AV. or I have [mentally] marked RV.
Erdm., Keil, is based (as alleged) upon Ex. 3 16 Jer. 232 Ps. 8 5 . 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 e /cSiKiJo-cn, or
vvv &c5i/ca&gt; @ and is undoubtedly correct. With sound feeling Schm. ren
ders : visitare constitui. p*?o?] is connected with Edom in the genealogy,
Gen. 36 12 - 16 . Balaam predicted their destruction, Num. 24 20 . V? DB&gt;" WN] is
supposed to mean how he laid wait for him AV., or how he set himself against
him RV. But the supposed parallels i K. 2O 12 Ezek. 23^ both have ?? and
both have an object supplied by &lt;g. 2 K. io 24 seems similar to our text, but
there iS is dative of advantage and the verb has an object expressed; r^c f ,
which is urged as an analogon, also requires hy, Ps. 3 7 . It is probable that
etTr^j/TTjo-ej/ (5 points to a different reading, though what it is, is difficult to
make out. Dt. 25 18 has yna *pp T^N, but this is not sufficiently explicit for
our passage. For the verb here Kl. suggests pa. If conjectures be in order,
I would change to iS ix n^ S, the crime being aggravated (as Dt. more ex
plicitly states) by the fact that it was committed when he (Israel) was in
trouble. But I have not ventured to introduce this into my translation, as the
reasons for choosing it are not decisive. anxDD )nS^] Gen. I3 1 (J) Ex.
I7 3 (E) Num. 2 1 5 (J) 32 11 (P). The imperative iS is followed by the per
fect consecutive as is customary. Dnn^nni] the plural is unexpected and we

XV. 4-8 133

should probably restore inninni as read by &lt;, making the next word nw in
stead of ns (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. 2 6 . ntrx "\y B"ND] cf. 22 19 Jos. 6 21 . For iy (Ginsb.) many editions
have "i&gt; 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. i5 24 . The number given, two hundred thou
sand footmen, is to be judged like similar data elsewhere. The
ten thousand, 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 in wait in the wadi^ a favourite move in Hebrew
strategy, Jos. 8 2 Jd. 2O 29 . 6. The Kenites whom Saul warned were
old allies of Israel, represented in one document as the tribe of
Moses father in law, Jd. 4 U . 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 16 . 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 : cum tu tamen misericordiam feceris cum
omnibus filiis Israelis (Schm.). The Kenites withdrew as warned.
- 7. And Saul smote Amalek from ] 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. And he took Agag the king of Amalek alive~\ cf. Jos.
S 23 . But all the people he slew with the sword~\ lit. consecrated
according to the mouth of the sword, cf. Moore on Jd. i 23 . -

* The description of this wall, or line of fortifications, is given by Wiedemann,
Herodofs Zweites BTtch (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 failings 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 7 , 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. j/TE"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. 1 5 s2 Jer. 5O 29 5i 27 . D^xSaa] the name of a place is no doubt intended

quasi agnos 3L is, of course, impossible. But lv ra\yd\ots @ is not appro
priate. Most recent critics find in the text only an orthographic variation
of D^JO a town mentioned Jos. I5 24 . For two hundred thousand we find four
hundred thousand &lt;. The ten thousand of Judah are omitted by L , but
increased to thirty thousand by &lt;g B . 5. -pp] ir6\fuv &lt;5. STO] is intended
for a-us^i (ft&gt;r)8pvffev ) as is seen by Kimchi and Schm. Kautzsch (Ges. 26
68 z) takes it to be Hiphil, but ans occurs nowhere else in this stem.
6. m no i^S] omits i-n, perhaps correctly. On the daghesh in i-n cf.
Ges. 26 2Og. V&gt;*?Djj] as we expect the author to be consistent, it seems best
to restore p"?Dj7 here, the form which we find at the end of the verse. 3fiDN]
should probably be pointed (Lag., Proph. Chald. p. li), cf. Gen. iS 23 - 24 I S.
I2 25 . This is much more forcible than the received pointing. Sa] is super
fluous and therefore suspicious lacking in ( BL . ^p] should certainly be
]^p or ^pn, probably the latter, because that form is elsewhere used in this
passage; We., Bu., Ki., choose j&gt;p. 7. riS^n] 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 18 . 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 nV^jn which is mentioned I S. 23 19 26 L 3 . But this hill in the
Desert of Judah was hardly a part of the Amalekite territory. Non liquet.

"\v# "|N)3] cf. 27 (where oSao seems to have stood in connexion with it).
2JT 1 ?;?] in front of is frequently used of the east side, and would be appropri
ately so understood here. 8. oyn] 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. aimc 1 ? onnn] Jos. 6 21 cf. Dt. I3 16 . 9. ae^o] only in
the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 22*, and P, Gen. 476- u . D\ja&gt;Dm] is supposed
to be the lambs of the second birth. The word is, however, a mistake for
o^D2&gt;n (Th., We., Dr., Bu., Ki.), and the adoption of this carries with it the
erasure of hy which follows. Dnsm a- jcpn defines the best of the cattle. Kl.
proposes women and children for which there is no support, ano, as delica
cies, Dt. 32 14 . D Dno is adopted by Ew. JJN here and JJK in Nu. 24 7 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 @ ABL has Gog there. )2x] Ex. lo 27 (E), Dt. 2 80 io 10
i S. 31*. DDJI nnw] is impossible. The first word is a monstrum (Dr.)
caused by the stupidity of a scribe. The second is apparently for PDND:, for
we require a feminine form. Part of this original was wrongly spaced and
formed part of the word which |^ now reads as nnx, the n being duplication
from the following word. The true text is therefore TDNDJI maa HDN^D Sai
with omission of nn. The word naxSo is used for property in general, Ex.
22 7. 10 (), and for cattle Gen. 33". We may compare nSyfl used for flocks
Is. 4O 10 . 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 implies that it was in a vision of the night. 11. /
repent that I made Saul king] Gen. 6 6 - 7 (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 night] in pro
test and expostulation. Schm. compares Moses grief for Israel.
12. The entreaty fails to change the purpose of Yahweh, and

136 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 18 . 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 Gi!gal~\
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. n . 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 :
From 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. 18 , which should read : And 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 s8 i K. 22 11 . 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 Yahweh,
and didst swoop upon the booty, and didst that which is evil in the
eyes of Yahweh ?~\ Jd. 2 n 3 7 . 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 word of Yahweh,

He has rejected thee from ruling over Israel.

The passage is a summary of later Jewish theology, cf. Ps. 50 5i 18 .
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. inaSnn] 8 22 I2 1 . nrwo ae&gt;] Num. 14** 32 15 (P) Jos. 22 16 - 18 (P).
O pn NS nan] Dt. 27 26 Jer. 34 18 . im] is emended to -ISM by Bu., Ki., fol
lowing a suggestion of Dr.; has KO\ T}dv/j.r](re which Dr. supposes to point
to "ISM. But it should be noted that in two other passages, 2 S. 6 8 and its
parallel* I Chr. I3 11 , im 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&gt;PI] of
crying to God in distress, Ex. 2 23 (P) Jd. 3 9 6 6 (D) I S. f I2 8 . 12. nSnian]
2 tj2. 5. 7. 40 } mentioned as one of the cities of Judah, Jos. I5 55 . The 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). a^sn njm] is wrong, because
it implies that Saul is still engaged at the work. Read a^sn rum with &lt;
(which had even 2x11), We., Dr., Bu. -p] of the pillar of Absalom 2 S. i8 18 ,
and of a memorial of some kind Ex. I7 16 (if the text is sound), cf. Is. 56 5 .
aDM] 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. ao&gt;i 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 &lt;J0 B which reads : and it was told Saul that Samuel came to
Carmel (corrected in AL ). For nayi aDM: KO.\ cWcrr/je^e r6 ap/*a [avroG] @.
At the end of the verse reads : and he came down 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. "h nnx ^na]
23 21 2 S. 2 5 Ruth 2 20 . 14. n?n] defines the Sip of course. 15. ox&gt;an]
//j/67/cct @ is more forcible and I have adopted it. ~IB&gt;X] is impossible to
reproduce except by a causal particle, cf. Davidson, Syntax, p. 198. Of the
examples cited there, only Gen. 3O 18 I K. 3 19 2 K. 17* seem to hold, and it
should be remembered that even in such cases "crx does not define the cause
as &gt;:&gt; would. UDinn] should be corrected to *nmnn according to @.
16. rpn] desine garrire multum, Schm. In Dt. 9 14 it expresses God s desire
not to hear entreaty or intercession from Moses. riDNM Kt.~] is doubtless to
be corrected to 10*01 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.
&lt; L seems to have expanded, influenced by Saul s own confession of his
humble station in 9 21 , reading : Art thou not [too] small in thine own eyes to
be ruler, coming from 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. ( B seems to find a sarcastic question in the words :
Art thou not small in his eyes, O 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. nini] is
superfluous if the sentence really begins with yiPD i. nnmnni] confirms the
text adopted in v. 8 . D&gt;N jnn] (5 adds els fyt. DPN ontaty] can hardly be
correct. seems to have had onx imSj np which would do. But it seems
simpler to omit the last word as an erroneous repetition (We., Dr., al.).
19. t3&gt;?ni] see on I4 32 . "m jnn tt&gt;ym] a standing Deuteronomistic phrase.
20. T.J N] as equivalent to ^ recitativum, cf. Dr., Notes, and Ges. 26 157^;
but p is conjectured by Bu. 21. n^Ni] elsewhere of the firstfruits of
vegetable products, Ex. 23 34 26 Num. 152 Dt. 18*. 22. r^nn] i S. i8 25 ;
the word is found in late writers. yntrD] where the comparison would be
fully expressed by yciraD. Such an ellipsis needs no justification. STpnS)
= . The i is lacking in p. Grammatically speaking there is an ellipsis of
avj in the last clause. nin&gt; Sipa] &lt;& and &lt;J| L 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
us the soothsaying and idolatry for which the heathen are condemned. His

xv. 2 4 139

sin is no rebellion against the command of God, for which Ezekiel rebukes
Israel, cf. Num. ly 25 Dt. 3i 27 . This sin is compared with the soothsaying
from which (ideally) Israel is free Num. 23 23 , but which was rife in the time
of Jeremiah (H u ), Ezek. 2i 26 , cf. Dt. i8 10 . The second member of the verse
must be parallel with this. D&gt;Dirn JINI] cannot therefore be right. The guilt
of idolatry is what we require, and this would be D^flinn \\y for which we may
claim Symmachus -f] avo^ ia TUV e*5&lt;&gt;A.a&gt;i/. ixon] pausal form of a Hiphil,
which, however, occurs nowhere else. The Qal means to urge one with per
sistent entreaty, Gen. iQ 3 - 9 33 11 Jd. IQ 7 . 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. seems to have read iran. The natural parallel to no would
be a derivative of "no if we may judge by Dt. 2i 18 Jer. 5 28 . Perhaps we might
assume m-\D, cf. mo Dt. I3 6 . Or, on the ground of Jos. 22 s2 , inn would be in
place. In fact several words suggest themselves, but none that would easily
be corrupted to nxon, Sym. rJ&gt; aireiQetv, cf. Field. Kl. suggests jn yon; but
this destroys the rhythm. Y?CD] at the end of the verse is abrupt, and as @
adds eVt lo-pa^A., we should probably restore SNTJ *?;. Ew. suggests iS, which
would agree better with the metre (F/ 3 . 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. 29 and v. 11 . 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 (F/ 2 . I. p. 221). The suggestion is adopted by Bu. both
in XS. 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. 11 that Yahweh repented
of having made Saul king contrast the categorical statement that he is not a
man that he should repent (v. 29 ).

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

140 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 he feared the people is the same already intimated, though it
has not been explicitly stated. 25. Now forgive my sin] cf.
Gen. 5O 17 , where Joseph s brothers ask his forgiveness for the
injury done to him, and Ex. io 17 , 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, nempe apud Deum deprecando. In Saul s further petition

and turn with me that I may worship Yahweh it is implied
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 me II 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 thou~\ cf. 28 17 . The scene reminds us of
Ahijah and Jeroboam, i K. n 29 31 . 29. Moreover the Victor of
Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not man that he should
rcpent~\ cf. Num. 23 19 . The contradiction to v. n 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. 11 , 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. mrp"&gt;fl] for the command of Yahweh Num. 3 16 , al. The full expres
sion mrv &gt;c~nN -oj? Num. 14", 22 18 (E). T^n] tne singular, which is repre
sented in , is more appropriate. Tt was a single message which Saul had

XV. 24-35

disobeyed. On -an for a command of God cf. BDB. s.v. II. 2. 25.
should probably be pointed with the cohortative ending. 26. "jSn nvno]
would perhaps favour the pointing n^cs in v. 28 . 27. iS^C *!^] 24*- 5 .
jnpM] Kal dieppr)ei&gt; avr6 . But the scene is more impressive if human
agency is kept in the background. 28. SNTJ" ms^DD] for which r^v
&a&lt;ri,\fiav &lt;rov airb Ic-pcujA @. The last two words are later addition to the
text of &lt; (We.), which therefore had "P:! S ;DD in their text, and this is so much
more forcible, and at the same time so much more likely to be expanded into
f$, that we must think it to be original; cf. also i K. 1 1 11 . 29. Soe mj DJI]
was read by @ and Israel shall be rent in two, apparently = VNIK" nxrr 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. 2Q 11 ), 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. 23 , is found here, if what has
been advanced concerning vv. 24 " 31 is correct. 32. Samuel orders
Agag to be brought. And Agag came to him trembling, 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 28f . It is the evident view of the author that Yah
weh was pleased with the completion of the herem 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 i Q 23 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. ruiyn] 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 25 ) as Hithpael, meaning they lived luxuriously.
So we might suppose here that Agag came daintily, as one who had fared
delicately; a&p6s (Sym.), pinguissimus It, and curb rpvQepias (Aq.) point to this
meaning, the latter indicating nryn; so Npo {. 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. @ therefore has a
claim on our attention when it gives rpf/j.uv which might come from p by a
change of pointing, first suggested by Lagarde (Proph. Chald. p. li) n^lyn,
from -ij?e, to totter ; he came totteringly 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 mjpc,
in fetters (late Hebrew) so Kimchi, followed by Gratz ( Gesch. d. Juden, I.
p. 187). This is favoured by the curious e Ai/a0a&gt;0 L , which might well
represent nnjyp. If this meaning be adopted, it will be better to suppose the
original rnjya. 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 j. Schm. combines two of the
meanings already considered : virum delicatum et, quod concurrere solet, timi-
dum mortis. Kl. substitutes Tins for JJN and makes the clause mean held
in chains. mcmD no ps] the versions, except 31, seem to have omitted
ID, whose resemblance to ID is such that duplication is easy. For pN &lt;S
seems to have had pn. For the rest of the clause iriKpbs 6 ddvaros (5 and
similarly j and tZE. 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 herem 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. 8 18 I 7 ) would not adorn the tale,
where such a lesson is to be drawn. 33. "|N] @ L adds vlov Aff-rjp, which is
confirmed by \ filius doloris (Cod. Leg.). As an -ISN is found in the time of
Esau (Gen. 36 21 - 3), and as Amalek is brought into the same genealogy (Gen.
2512. 16) t ft does not seem impossible for Agag to be addressed as Son of
Aser, and the reading may be original. iDaV] occurs in this place only.
The meaning is agreed upon by the versions and the commentaries. Possibly
we should read j?D2"% cf. Jd. 14, which, however, signifies to tear in pieces with

XV. 35-XVI. 143

the hands. The change is advocated by Graetz (Gesch. d. Judcn, I, 188),
and suggested, with a query, by Dr. 34. That Samuel s home is at Ramah
is in accord with i 1 . 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 "Ui am mm does not fit well in this connexion. It is evidently a
circumstantial clause, and in I6 1 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 XVI.-2 SAMUEL I. 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 life. 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 anointing 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 l 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 39 . And come, I will send thee to Jesse the
Bethlehemite~\ the name 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. I have looked me out a king~\ Gen. 22
4I 33 2 K. io 3 . 2. Samuel s objection is put in the form of a
question : How shall I go, since Saul will hear of it and kill me ?
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 (Scrim.). 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 shalt 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 thy
coming betoken good, O Seer? i K. 2 13 . 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 13 . 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. 1-13 145

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^ i2 3 . 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 Jesse 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~\ ly 84 . 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
i7 42 . 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" 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 and went to Ramah.

1. irfrpK ?i] generally we find -ft followed either by another imperative,
or by a finite verb with i. But cf. -ppx NJ roS Num. 23 2T ; -JXJTN n^ Num.
24 14 . V.JM, ifo-o-ot is found also in the form &gt;r&gt;x (perhaps man of Yahweh}.*
\-njn] in this sense in E (passages are cited above). 2. irnen] the perfect
with waw consecutive continues the imperfect in any of its senses, so after
particles which give a contingent sense, Dr., Tenses*, 115, Davidson, Syntax,
53 b, and the examples there cited, especially 2 S. I2 18 . The pisqa in the

* But ^ seems to be one element of the name &gt;B"3N, 26 6 , etc. Hommel com
pares I-shai with I-chabod, I-thamar and I-ezer (Altisrael Ueberlieferung, p. 116).
L

{46 i SAMUEL

middle of the verse indicates (as usual) a different mode of verse division.
-opa nSjjr] Dt. 2i 3 Is. 7 ai . The expression indicates that nhiy might be
used of the young of other animals (? the camel). rva] cf. I4 34 .
3. mru] is a mistake for ra?V which is used with anpM v. 5 (erroneous antici
pation of the riara in the latter verse). "pSx -ICN~T#N] perhaps whom I shall
command thee, cf. mrp V? -IDK &gt;D 2 S. i6 u . 4. ins-ip 1 ? . . . mm] the &gt;-
structio pregnans as often, Jd. I4 5 15** I S. 2i 2 . IDN&gt;I] 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 1 ?^] read D*?tt&gt;n. At the end of the verse @ adds 6 fi^ircav, that is nsnn,
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. icnpnn] the regular term for pre
paring oneself for approaching God, Jos. 3 5 . para TIN onNai] Kal eu^pov^Tjre
HfT^ t/j.ov ffr)(ji.fpoi&gt; @ AB : et state mecum et jocundimini \ (Cod. Leg.). As f^
is entirely commonplace and (J| AB is more vigorous, I have followed Th., al.,
in adopting the latter. anpM] is used of Moses when he consecrated the
priests, Ex. 28 41 (P), but also when he prepared the people for the special
presence of God, Ex. I9 14 (E); cf. also I S. 7 1 . 6. The names of the three
sons here mentioned are repeated ly 13 . -IDX^I] the verb is frequently used
in the sense of saying to oneself, thinking. "jxj is strongly asseverative.
7. maoc] all that appears to the eye. mxn nx-p T^N] the ellipsis is too
harsh and we must suppose a fault in the text. We., Dr., Bu. emend, after @,
to n^n^N ns-p DINH nN-p T^JO. Th. had proposed the same except that he
retained ISBN. 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. a^S] is difficult, because it does not
occur elsewhere in this sense though nearly so in Lev. I3 6 Num. n 7 (?)
cf. Lev. I3 55 cited by Dr. It must be contrasted with aaS 1 ?; as the latter
must mean (Yahweh looks) at the inner man (cf. BDB. s.v.) we need an
expression meaning at the outer man ; ds irptvooirov may be only an attempt
to render $%, but invites us to substitute DIJS^, for which, however, there is no
analogy. 8. anjos] the same name occurs y 1 . 9. ns:p] is apparently the
same with nyetr, 2 S. I3 3 . 10. VJ3 nyatp] means his seven sons, not seven
of his sons, which would be differently expressed. It is therefore inaccurate.
"&gt;na followed by a seems to be Deuteronomic, Dt. 7* I4 2 i8 5 I S. lo 24 .
11. icnn] supply iiayS as in Jos. 3 17 4 11 (JE). -IMP] seems to be lacking
in &lt;J| and the sense is good without it (Bu.). njni] is probably an abbrevi
ated spelling of injni, though, as the subject immediately precedes, it is not
absolutely necessary that the suffix be expressed. jsxa njn] not pasturing
the flock but acting as shepherd with the flock. 3D)] KaraKXidw/uiev (5 AB ;
avaK\idw/JLev @ L ; discumbemus 3L. As aj/a/c\j&lt;ns seems to represent 3D2 in
Cant. I 12 it is not certain that L had a different reading: Ka.raK\tvo/j.ai more
over does not anywhere render iy\ As 2DD is used of going about the altar
as a part of the sacrificial worship, Samuel may mean we will not begin the

XVI. i 4 -2 3 147

sacrifice until he come. J5 seems to interpret 3-i!J N. 12. DT&gt;? ns^oj,*] is im
possible in spite of nsnn na^-ap, iy* 2 . In both passages we must restore oS&gt;
2O 22 as was seen by Graetz and, independently of him, by Krenkel, ZA TW.
II. p. 309. Kl. proposes ~\y& &gt;JIDIN, red-haired. &gt;*n] for nsnc, here only.
13. fY?xm] perhaps chosen with conscious reference to io 10 . 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. in] so written in
Samuel and Kings; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah im. The meaning
of the name is unknown. Cf. BDB. s.v. nVyai] of time as 3O 25 .

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. 14 , the remainder of the account has the Spirit of God, twice
with the adjective evil (w. 15 - 16 ), once in the current text without
qualification. The difference in the use of the divine name prob
ably shows that v. 14 has been modified by the redaction. The rest
of the paragraph is homogeneous except a slight insertion in v. 19 .

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 literature. 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 1 *" 23 , 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. 13 in which the Spirit seems to be
viewed as the constant endowment of a consecrated person.

14-23. In I4 52 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
ovn^x nn. The original narrative must have used the same term at the first
mention of the trouble. But we now find in v. 14 , mm FIND nyvnn, and as the
opening part of that verse expressly declares that the Spirit of Yahiveh had
departed from Saul (with evident reference to his coming upon David, v. 13 )
we conclude that v. 14 has been composed for its present place. The critics
are not agreed; Ku. (HCCP. p. 384 cf. p. 388) supposes something cut out for
the insertion of I5 1 -i6 18 . Bu. {RS. p. 214) and Co. (int s . p. 102) find i6 14
the direct continuation of I4 52 . 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 23 . 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 servants speak, and they will seek a man
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, io 5 2 K. 3 15 . Here it is expected to procure relief 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
well and bring him to me~\ the king puts the qualification 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
man 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 : Send 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 bread 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
would be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him.

14. innyai] the perfect with waw consecutive has frequentative force.
nn&gt; FIND njj-rnn] the spirit is nowhere else described with so much circum
spection. In Samuel we find both nw nn (io 6 ) and o\nS nn. The MSS.
vary in 1 1 6 . In one instance ^ has n&gt;- mn&gt; nn where found D^Sx. The
tendency of the scribes to substitute DTI 1 for the more sacred name makes
it probable that in this case is secondary. Both n;n DTiS^ nn and nvr&gt; nn
n;i seem to me to be ungrammatical, and I suspect that the original was
simply D nSx nn throughout this paragraph. 16. -poS inap UJIK w^N- 1
wpa ] is hardly possible (as is shown by We., Dr., and acknowledged by Bu.)
though retained by Kl., and Ki., with a slight change. @ B has elirdrucrav 5r;
of SouAot ffov fv&lt;ain6v ffov Kdl nTi]ffa.T(acra.v which should probably be restored.
& omits after NJ v. 15 to UJIN MJ wto v. 16 . Probably the translators did not
have WIN, as the omission then becomes a clear case of homeoteleuton.

150 I SAMUEL

pjn rn] is in v. 18 pj jrv. As there is no reason why the expression should
vary in so short a space we should probably read pj jrv in both cases, and
this is favoured by . On the IUD cf. Benzinger, Hebr. ArchaoL p. 274.
D&gt;rV?N] is lacking in &lt;f B %&gt;. no pj] i8 10 I9 9 , the variant of (he shall play on
his lyre} is the substitution of a more obvious word. 17. pj 1 ? ana o] Is. 23 16
Ez. 33 32 Ps. 33 s . i 1 ? NriNY] cf. ^ VHN-\ v. 1 . 18. nm paji] discriminating
in speech. INH K"Ni] generally we find ~isn no" 1 , Gen. 39 6 . But in English
we also speak of a man of presence instead of a man of good presence.
iDy nim] the meaning is that he is prospered in what he undertakes, io 7
Jd. i 22 ; cf. Gen. 39 2 . 19. fsxa ~\v&\ is regarded as a harmonistic insertion
by Bu. and Co. (inl s . p. 102). The objection to it is that Saul has nowhere
been told that David is with the flock. 20. Drf? mnn] is contrary to analogy.
Bread is always counted in loaves, and we should doubtless (with We., Dr.)
correct to cnV r\-\yy, which is found in the parallel, 1 7 17 . mtyy was first cor
rupted to ~\EJ? which is represented in &lt;J0 AB , and then as that was seen to be
absurdly small men was substituted. @^ has expanded the text as has I
asinum, et imposuit super gomor pants (Cod. Leg.) and this has been taken
by Bu. into his text in the form anS NIPD vSy C2"i nirr. But this is one of the
frequent cases in which the longer text is suspicious. 21. VJD^ IDJPI] ex
presses the fact that David became one of the king s personal attendants,
I K. I2 8 . 23. DTI^X nn] is corrected in all the versions to njn nn or nn
njn D^nSs. I suppose $? to be original, as the more difficult reading, and more
likely to be emended by a scribe. SiN &gt;S nni] Job 32 21 , where Elihu declares
that he must relieve himself by speech. The word would therefore favour (STs
understanding of Saul s malady as accompanied by fits of suffocation. But cf.
nnn, Ex. 8 11 . njnn nn] can doubtless be justified by parallel instances, cf.
Dr., Notes, p. 45 (on 6 18 ). 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 (^ B , omit considerable sections of the narrative, to
wit, if 12 - 31 - 41 i7 55 -i8 5 . The critics are still divided on the question
which recension is original. Wellhausen in his study of the text
decided for (, because harmonistic omissions imply a critical in
sight which we cannot suppose in the translators. This argument,
though afterwards 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 18, where also some sections

XVII. i -XVIII. 5 151

are omitted by ( B . 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 1 13 . 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 i y 1 " 11 - 32 - 40 - 42 ^ 54
continue I6 14 " 23 . 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 18 . 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. 2o 16 , 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 diffuse 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 i SAMUEL

jealousy. The author who makes him Saul s favourite armour-
bearer in 1 6, and then makes Saul plot against him in 18, 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. 2i 19 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 1 6 23 ) 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 ^ as compared with (&gt;.

On the critical questions the reader may consult, besides the usual authori
ties, W. R. Smith, OT/C 2 . pp. 120-124, 431-433; Cornill in the Konigsberger
Studien, I. pp. 25-34; and Bonk, De Davide Israelitarum Rege (Disserta
tion, 1891), pp. 17-27. All these authors agree that the recension of O 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 (5 with I6 14 - 23 , 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 14 " 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
between Shocoh and Azekah~] mentioned in Jos. I5 35 in connexion
with Shocoh. From its name it seems to have been a stronghold,
cf. Jer. 34 7 . 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 Elah~\ or of the Oak, cf. 2i 10 . The
present name IVady es-Sant resembles the ancient one in that
Sant is also a tree. And arraved the battle to meet the Philis-

xvii. i-8 153

fines ] 4 2 2 S. 10 10 . 3. And the Philistines were standing on the
hill on this side, and Israel was standing on the hill on that side,
and the valley was 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 f^ the challenge
was repeated morning and evening for forty days. 4. And there
came out from the ranks of the Philistines a champion} this is the
only word we can use the Hebrew term is obscure. Whose
name was Goliath of Gath~\ according to 2 S. 2I 22 he belonged to a
family of giants. His height six cubits and 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 between 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. 2i 19 1 Chr. n 23 ; 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. 32 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. a.-pjno fl laosoi] cf. orpjnn nx D ixapM, 28*. The
second 130501 is suspicious and may indicate that the text has been made up
from two documents. ruv.?] Scox^ &lt;&. As Eusebius speaks of two villages,
upper and lower, it is possible that the plural is original (We. who refers
to Euseb. Onom. under SOKX^). Two separate places with this name are
mentioned in Joshua I5 35 - 48 . One of them was near Hebron, the other in the
Shephela. Probably the latter is intended here. Ruins still bear the name
Shuweikeh (Baed., Palestine? p. i6i,GAS., Geog. pp. 202, 227). D&gt;rn DONS]
on the reading of certain MSS. of @, Lagarde ( Uebersicht, p. 76) restores
o^sn 100:3, 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-Damtnim occurs I Chr. II 13 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. nSx] terebinth or oak, cf. Moore, Judges, p. I2i/
with the references there given. 3. nwipS "py, to draw up the line of battle,
usually without ncrV^D. The language of the account reminds us of the
description of Michmash (nrn as I4 4 ). 4. nunnn] the army has already
been described as standing in order of battle, and it is plain that we should
read DD"\J;DD with &lt;5 (Th., We., Dr., Kl., Bu., Ki.). Where &lt;S L got its dupli
cate translation e /c Ttavrbs TOV \aov rrjs Trapard^ews is not clear. D &gt; j3n~tf x]
has not been satisfactorily explained. @ has av^p Swards, IL 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-i i 155

voices Jewish conjecture. Earlier Jewish tradition is represented by 3L 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 tt Dn, heavy armed. n^j]
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. narij] 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. rwpa&gt;p] also of the scales of the great dragon Ezek. 29*.
nts&gt;nj] bronze and iron &lt;j|. nnxsi] should be pointed as a plural, /ci/rj/iTScs
@ Th., We., al. frra] aa-rris everywhere except in this chapter translates
either po or njv. Kl. conjectures ir?, which, however, is always a bowl or pan.
Possibly this clause has been interpolated from v. 45 . 7. ym] Kt. is doubtless
to be corrected to p;n Qre. iuc] occurs only in the phrase of the text. Cf.
Moore, Proc. Am. Or. Soc. 1889, p. 179, and Judges, p. 353. njx] seems to
have been the large shield, in distinction from the smaller pc. 8. Titian] for
which &lt; has a\\6&lt;pv\os 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. i"o] is unintelligible. Restore
nro with the versions, cf. I K. i8 25 (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. Trnn] can mean only
I have insulted or 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. inm] a strong word. They were broken
in spirit, were dismayed, cf. Dt. I 21 3i 8 Jos. I 9 .

12-31. David s coming to camp. The narrative goes back
to the family of Jesse at Bethlehem. The three sons who are
named in i6 & " 9 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 ( B and is marked with an asterisk
in some MSS. It is inserted in A and in L , but the differences are
such as to warrant us in saying that the two translations are made
by different hands. In the case of A 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 was son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah
whose name 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 2 . 13, 14. The three sons, whose names
are given, had gone afterSaul~\ the tautology of the verses is in
tolerable. David was the youngest^ as already told. 15. The
verse is a plain attempt to harmonize this account with i6 14 ~ 23 . 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 I6 22 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 i6 1-13 directly, but seems to
be dependent on that. There would be no difficulty in making
the author of i6 ~ 13 speak briefly of the Philistine invasion and
add : the three oldest sons of Jesse went after Saul to the war, con
tinuing by v. 17 .

12. n?n] 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 &lt;&, and was differently read by
&lt;S AL probably these point to an original xin which would be in place.
D v tfjN3 so] is unmeaning. The synonym of fpr is D&gt;DO 10 which should
probably be restored here. CBr L ,S seem to point to owa fo against which
nothing can be said, except that it occurs nowhere else. Dr., following Hitzig,
strikes out &o as erroneous duplication of the two letters which follow. Kl.
conjectures nnnSnn &gt;e&gt;jto sip of which there seems to be a hint in {.

13. "oSn . . . i^i] is redundant and impossible. One of the two verbs must
be stricken out, and the last one is actually omitted by @ L J5.

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

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. i y 28 . 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 13 . 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. nm cnS] read nm anSn, the n has been lost after msrj? (Dr., Bu.).
18. 3 s m xnn] 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. oroijfj offa a.v xp-hfaaiv (71/^(777) ( A may
point to onmx = their need, as was pointed out by Cappellus, Critica Sacra,
p. 286, whereas et cum quibus ordinati sunt IL would favour crony. 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.- 2 . After his
journey of about twelve miles, he came to the entrenchment just 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 came and asked his brothers of their welfare } cf. v. 18 . 23. The
champion appears * and speaks according to these words } the words

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

I $8 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 smite 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. ID:?] is used of a keeper of sheep nowhere else. Ntt"i] without the
object is not common, and one is tempted to correct to J?DII. nSj^cn] the
same word (without the accusative ending) 26 5 - 7 . (& A has (TTpoyyv\caffis
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. NXTI] by omitting
the article we get a good circumstantial clause, as was already seen by Tanchum.
ncnSoa] may have been originally ncnVn 1 ? (Th.). 21. T&gt;?m] the femi
nine with a collective subject, cf. 3JOD Tin), 2 S. 8 2 . 22. IPBM] here in the
sense of putting off from one. D^D] a word of wide signification the things
which he had with him. narr] the guard left with the camp equipage.
N3i)] is lacking in @ L &lt;23L. 23. nann *om] cf. Dr., Tensed, 166. nnpca
Kt. is evidently a scribe s error for niDiyan Qre. nSxn onana] the reference
is to the words given in v. 8 . 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?DBI] should, perhaps, be joined with v. 24 , in which
case a i should be prefixed to oniNia, so &lt;& L understands. 24. IND . . . ion]
the two clauses are in the wrong order (logically), and I have therefore re
versed them, with @ L . But the whole verse accords ill with v. 25 , and may be
a late insertion. 25. SN W tyN] 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. ornN-vi] Ges. 26 22 s. nSyn] is lacking in & and super
fluous. nS&gt; ] 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 who 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.

XVII. 24-31 159

David s estimate of the champion is manifested in a second ques
tion : For who is this uncircumrised 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. i4 3 i5 18 i S. i4 6 . The language of the question is taken from
v. 36 . The people reply according 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 : / know 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 him before Saul.

26. tSn] may have a somewhat contemptuous force. rpn] with the force of
a subjunctive perfect; I have given a free translation. D"n DviVx] Dt. 5 28 .
27. nin 1313] is used to avoid repetition. 28. njnn jxxn toyn] the sense is evi
dent, though we cannot say in English the fragment of those sheep. pit] is
the unrestrained impetuousness of a headstrong boy. 29. Nin "\y\ N^n] ^vas
it not but a word (from 1& 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 13 . 31. innpn] we should expect another expression, either he called
him, or they brought him before Saul. &lt;S L has : they took him and brought him
before Saul.

160 i SAMUEL

32-39. David volunteers to meet the Philistine. The sec
tion joins immediately to v. 11 , 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 14 " 23 , 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 18 , for to a seasoned warrior
like Saul, David s comparative youth is in evidence. Still, it
hardly seems likely that the author of i6 18 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 i6 18 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 flock"]
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 af "ter him 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 him
by the chin and smite him and slay him. 36. The application to
the case in hand : Both lion and bear did thy servant stay, and this
uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them. The next clause
is like the conclusion of v. 26 . 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 J^ has a coat of mail, which is not
confirmed by 4I B . 39. David girded his sword over the coat]
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 Philistine, his strength
lay in ease and rapidity of movement. The armour was, therefore,
given up.

32. DIN] renders ^JIN, which is appropriate, especially when we remember
that David is in Saul s service (Th., We., al.). vty] refers to Saul himself,
cf. Jer. 8 18 . It is difficult to find any other English rendering than ivithin him,
though the conception is, doubtless, that the heart weighs upon the discour
aged man. 34. n\-i] 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. anrrnto] is impossible, ann IN ,
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, n?, found in
some editions, is only a modern error for ns\ 35. The tenses continue those
in the preceding verse, except D ( IM, 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. anrrw] must be made a-nrrrx DJ to be
grammatical. cno] &lt;& 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. 26 . Possibly
this verse originally ended with one. 37a. in IDNM] 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 &lt;S 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. vnn] a plural in form, but as a singular no is
attested by 2 S. io 4 , it is possible that this is intended here; so understood.
The garment intended is worn by warriors or officials, Jd. 3 16 (Ehud), 2 S. io 4
(David s ambassadors), i S. 18* (Jonathan), 2 S. 2O 8 (Joab). Kl., therefore,
supposes that it was a coat of defence (made of leather?); the ^avSvas &lt; 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.
nj&gt;] is the wrong tense, and is omitted by &lt;S B . Kl. supposes the original to
have been jrjr nc. t?3ip] is written yaio elsewhere, and by a number of MSS.
M

1 62 i SAMUEL

is so given here. pnty inx ISO^M] found in J is omitted by &lt;5 B , and is prob
ably a late interpolation. 39. ro 1 ? 1 Sjoi] is impossible. e:o7ria&lt;rei/ &lt;S B ren
ders N^I, cf. Gen. I9 11 , #&&amp;lt;?j/ wearied 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 O7ra| ol Sis. How
@ L came to fx^ alve does n 9* appear. in DIDM] should probably be read
onD 1 "! with @ B , for David had been clothed by others, who would also take
the garments off (&lt;& L 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 sling 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 21 .
And chose five smooth stones from the bed of the stream and put
them in his scrip] the word is probably a technical term for the
slinger s box or bag, in which he carried his ammunition. And
[took] his sling] a well-known and formidable weapon, Jd. 2O 16 .
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 htm, because he was a youth] the rest of the descrip
tion is identical with that given in i6 12 . 43, 44. The Philis
tine s contempt and self-confidence : Am I a dog, that thou comest
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 26 Is. i8 6
Jer. i5 3 . 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 my hand

XVII. 40-54 1 63

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 earth ] 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 Yahweh j] 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 &lt;, 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 : And David put 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] &
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 ( B , 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. 39 . With the cutting off of their champion s head, the
Philistines realized the situation and fled. 52. The men of Israel
andjudah 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 way from Sharaim] in the vicinity of the
battlefield to Gath 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 &lt;& show this, but are not as complete a guide to the original
documents as in the early part of the chapter. 40. iSpn] in 2 S. 23" the

164 I SAMUEL

weapon is called B3i&gt;. The oxgoad of Shamgar was essentially the same
weapon. V?~ntPN o^jnn -"Soil] is evidently a gloss intended to explain toipy, a
word which occurs nowhere else (We., Bu.). BipSoi] he would not have
distributed the stones in two receptacles. The i is therefore certainly wrong
(omitted by J5@ L ). Omission of the preceding clause makes the sense clear.
It should be remarked however that ( seems to have read toipS 1 " 1 ? iS ne&gt;N =
(the shepherd s bag) -which he had for a yalkut (cartridge box). wa V?P&gt;]
goes back to the verb at the beginning of the verse. I suspect that the earliest
text had only TV a i&gt; Vpi V?pD DN in np&gt;i. 41. The whole verse is lacking in
&lt;S B , the last clause lacking in 6&gt; 243 . 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 &lt;J| elsewhere. 42. ntoo nfl&gt;~aj; IJDINI] is
borrowed from the description in i6 12 , even to the textual error of oy for oS; .
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. 43 . In the feeling
that David should reply to both, &lt; B or its original inserted at the end of 48 ,
Kol ftrrev AoufS ovx M ^ X 6 /"" fvv6s. ^N] takes the place of &gt;*?&gt;. The
plural niVpsa is out of place; read nSpoa. mon nona] is more commonly
pNn -a, which 21 MSS. (DeR.) have here, but cf. Joel I 20 . 46. nrn orn] is
connected with the preceding by (JUIL, and this involves the reading -pjDi for
TUD\ 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 nrn orn later in the verse. njnn "uo] is
defensible, taking ~uc collectively. But with ( we should probably read "p.5D
njriD nJB), so Th., We., Bu. pNn run] instead of the men ncna of v. 44 .
ijno] as pointed, must give the purpose of the victory : that all the earth may
know. It would be possible, however, to point ijn, in which case the verb
would simply carry on the narrative, cf. Ex. I4 4 - 18 (P) Is. 49 2d . ^N-^S]
seem to have read SNitro. 47. Snpn] is a late word, cf. Jd. 2O 2 .
nwS] seems not to occur elsewhere. 48. Dp-o .T&gt;rn] 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 nm&gt; Dn near the end of the verse,
for this would naturally mean the ranks of Israel. The whole second half of
the verse from in EM is lacking in &lt;@&gt; B , which also reads at the beginning /col
avfcrrr]. The shorter form thus presented is consistent with what follows, and
I have adopted it. 49. PN] is expanded into nnx px by Bu., following &lt;5 L ,
but this seems unnecessary. psn paani] (g adds Sia rfjy Kt&gt;a\alas, 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. 55 165

remark of one of the documents. So David was stronger than the Philistine
with the sling and with the stone, and smote the Philistine and slew him, though
there was 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 @ B . 51. naViPM
myrc] is lacking in ( B , and evidently a redactional insertion intended to
bring the verse into harmony with the preceding. 52. Bwfwwt] t&gt;ir(cr&lt;a
aitrdv @ B , either form may be an afterthought, as the sense is good without
either. NM -|Ni3"iy] as the name of a town is expected we should read
p;&gt; "]N13 ~\y with the original of @ BL . pip?] is doubtless correct as compared
with Askalon of. on&gt; ] is evidently intended to be a proper name; and
a town of this name is mentioned (Jos. I5 36 ) 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 onjw "pno,
or better 3n?s&gt;3 3^3, 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 onytrn -pi (with &lt;), and understands by it
the roadway in the gates of the two cities, falls to the ground on considering
V% which follows. The wounded might fall in the gateway at the cities, but
not to the cities. 53. pSnc] the verb is found with nns also, Gen. 3i 36 (E).
54. 3^ i-v] 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, I6 14 - 23 , which makes him a member of
Saul s staff.

XVH. 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 i6 14 ~ 23 . As it is lacking in the original
form of (, it must be judged like vv. 12 " 31 above.

55. The narrative goes back a little : And when Saul sait&gt;
David going forth to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, 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 i 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 by 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.

XVIII. 1. When David had finished speaking with Saul, the
soul of Jonathan was bound up with the soul of David~\ cf. Gen.
44 30 (J). The manifestation of Jonathan s love is seen in the
covenant, v. 3 . 2. Saul takes David into his service, and did not
allow him to return to his father s house~\ the parallel is i6 22 .
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 C 2 3 18 )&gt; 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 ( L .
So far from the promotion being offensive to the older soldiers,
// pleased all the people and also the servants 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. 6 is
transitional, as is shown by its being lacking in ( B . The redactor,
by this clause, returns from the digression concerning David s pro
motion to the main stream of the history.

XVII. 55-XVHI. 5. The paragraph is lacking in &lt;S B etc -. The attempts to
harmonize the accounts are numerous. Schmid supposes that I6 14 " 23 belongs

XVII. 55-XVIII. 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. niNiDi] cf. aiaoi at the opening of v. 57 .
nr"&gt;D~p] on the force of nr in such a question, cf. BDB. s.v. (4). ftyDJ ^n]
by the life of thy soul, cf. 2O 3 . l^n] is the vocative with the article a
common construction. DN] after oaths, is negative. 57. ITO TirScn si&gt;N~n]
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. 5 ,
and v. 2 interrupts the account of Jonathan s friendship, begun in v. 1 . The
form of the sentence, in . . . tr-jji, also makes a difficulty. As it stands, it
would naturally mean : When David ceased speaking {since Jonathans soul
ivas 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. lanjoi] is probably a mistake for inarwi, the
regular form, which is substituted by the Qre. 3. nrn] is objected to by We.,
and omitted by Ki. (in Kautzsch). Bu., in his text, changes to inS, which
relieves the difficulty. The received text may be due to the tendency to make
David prominent, which manifests itself in (g5 L , where we find David the king.
It should be noted, however, that h nna mo usually means to prescribe terms
as a conqueror does to the conquered, Jd. 2 2 Dt. 7 2 I S. 1 1 1 . On the meaning
of the word nna cf. Moore on Jud. 2 20 and reff. 4. S^DH-PN] is what would
be the second accusative in an active form of the verb, cf. Dav., Syntax, 74 c.
moi] 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 came out, clothed with atl that he [Jonathan] had put upon him, and
brought him back to the men of war, 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-os] is justified by Dr.,
Notes, but ^-OIPM, suggested by We., certainly makes better sense. After NSM
we need to be told whither David went. The theory of Bu. (AS. 219), that
this verse (as it stands in |^) belongs with i6 23 , 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

1 68 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 (& E .
It is interrupted in J^ by inconsistent insertions. One of these
(vv. 10 - 11 ) tells of Saul s attempt to murder David. Another (vv. 1M9 )
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 1 *" 23 . The plus of J^ 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 (^ in the pre
ceding chapter and the early part of this. As already pointed
out, the consistency of the text of & 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 &lt;S B . 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 14 ~ 23 . But I cannot account for
the text of G B , except by supposing that it represents one document and that
the omissions represent another.

6-16. The original narrative seems to have consisted of 6b ~ 8a&lt; 9i
i2a. 13-16^ f or t-^jg jg a jj j-ngt is represented in one recension that
of (S B . 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 all 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 (SP 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 in Arabia L&gt;eserta, I. p. 452.

xviii. 6-15 i6g

The timbrel [tambourine] was the instrument most frequently
carried by the women when dancing, Ex. is 20 Jd. n 34 . 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 vv. 10 - n is a duplicate of 19^ 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 custom. 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. 9 . Saul s suspicion grew into fear, and he would no
longer trust David in personal attendance (as armour-bearer, i6 21 )
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 12b&gt; ) 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 2 . 15. On per
ceiving this, Saul s fear was heightened he stood in dread of him.

I SAMUEL

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

6. ^nt^on . . . aitto] is coloured by Bu. as belonging to a different document
from ONiaa TVI. In fact, one of the two verbs is superfluous. It would be
equally easy to suppose DNiaa the insertion of a scribe. The text of &lt;5 B
adopted above seems entirely to meet the necessities of the case. a- trjn]
at xP*v vffal possibly combining a^ jn with rnSnnrv, which conies later.
But a change from niVSncn 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. 2i 23 . iitrS] (or -PIP*? Qre) seems not
represented in &lt;5i B . nnctpai] the collocation seems awkward to us. We. cites
I Chr. I3 8 as parallel; but the parallel is not exact. The &hv is mentioned
nowhere else. 7. rnpniPcn] is lacking in @ B . a nan] is generally to smite
among, 6 19 Num. 33*. The only exceptions that I find are this verse and the
citations of it in 2i 12 2Q 5 . vflSsa] should be read, with the Qre. 8. inn
fJ^a yvi IND SiNtrS] is, doubtless, expanded from the simpler text, which is
represented in @ SWP &gt;rpa yvi. niaai should doubtless be niaann , to
correspond with D^flSsn (We., Bu.). naiSon -JN V? nijn] is lacking in &lt;& B .
9. py] to be read pp, with the Qre. The verb occurs here only. Being a
denominative, the form is probably intended to be a Poel participle (so Dr.),
for Wo. There are a few examples of such shortened forms. 10, 11. The
verses are lacking in the same MSS. of , which are without i; 12 " 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. mnDn] 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.
tojnii] 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. n^nm] the
lance which was the insignium of the chieftain, as is still the case with the
Arabs. 11. So&gt;i] is pointed as though from Sxa, which occurs in 2O 88 , with
the meaning to hurl. But here the spear seems not to have been actually
hurled, and we should probably point SCSM from Stoj, he lifted up ( LA H,
Th., al. HDN] is perhaps to be pointed HSN, with . 12. B has only the
first clause of the verse, and, as in the other cases, represents the original text.
The other clause because Yahweh was with him -while he had departed
from Saul is an insertion on the basis of the verse i6 14 , which is itself an
editorial construction. Yahweh and the spirit of Yahweh are interchangeable,
Jd. i6 20 . 14. S^S] read S:n with the versions (Th.), and read also vam with
the Qre.

XVIII. i6-io I7 1

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 (g B , 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, i y 25 . 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 ly 25 . 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) : Only be a valiant
man, and fight the battles of Yahweh~\ for the last phrase, cf. 25 28
and the title Book of the Battles of Yahweh, Num. 2i 14 . In
this proposition, Saul s real thought was : Let not my hand be upon
him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him\ as is set forth
also in the bargain struck for Michal. 18. David s reply is mod*
est : Who am /, and what is my 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. 2i 8 ,
but as the husband of Michal. The historical uncertainty is
obvious. Saul s action as here represented is, of course, a deadly
affront.

i SAMUEL

17-19. Budde and Kittel make the paragraph a part of the same document
which immediately precedes. It seems to me that v. 20 continues v. 16 . The
contrast between Saul s fear of David and the people s love of him (v. 16 )
is heightened by the fact that even Saul s daughter loved him (v. 20 ).
17. rT?run], like Leah, Gen. 29 16 , for which we find moan i S. I4 49 . Merab
is mentioned only in this passage, and in I4 49 in f^. She is put in place of
Michal (perhaps correctly) by &lt; L in 2 S. 2i 8 . j rrp 1 ?] I4 52 2 S. 2 7 . -\cx]
said to himself, as not infrequently. 18. ox nnorn n ^Di] the hayyor 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 TI was therefore the same
as the nnarE, and &lt;@ L 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 ox nriD- r:, and then misunderstood by the punctuators. I prefer
to read ox TI *v\ with &lt;J0 L . The mention of one s father in such a connexion
is natural, especially to an oriental. 19. nn nya] a time seems to have been
set, Schm. 622. ^xmj; is an Aramaic equivalent of *?xnT&gt;, Jer. 36 26 , God
is my help seems to be the meaning of the word (Nestle, Am. Jour. Sem.
Lang. XIII, p. 173). In 2 S. 2i 8 this Adriel is called Son of Barzillai.
TiSnDn] a native of Abel Meholah, a place in the Jordan valley, cf. Jd. 7 22 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. 13 .

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. 17 . The remainder of
the verse is an interpolation. 22. It would be unbecoming in

XVIII. 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 inter
marrying with families or tribes, Dt. f. 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. 18 . 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 16 .
But the king s desire \sfor 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 on the kings enemies ; 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. 28 " 29b 30
are lacking in ( B . 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 * SAMUEL

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

20. Sa^n] the name appears as MeAxo A, in 41 and as SN-O^D in &. It is
possible therefore that the form is contracted (or mutilated) from SjoVc.
Olshausen (Gr. 277 f.) supposed it to be another form of Sto&gt;D. 21. iPpiD 1 ?]
Ex. io 7 . The second half of the verse is an evident interpolation and is lack
ing in @ B aL . 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
o&gt;ntto, which can only mean on two conditions (shalt thou be my son-in-law),
Pseudo-Hier Questiones. 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 &lt;S A ) i.e., by a double tie, or by one
of the two (so {). 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 n rutpa = in two years, but this does not help the real
difficulty. @ L has e&gt; reuy 5vvd/j.e&lt;nv (in virtute I), which probably represents
only a conjecture. 22. o^a] of what is done stealthily, 24*. jnnnn] 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. 27 .
iSoa] probably shows the real force to be ally yourself by marriage with the
king. 23. rftpj] is the exact opposite of naaj, Is. 3 5 . 25. inna] 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. 283 fif.). :&gt;] some
good Hebrew MSS. have ON ^a in the text and this is the reading of the
Babylonian school (Cappellus, Critica Sacra, p. 190; Baer, p. 118). mSiy]
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. xSi
D&gt;DM iSn] is lacking in @ B , inserted in A after the first word of the next
verse. It is an interpolation, intended to magnify David s zeal (We., Dr.).
27. D&gt;PND] is another change of the same sort. &lt;& has one hundred, which is
confirmed by 2 S. 3 14 . in after fro^i is lacking in @ It. OIN ?D &lt; I] should
probably be read DM7&?% 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 &lt;5 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 (i9 llff -) 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 should probably join I9 11 to
i8 27 by taking two words from the end of I9 10 , and reading Km n^Sa &gt;m.

XVIII. 20-XIX. 2 175

28. jn i] lacking in &lt;SI BL , is superfluous. nnariN ^)NtP"na SD&gt;DI] 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 &lt;S^ B SNIK" So &gt;ai
12HN (&lt;S L combines the two texts). This gives an additional reason for Saul s
fear, which is what we expect. 29. f|DNii] the Qre substitutes ^Dri; the
difference is only one of spelling. -\S for N-vS, cf. Ges. 26 , 69 n. The latter
part of 28 and the whole of ^ are lacking in @ B ; they point out, superfluously,
the contrast between Saul s attitude and that of David. The original opening
of IQ 1 may have been : And Saul was hostile to David, which is now read in
I8 2 *.

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 2O 1 " 39 . 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 2O 1 - 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 v. la - join immediately to iS 29 *- 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 v. la - 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, Saul s 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.

i SAMUEL

3. The proposition of Jonathan is : / 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: And he risked his life~\ 28 21 Jd. i2 3 ; and smote the
Philistine, and Yahweh wrought a great deliverance~\ by him, as
( L 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 31 i K. 2 31 . 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. 2- 3 . And Jonathan
brought David to Saul and he was in his presence as heretofore~\
instead of being obliged to hide from him.

1. jnjv] in the rest of the chapter we find jrw. The form here may be
due to a scribe. But elsewhere we observe considerable constancy in the
urage of the different documents. voy] of the officers of the king, as else
where. 2. ON] is lacking in &lt;J| B . But more probably it alone was expressed
originally. npaa] is lacking is &. inDa naB"i] belongs after rmaroi and
this order seems to be indicated by &lt;S, as was pointed out by We. The w. 2 - 3
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
2O 1 - 39 , 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. 3 to the redactor. 3. The verse seems
inconsistent with itself, as the only object of Jonathan s speaking with Saul
in 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. nn mtni] cf. no &gt;m = whatever it may be, 2 S. i8 22 . 4. ve&gt;yo] is

xix. 3-10 i;;

supposed by Dr. to be a singular. There seems no reason however why
Jonathan may not make his affirmation general to the effect that all David s
actions are blameless. T?-ara] the words seem to be transposed; possibly
the second is an insertion, as it is not represented in @ BL . 5. 10:0] J5 trans
lates and he put his life in thy hands. rnn&gt;] (g^ ac jds 5C avrov, which is at
least correct sense (represented also in &). #ni n&gt;so Smen ?^] /coi iras
l&lt;rpar)\ eTSoi/ KO.I (xdp-nffav &lt;S (with slight variation) = nD8M nxn wi. 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 &lt;5 is quite
in line with the rest of the speech. On the other side, the following n^i is
more forcible if connected directly with the statement of Saul s earlier attitude.
For this reason I retain |^. 6. ^ipa JJDJPM] in the sense of hearing favourably
Num. 2i 3 (J) Dt. 2i 18 Jd. 20 13 . 7. ?ruin&gt; V? IJPI] the subject is omitted by
S@ BL 31. The 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 i8 10f , and the two accounts are possibly variants
of one original. On the other hand, Saul seems there simply to
have lifted 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 iQ 1 " 7 . In both
cases Saul s hatred is motived by David s success against the
Philistines. 8. And there was 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 f^) the evil spirit of Yahweh, contrary to
the usage of other passages. The emendation suggested by &lt;
which brings them into conformity, is now generally adopted.
The circumstances of the attack are given : While 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, i8 10 - u , we may say that it was the
fixed idea recurring to the madman. But David slipped away
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

i SAMUEL

escaped is too strong language to use, if he simply went to his
own house.

8-10. I 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 mm nn] cf. the note on i6 14 (We., Dr., Bu., Ki. agree in the emen
dation here). inoa xim] a circumstantial clause. TO] read no with four
Hebrew MSS. and @, so Th., We., al. 10. mp^i] is lacking in &lt; BL , so that
the meaning would be to smite David ivith the spear. The grotesque idea
of pinning David to the wall is more likely original, in the account of a man
possessed. IBSM] apparently broke away from what he was doing. 0*70^ DJ]
cannot refer to David s escape from the immediate danger, which is sufficiently
described by -ODM. The words evidently mean that he left the court and city
altogether. Nin 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. 10 . 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. lo-i; 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
probability of the connexion of this passage with i8 27 . 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
messengers to the house of David to watch it, so as to kill him in
the morning. 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 shalt 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 15 , and the case of Paul in
the New Testament, Acts Q 25 . In 2i 2ff - 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 goafs 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 him. 16, 17. The ruse is discovered, and
Saul expostulates with his daughter : Why hast thou deceived me
thus ? 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.

1 80 i SAMUEL

11. The verse should begin Ninn n^Sa TIM reading with &lt;, so Th., We.,
al. The two words sin n^Sa are in |^ connected with the preceding verse.
Although precedents are found for xin n^Sa, it is better to read xinn 3 as a
n may have easily dropped out on account of the recurrence of the same
letter. tfMSflSt] is an example of the reverse error. The initial i has been
duplicated from the preceding word (omitted by). pornx D^DD] cf. i K.
i 12 . 13. D^nnn] cf. Z WT. 1881, 170 ff. /cevorcu/xo @ seems to imply ances
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. I? 5 with the references there; cf. also the
Lexx. with reff. and Schm. pp. 652, 659. rrjDrrSx] one of the numerous cases
where hy and Ss are confused. "pao] occurs only in this passage and is not yet
explained satisfactorily. read nas, 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 naa by a scribe unfamiliar with the word "vaa. The
cognate words ma:?, a sieve, and "032, a metal network, as well as "osr, 2 K.
8 15 , seem to indicate for this word something woven of goat s hair, any n^n* 1 ,
Ex. 26 7 , 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. nv^xiD is used of the pillow, Gen. 28 11 - 18 . In I S.
26 and i K. IQ 6 vntrjon 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 &lt;. 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. -\Dxni] but if the mere word of Michal was to be taken, there was
no need of the elaborate precautions already related. We should read nnxM
with @ AB , making the messengers the subject. They came to take him, but
seeing the bed thus arranged : they said to themselves, he is ill. 15. ... nStPM
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; nunS 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 xiij 2T, 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. 1 8-20 l8l

tainly wrong, and I propose to change it to no"?, or rna"?N. AB has only
ol oTTOo-Te AAei eVl rbi/ AaueiS, which also would meet the requirement.
17. irnDN nnV] on the idiomatic use of ncV to convey a threat, cf. Dr., Notes.
The original continuation of this account seems to be 2i 2 , 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 io 10 ~ 13 , 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
i8 llf&gt; where we suppose the original meaning to have been that
David turned from Saul s attempt because Yahweh was with him.
Because of this resemblance, we may conjecture that this para
graph was originally the sequel to the second attempt with the
spear ip 8 " 10 .

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,
2I iiff. &lt; The 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 went 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 (ccenobium) of the prophets. Such a dwelling or settle
ment existed at Gilgal in the time of Elisha, 2 K. 6 1 7 . In i S.
io 5 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 protection which is here described. 19, 20. Saul is

1 82 1 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 theni\ the religious exercises here de
scribed are evidently of the enthusiastic character of those in
io 5 10 . 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, Saul s anger was aroused and he also went to
Ramah~\ the opening of the verse is supplied from &lt;g. In his
progress, he came to the cistern of the threshing-floor which is on
the height, and asked : Where are Samuel and David 7] the text is
restored according to (. 23. On being told, he went thence,
and the Spirit of God came upon him also and he marched along
prophesying until he came to . . .] the place mentioned is the
same already named in v. 18 . 24. The manifestations in Saul, as
in the others, are of an extravagant character: He stripped off his
clothes and prophesied before Samuel and 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. H^D*! rna THI] as it stands may be the original conclusion of the pre
ceding narrative (Bu.). n^ja Kt. : nwa Qre\ the word is entirely unknown.
(S adds here in Ramah, as ft? does in vv. 20 - 22 *"-. But 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 rwjj, but no such word occurs else
where. A word nu from a root meaning to dwell or to sit quiet is found, and
in 2O 1 this word is written rmj (by Baer only), which would be the plural of
rnj. &lt;S seems to have read nua (Iv Auci0 BL , corrected into eV Nou&lt;e$0 in A ).
As pointed out by Dr. nu " 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. I5 25 David says to Zadok : " If I find favour in the
eyes of Yahweh, he will bring me back and show me his dwelling" where the
word nu seems to designate the tent in which Yahweh dwelt. As the prophets
in io 5 come down from the Bama (which was the sanctuary) it does not seem
remote to suppose the original here was mm nu or mm mj 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. 183

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
ra\&ovde (Ant. VI. 221 = VI., XI. 5) ; the early Jewish tradition is represented
by NjaSiN no of {; and that j$ has njv. 20. NTI] cannot be right and
must be changed to IN-PI with (. npnS] is an unknown word. &lt;&lt; seem
to have read ynp or nSnp (cf. Hoffmann, ZATW. III. 89). D^JOJ] is lacking
in @ B but is necessary to the sense. axj ID&gt;?] the two words together are
impossible, and must be explained as the error of a scribe who wrote TDJ; from
memory, and afterwards inserted the correct word axj. KL, followed by Bu.,
proposes nxjn on the basis of f]^D {. But it must be remembered that T
throughout has the idea that Samuel was a rabbinical teacher, and its inter
pretation must be taken with allowance; moreover nxjn occurs only in Ezra,
Chronicles, and the superscriptions to the Psalms (and Hab. 3). 22. y?M
Nin~DJ] Kal edufjiuOr) opyy 2aovA, Kal eiropev6r) Kal avros @ (with slight varia
tion). The touch seems natural, and the loss of a single clause is not difficult
to account for. Svun -n3~ij;] is ungrammatical. Restore pjn -na nj? with
&lt; BL , and for 13^0 read &gt;BB&gt;3 (tv T$ 2e0ef @ B , eV 2e&lt;/ L ). The 1 Dtt&gt; or bare-
topped hill was the proper place for a threshing-floor. Kl. conjectures (with
slight ground) the threshing-floor on which Samuel was accustomed to sit in
judgment. The second ICNM means one said, as frequently. nc-a] 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. DSP] error for
DPD (citeWfv @ AB lacking in L ). sajrni Y?n] I have no hesitation in restor
ing the regular jojnm Y?n which we should expect here. 24. NI.TDJI] is
omitted in both instances by @ BL , in the second instance only by j. 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. 40 ^ 2 .

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 I SAMUEL

before David s journey to Ramah, before the attempt frustrated by
Michal, before even Jonathan s former intercession with his father.
Had the author known of an earlier attempt at reconciliation, 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 we 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. 40 - 42 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. 4 " 17 as redactional however has not commanded any large meas
ure of assent. Bonk gives a detailed analysis, which also lacks probability.
Verses n ~ 17 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 without 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 1 85

son of Jonathan s ignorance : Thy father well knows that I am in
favour with thee~\ the standing phrase, elsewhere translated have
found 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 Yahweh 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 Moon 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. f 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 shalt
let me 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 shalt 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 19 . 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 determined upon by him} that is, by
Saul, cf. 25 17 . 8. David pleads the agreement already made
between Jonathan and himself. Thou shalt deal kindly with thy

* Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, I. p. 53.
t Doughty, I.e., I. pp. 366, 455.

1 86 I SAMUEL

servant because into a bond sanctioned by Yahweh thou hast brought
thy servant^ an agreement with divine sanctions between the two
is described i8 3 , and another was made later, 23 18 . 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 : Who 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. 18f - What comes between is not a part of the
earliest narrative.

1. nma . . . rna^] is called the redactional suture above. It is possibly
however the original beginning of the account of David s flight to Achish,
where it would fit excellently instead of 2i lla . jnjirp -usS ID*O) N:TI] is
rendered in ( as though it were IEN^ pjirp -"joS x:ri, which is logically better.
Possibly however the division between the two documents is between the two
verbs, so that the original connexion was ?njim ^sh nD&oi KT?C1 DJ im.
2. fVffy"h Kt. : na^-N 1 ? 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. ix Sm ~m] is lacking in &lt;g5 B and may
have fallen out by scribal mistake of the second nan for the first. As the
shorter text makes good sense however, I have retained it. ^TN nVjp] cf. 12 - 13
and 9 16 . nxr px] a strong expression there is nothing of this. 3. j?aai
ni&gt; ] as We. says, David has not sworn as yet, and does not swear now. has
only airM, which is all we need; -nj? is a scribal expansion perhaps duplicate
of in, and the duplication of its y gave rise to the reading of ftf . The second
-\DNII] means says to himself, as often. axy fo] 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 &lt;& B , which has jur? ov /SouArjrat, which would represent
nxy jo (We.). (@ L has, with the same idea, OTTWS /xfy avayyei\r) TC? AavtS. It
is difficult to suppose however that } % y&gt; was the verb here unless we read fo
i*j?v, lest they take counsel together, and we are obliged to decide for f^, as
slightly more probable. aSiNi] strongly adversative to Jonathan s assertion
that there was no reason for David s suspicion. T;&gt;DJ TII rnn-^n] cf. I4 39
and BDB. s.v. ^n. The ^ is &gt;a recitativum. J^DD] the like of a step (Dr.) ;
yvD occurs here only the verb in one passage; seems to paraphrase.
4. nDNrrnD] does not seem the word we need: ri eTnflv^e? &lt;& points to
nwn ns, which exactly fits the place. In that case we should point

XX. 8-io 1 87

that I may do. 5. cnn] is frequently joined with the Sabbath as a day
of religious observance, 2 K. 4 28 Is. i 13 Am. 8 5 . It was adopted by the
Levitical legislation, Num. io 10 28 11 " 15 ; cf. Dillmann, Exodus und Levit.,
p. 578 f., Benzinger, Hebr. Arch., 69, Muss-Arnolt, JBL. 1892, pp. 73 f.,
160 ff. att&gt;N~.3a IDJNI] 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 (3tt&gt;N tfS 32" OJNI) has been gener
ally adopted since We. rwSipn] is not expressed in (S 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. npfi] first,
to inspect in order to see whether any is missing (i3 15 I4 17 ), then to discover
that some one is missing. SNS&gt;J] with the proper Niphal force asked for
himself, Ges. 26 51 e. onS rpa] for which read on^no ij? (adopted by
We., Bu.). 7. V? mrp mrroi] al ecu/ ffK\tjpus airoKpi6ri &lt;rot @ (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. 10 (We.). 8. "?&gt;] should evidently be vy with &&2L
(We., Dr., Bu.). nirv nna] seems to be used nowhere else of a covenant
between men, such as is alluded to here, but cf. Ex. 22 10 . nr nnS] is ren
dered as a negative (which it is in intention) by J53L 9. The difficulty is
with the last clause of the verse : ~|S *VJN nnN xSi. It is possible to make the
whole verse (from as) 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 sS an emphatic particle
like px. 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 22 , 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
sS with the Arabic la was made, a few years ago. At the end of the verse @ L
adds ets ras iro\eis &lt;rov, which is also found, though differently placed, in (& AB .
The addition is difficult to account for; perhaps HPN was read nns and was
then supplemented by an adverbial clause inserted. Kl. s adoption of the
reading will hardly command assent. 10. n?2 IN] edv represents ON, which
is doubtless original. A scribe took DN 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 i 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 my father about this time to-morrow,
and if he be well 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 shalt 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 : And
Yahweh be with thee as he has been with my father! 14, 15 a . 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 shalt show me the kindness of Yahweh ;
But if I should die, thou shalt not withdraw thy compassion from
my house forever] the two alternatives are completely stated,
showing that the remainder of the verse belongs with what fol
lows. 15 b , 16. Should David forget the covenant, God would
be the avenger : But if, in Yahweh V 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 with tender love he loved him, cf. i8 3 .

XX. n-17

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 in we must restore i, which has fallen out by reason of its similarity to
-&lt;n; so S& IHDJ, while @ olSej/ points to yr, a corruption of the same original.
Read therefore: Witness is Yahweh, cf. I2 5 . rnaSB&gt;n] is superfluous here
as in v. 5 , having been put into the text to make the promise conform to the
event. njm] should be jm equivalent to DNI; it is so read in J5, while ( L
gives both : /col 5ov, cdv. ?x~x ?i] the x"? must be the same emphatic parti
cle used above in v. 9 , here as there in the apodosis. -prx-nx in^jn] is lack
ing in @, which substitutes els a.yp6v ( AB ) or cis rb ireSiov. 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 v. 13 &lt;& L
has Kal faf Kaxbv jf, which at any rate gives an appropriate meaning. I sup
pose the words njn axi ma&gt;n] to have become illegible and to have been filled
out by a scribe with a phrase from v. 13 , which fits in the context. Vx 3B" &gt;3
ax] is unintelligible; &lt; AB on avoiffw, &lt; L eat&gt; w avoiaw. Both point to x&gt;3X
for os and with x-ax we must here read (in an oath) ex. The original ox
3N was miswritten ON ^X, with which something had to be supplied. The
original reading of Jonathan s oath I take therefore to be : SxiB" %-6x mm ig
r\vy&gt; no v? jn pi : mn i 1 ? nSa&gt;x TX nSi 111 ^x 310 pi ino nj?D &gt;3X nx npnx 13
pSj? y~\r\ nx xux ox rpD&gt; n^i injin-" 11 ? oviSx. 14. The received text is here
also corrupt. ax xSi] is a duplication. xSi was written, and then, to make
clear that x 4 ? was not meant, ax was added. nvyrrvhii] is represented by
Kal TTOiTjaets @ B , TTonyo-Tjs (S L , showing that we should read again the emphatic
particle in the apodosis. mm ion] cf. 2 S. g 3 . The third x 1 ?! 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. nnara xSi] will
barely admit of connexion with the preceding (Dr.), but is better in every
way when read nn&gt;i3 x^i. ,& omits i^x, perhaps rightly. 16. mo 1 ")] e
J-apOTfi&lt;TTat @ L , rightly pointing rn^ and connecting with the preceding x^-.
Where &lt;5 B gets eupeQrjvai is difficult to say. jruim] rb uvo^a. rov ItavaOav
@ B , the latter is adopted by Dr., Bu., but does not seem to improve the sense.
m nu oy] O7r6 TOV otxov Aauet 5 @ AB , on the ground of which We., Dr.,
restore OJ?D. But what Jonathan requests is not that his house may continue
with the house of David (as its dependants) but that it may not be cut off by
them, which would not be expressed by o; 0. L /ucTd rov oficov SaouA has
some claims to be regarded therefore as original. in ^N TD] cannot be
right, as is evident; read in mr. In some other cases o- X is inserted to
avoid an imprecation on David. There is also a trace in one MS. of that
the word was doubtful. 17. ivrnx yitrn 1 ?] Jonathan s love is no reason for
his adjuring David. We are compelled therefore to read T^x j?5^nS with &lt;@.
The main object of the interview was that Jonathan might assure David on
oath that he would not betray him to Saul. inx vanxa] has arisen by dupli
cation of the following words. It is lacking in &lt;S& B .

190 i 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 10 , 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 vacanf\
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. And
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 which 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 I say to the lad: The arrow
is beyond thee then 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 me and thee forever~\ Yahweh is a party to such
solemn engagements, as we see in the case of Jacob and Laban,
Gen. 3I 50 .

18. nps 1 * ID] is suspicious. But no better reading suggests itself. 19.
1ND Tin] gives no appropriate sense. @ substitutes npcn for Tin, 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 r\vhw\ at any rate
(and perhaps the whole clause) is an insertion of the same hand which forced
the third day into vv. 5 - 12 ; HN31 Tin TNI is what we expect. nirysn 010] the

XX. i8-2j tQt

any of the deed is wholly unknown to us. There 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 ig 9 , 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 33 17 ). But David did not
hide himself that day, so far as we know. We are in fact wholly in the dark.
The versions rrjs ^pyaaias L , TT) epya.aiiJ.ri &lt;@&gt; AB , qua operari licet 3L, N^irn
{, 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 n^ynn would be
used to mark such a distinction miap would be more natural. STNPI pn]
if correct can be only a proper name. But as pointed out by Th. &lt;& (T&
epyaB eVeiVo &lt; B , r$ \iQtp fKeivcf 6 L ) read both here and in v. 41 the word JJIN,
which would naturally mean a heap of stones, cf. the proper name Argob in
Bashan, Dt. 3* i K. 4 13 . We. therefore restores ftn a;nNn Ssx, which is gen
erally adopted. 20. rniN mx D^xnn ncot? ijxi] would naturally mean : and
I will shoot the three arrows 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 ntySa* as a verb and I zvill triple the arrows, or and I will use
three arrows, which does not seem to give any help. We., followed by Dr.,
Bu., reconstructs trxna vhvn JNI = and I on the third day [will shoot] with
arrows, which, if we can make trtV 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 mis a corruption of nxix. 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. 21. nyjn] the
boy, whom he would naturally have with him in practising archery. NXD Y?]
the omission of -\DxS is unusual. Possibly the original was simply xxoS, which
has been expanded under the influence of v. 36 where we have XXD }n. Dixnn]
should probably be the singular in both instances. nxm] must begin the apo-
dosis, corresponding to "|S in the next verse. But in this case the i is abnor
mal and we should either read nxai, or else with @ AB omit the i. The latter
alternative is favored by the parallel in the next verse, the i might readily
have come from the end of the preceding word. nan] is sufficient of itself
without the addition of an adjective (evil} made by the versions. 22. D^xnn]
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 | is probably because the form ^n (which occurs as an
undoubted singular in v. 36 ) was taken for an abbreviated plural, the usual

192 1 SAMUEL

singular being pn. 23. It seems necessary to insert ny (juoprvs &lt;) after
mrr, or else to point the last two words of the verse o^ijTiy; cf. v. 12 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, and 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 king sat on his seat, as usual, by the wall,
and Jonathan was opposite, and Abner sat by the side of Saul, and
David s seat was 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 commanded 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 companion 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 death] cf. 2 S. 1 2 5 .
32, 33. At Jonathan s question why this should be, Saul s rage
gets beyond control : And Saul raised the spear at him to smite
him] 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. nnSn-Sp] is probably right. The sitter at the low Oriental table is
decidedly above the food. The Qre recommends SN, but the change is un
necessary. &lt; seems to have found fnfoen Sj?. 25. "vpn strirrSN] is rendered
by irapa rbv TO?%OV L , and -pp."! SN is quite sufficient. Dp^i] why Jonathan
should stand while the others sit is not clear. KO! trpoe^Baffff 6&gt; B , nal irpof(f&gt;6a-
fffv avr6v @ L , point to Dip, cf. 2 S. 22 6 2 K. ip 32 , which means to confront,
generally in a hostile sense, but not necessarily so, Ps. 21*. The reading
Dip&gt;i in this place, suggested first (so far as I know) by Ewald, G VI*. III.
in, E. Tr. III. p. 80, is now generally adopted. 26. mpc] various accidents
might make one ritually unclean. -nna xS- D] is tautological. The pointing
inb, suggested by @ (We.), relieves the difficulty to a certain extent only,
but seems the best we can do. 27. ^S n enrn mnco] is impossible. We

194 SAMUEL

must have either ttnnn rnnno, or else ^a&gt;n ovn. &lt;5 has both, inserting ovn.
Probably the original was only cnnn mnon. onSn] for //&lt; /#/&lt;?, as in v. 24 .
28. SNJW SN&&amp;gt;J] implies an urgent request. onS no-iy] I cannot persuade
myself that the sentence is complete without a verb such as is supplied by &lt;& L
5po/ieIV, or @ B iropevdyvai, or by { SpnS, though the difference may show
that the translators did not have either one in the text; pS seems to be the
simplest. After Bethlehem @j$ add his city. 29. nix Nim] the unusual
order is perhaps due to an error. &lt;5i seems to have read simply mm.
njnsi] expressing the purpose of the request should be pointed DNINI.
30. nvnDn niyj] is made up of two words otherwise unheard of. Lagarde
(Mittheil, 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 myj (or mpj) instead of rnpj. Only, as a man cannot be the son
of more than one woman, the plural of &lt; is not allowable. The natural
phrase would be n"nb mj?j. A reflection on the chastity of Jonathan s mother
is evidently intended, and T\D is used of Israel s rebellion against Yahweh (and
adultery with other gods), showing that it would convey such a reflection. If
nip is original, we might suppose nmnn to be a gloss intended to explain
its meaning son of perverseness would fit the sense. pS nnN tm] the verb
does not go with the preposition; &lt;J| points to -an or -gn (adopted by Th. al.).
31. in-oSm nnx] the nns does not agree well with the meaning of the verb.
It is lacking in (fl^ 6 , and has evidently come in by the error of a scribe, who
in writing pn took it for the second person, and naturally put down nnx as its
subject. Saul was not afraid for Jonathan personally, but for his succession to
the throne. niD p] already he is marked out by death as one of its chil
dren, cf. mo &"&gt;x, I K. a 26 . 33. SBM] as in the earlier case (i8 n ) should
probably be pointed Steji, tirrjpev &lt;JI AB . NTI nSo] the lack of agreement is
obvious. @ reads as in vv. 7 - 9 . But the particular evil is here defined in the
clause nvrnN mcnS. It will be sufficient therefore to correct ton n 1 ?^ to nrta,
with We. al. 34. T^N axpj 13] is lacking in &lt;5 B , and is unnecessary. The
wrath was fully accounted for by Saul s insulting language. inSan] o-uvere -
\fcrcv eV avr6v &lt; B has arisen under the influence of nnSn, above. Here the
absolute rSp rhs seems harsh, and | 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 y and as 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 him. 37. So when the lad came to the place of the [first]
arrow which Jonathan 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. 35-41 195

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, but only Jonathan and David knew it. This was
evidently the conclusion of the incident, except that he added
what we now find in 2I 1 : David rose from the place where he
was concealed and departed, while Jonathan came into the city.

35. n^inV] the appointment naturally included both place and time.

36. o^nn] is to be corrected to the singular as above. Jonathan shot a
single arrow, and while the lad was running for it, he shot ^nrrnN, the par
ticular arrow on which so much depended, so as to pass beyotut the boy.

37. NiS~i] the whole line from this word to ij?jn in the next verse has fallen
out of &lt;@ L . Possibly it made just a line in some early manuscript. A part of
the omission is supplied however after the word erfs = iDyn. 38. mnn
nsnn] cf. Driver s note. &gt;xnn Kt.~\ to be read as a plural (Qrty. N3&gt;&gt;]
should be pointed &gi with (S A1&gt; and the margin of B .

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 suspicion. 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. 35 - 39 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-

196 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 between me
and thee y and between my seed and thy seed forever. The Bedawy
also says : There is none between us but Allah (Doughty, I. p. 267).

XXI. 1. As already remarked, this verse is the conclusion of
this narrative, and must have stood after 2O 39 .

40. N On] is lacking in @ L , and is in fact superfluous. 41. 3Jjn
from the side of the South Country is of course impossible. Read 3.nNn
corresponding to the emendation in v. 19 (so &lt;, and J5 also has NS^ rnS p
here). Snjn imy] until David exceeded (EV). But why David s vic
tory in so curious a contest should be mentioned is impossible to conceive.
&lt;S has nothing to represent m, so that We. proposes Snjn ip; 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 -!&gt;% 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. opii] the subject seems necessary, and David is
correctly added by &lt;.

XXI.-XXVL 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
with 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. 4I-XXI. 4 IQ7

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 ip 17 .

2. The verse connects well with ig 17 or ip 18 *, which may be
the original : And David fled and escaped the night of his wed
ding, and came to Nob, to Ahimelech the pries /] 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 (n 32 ), and the same is intended by
Isaiah in his picture of the progress of an invading enemy from
the north (Is. lo 32 ). 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 i6 4 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, and 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 f 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 / 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 : And now if there be within thy reach
five loaves of bread, give it me, or whatever may be at hand.
5. The priest s objection to giving what bread he has, is : There
is no common 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 from
woman~] they might 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 4 Mic. 3 6 . 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
presence removed from 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, 22 9 . 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 muleherd, was kept at the sanctuary by some religious (cere-

XXI. 4-10 IQ9

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. njj] with an unusual form of the (locative) accusative ending, Ges. 26 ,
got; 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. 7i9f.) to refute those who suppose David to have fled across the
Jordan to mj (cf. Jd. 8 11 ). "jSn^ns] 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 31 .
We find an mnN, I4 3 , who officiated as Saul s priest, and he is probably the
same with our Ahimelech. &lt; AB has Abimelech here. in ntnp 1 ?] @ AB reads
r-iNnpS, which would be natural but on that very account ffi must be taken
to be original. 3. pan iSD^nsV] @ AB has pa*? simply. -on] (5 adds
ff-fj/uLfpov, 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.
nDixa] seems to be omitted by @ AB . With the negative it has the force of
at all here let no man know at all of the matter, Ges. 26 , 137 c. -pnix itPNi]
is redundant perhaps a scribe s expansion. ^njnv] might possibly be a
Poel form (Ges. 26 , 55 ; Stade, 465). But the meaning is not so good as if
we had Tn&gt;", which should probably be restored; (5 Sia/j.ffj.apTvpr)/j.ai points to
n, which was read as if from 11;?. But the form might equally be from
If the original reading were Tnjn it might give rise to both &lt;njnv and
. Kl. proposes \-nj;u, Ex. 29*2 Job 2 11 . ^nSs ijSo] 2 K. 6 8 . 4. E-nD]
does not consist with the definite number of loaves asked for. We are
compelled therefore to read tt~DN with LA , ft elalv (et has dropped out
of ( B owing to its resemblance to the beginning of the next word).
xxcjn is] is a concise way of saying, or whatever thou canst find. 5. Sn]
is the opposite of w\p. 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 9 . There is no
evidence in this narrative that the priest did not take all the precautions

20O I SAMUEL

necessary. nnrr^N"] the SN is probably erroneous duplication of the preced
ing Vn. 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. Religion of the Semites, pp. 365, 436. oa^t? Srro] cannot
mean that the privation has lasted three 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. vm] must carry
on the description of what took place at the start : Women were taboo . . .
and the equipments of the young men were consecrated. This fully meets the
priest s scruples, and is emphasized in what follows. Sn "pi 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 -pi to n:n might
enable us to get this meaning : Sn -on Nini = and were it a common thing,
nevertheless it would become consecrated in the vessel (in which it will be car
ried) cf. &lt;J! L which favours this construction, though it retains *px &gt;:&gt; INI]
would probably bear the construction just suggested; &lt; B seems to have read
&gt;3 only, while &lt; L neglects the words altogether. iSaa] 5t TO a/cevTj /tow &lt;5
perhaps gives the original meaning. 7. onoicn] the plural is probably due to
the accretion of a D from the beginning of the next word (We.). 8. nxyj] as
the root is used above for that which is religiously forbidden (taboo), we may
suspect that it means here, kept 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). o&gt;jnn *V3N] vf^wv ras
jjfju6vovs is restored by Lagarde (J3N. p. 45, note) as on^n SON, and as
ION is not used of a chief, the latter (which is the more difficult reading)
should probably be adopted. Graetz suggests o^in ION {Gesch. der Juden,
I. 183), adopted by Dr., Bu., Ki. 9. mr pNi] The form f*N occurs
nowhere else. The punctuators wished to distinguish it from f&gt;N and perhaps
to identify it with ON. &lt;& has ?5e ei ZVTIV cvrattfa, which We. supposes to indi
cate ns c"n nNi, though he finds the interchange of n and j 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 (& to have avoided the aposiopesis by inserting fe. I had already
suspected the original to be nc w -NI, and where is there, before I saw Klos-
termann s conjecture to the same effect. It is to this question that Ahimelech
replies. 1 inj] a supposed passive participle from v nj - Kl. conjectures
Viru, decisive, strict, Dan. 9 2C . More probable is VINJ (from V 1N )&gt; or t^inj.
10. The Valley of Elah is a reference to I y 2 or to the original account
from which that has been expanded. noi^] is the passive participle.

XXI. ii-i6 2OI

njj] is pointed in many editions n.n but this is incorrect. At the end of the
verse add wot eSwKev avTrjv aiirtp (.

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 life, 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

(i 9 *).

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 not 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 : Saul has slain 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 drummed 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 why 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 went
thence. That the general style of this section is similar to that of ig 18 - 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 I6 1 14 by the position it gives Samuel, this betrays a sim
ilar connexion by calling David king of the land. 11. E^DN] Ayxovs .
12. ID^NJ and I2:n2 are written as in i8 7 . 14. ijtti] the form has
perhaps preserved the original third radical. Else, it is a clerical error for
nja&gt;M or ftyi (Stade, 493 a; Ges. 26 , 60 d, 75^). The verb is used of chang
ing one s clothes, 2 K. 25 29 , and in the Hithpael, of disguising one s self,
I K. I4 2 . oyiO is the taste or flavour of a thing, applied figuratively to the
character of a nation (Moab), Jer. 48 11 , and to the understanding of a person,
I S. 25 33 . The difficulty with the phrase here used (and in the form inutw
1DJK3TIN Ps. 34 1 dependent on this passage) is that one does not change his
understanding as he does his clothes. This is felt by &lt;J| which renders Kal
il\\oiuffev rb irp6(T(DTTov avrov. It is impossible to prefer this to the more
difficult reading of f^, 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. SSnnM] either
feigned himself mad, or raved under the influence of fear, Jer. 25 16 . The
next clause has a double translation in . irm] VPM Qre, is supposed to
mean make marks, as we say scribble. But Kal frvfjiirdvi^v renders f|PM, as
was pointed out by Cappellus, Critica Sacra, p. 261. Possibly im is only
a phonetic spelling of qrw, Ew. G VI*. III. p. 1 16, E. Tr. III. p. 83. 15. njn]
one is tempted to restore p if you see a madman, -why should you bring
him to me? pntPD CN] cannot be the man is mad (AV., cf. RV.), but the
words must be the object of the verb. 16. non] probably originally iDnn
(Kl.). nrns] used in contempt as io 27 . hy~\ 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 2i l 2i 10 or 2i 16 . From the general
tone of the narrative, they agree better with 2I 1 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. i2 15 . It is mentioned in the Shephela, between
Jarmuth and Shocoh, Jos. is 35 ; in 2 Chr. n 7 it comes in immedi
ate connexion with Shocoh, and in Neh. n 30 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 ^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 who had a creditor} a
brutal exactor of debts who would not hesitate to sell the debtor s
family into slavery, 2 K. 4 1 ; and every embittered man] according
to 3O 6 men who were angry because of some grievance. The case
of David is similar to that of Jephthah (Jd. n 3 ). 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, 3O 9 . 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

2O4 i 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
different hand from the one that wrote L 2 , and from the one that
wrote 3 - 4 . The purpose for which he comes is to warn David not
to remain in Mizpeh, which being foreign ground is unclean, but
to come to the land of Jtidah. In consequence of this advice
David came to the Wood of Her eth. The location is unknown.

1. oS-iy mjja] is also found 2 S. 23 13 (and i Chr. n 15 , which is dependent
upon it). In both cases, the word is followed by a reference not to a myn
but to a mxa (cf. v. 4 ). On this account We. s correction to msE here and in
2 S. 23 18 is now generally accepted, cf. 23 14 . 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. pa] of the straits of the inhabitants of a besieged city,
Dt. 28 53 Jer. ig 9 . 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. xi"&gt;] does not suit the following DDHX. We should probably restore
zyi as is read by & : maneat 11 might be adduced as having the same force,
but it probably goes back to yiveaQwaav &lt; which We. would adopt (appar
ently reading &gt;rp). (Th. prefers either vm or 3S to the reading of |^.) Kl. s
attempt to retain xs% changing oonx to DD^Sx, is opposed by the following *ij7.

aanx] vapa &lt;roi @ B , /uera &lt;roG @ L have the singular, which is to be preferred.

&gt;S~nB&gt;yi-nD] probably in the sense what God will do on my behalf, cf. I4 6
25 30 . onjii] pointed by the Massorites as though from nm, read by as
though from oru, is really intended for arm, from nu (We. confirmed by
Dr., who cites &gt; and & in favour of the reading). mixD2] favours the read
ing mixD above. J5 however has nsxn3 here and in the following verse.
5. Gad the prophet is so called in only one other passage, 2 S. 24 11 , and there
the title seems to be a late insertion. Elsewhere he is David s Seer, 2 S. 24"
(and the parallel i Chr. 2i 9 ), 2 Chr. 29 25 . 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 n-mna here we should read

XXII. 4-8 2O5

(Bu. following Kl.). ly] a rough region covered with thickets. &lt;J|
reads here "v&gt;. mn] possibly an Aramaizing form of snn, 23 15 (We. follow
ing a conjecture of Ewald, GVI*. III. p. 123). &lt; reads ffapeiK or

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 2I 2 - 10 , there is no objection to
supposing it originally continuous with that. We must however suppose that
v. 6 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 6b . 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 5 . 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 Benjamites / TJie
son of Jesse also will give you fields and vineyards, and will make
you captains of thousands and captains of hundreds ! 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 him] 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. O^JNI] should be corrected to D^JNDI on account of the following -\VK.
(Kl., Bu.). StPNn] 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 Upovpa of &lt; represents an
intentional substitution of m-\x the cursed for the original name. nma]
might be on the height. But 65 has eV pa/md, which is the word for the village
sanctuary or high place, cf. 9 12 . 7. TW ^a] the plural of TD^ p as in Jd.
I9 16 . DJ] Num etiam dabit quern admodum ego feci? (Schm.) The second
osSj ? must be an error. Read oa^ai with &lt; B . 8. Saul says substantially
the same thing twice over, unless we suppose the two counts to state progres
sive degrees of guilt : Jonathan first 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. 23 21 ; the emenda
tion, suggested by Graetz,* is now generally adopted. o&gt;pn] is generally used
of Yahweh s raising up either helpers or enemies, cf. I K. II 28 . ansS] is
rendered by &lt;& both here and v. 13 as though it were a^V, which is probably
to be restored. ais would imply that David was lying in wait for Saul, which
even Saul s fancy could hardly find probable. nin ova] implies that the
actual state of things was known to the courtiers. 9. IDINH] 6 S.vpos @ B .
Sy a^3 * s * be interpreted like the similar phrase in v. 7 . Doeg, in any case,
could not be said to be placed over the servants of Saul for these onap were
the high officials. @ reads here 6 /catfeorrj/c&s (6 /cafleo-Ta/zevos) eVi ras ^ujJrous.
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.) t but he gives no reference.

XXIT. 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 2i 8 .
?&gt; 3Xj, it may be remarked, is nearly always used of literal standing.
10. nwa iS~ L) Ntt"i] 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.
tS jnj T\ j i-\n nxi] is suspicious from the repetition of the words iV jnj.
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. 13 protects at least so much here. Not impossibly the original had
only iS jnj aim JTVXI.

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 run
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, giving no credence to the protest of Ahimelech : For

208 I 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 21 i5 12 2 S. i 15 . The
victims were eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod~\ the char
acteristic garment of the priest 2 18 . 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, i5 3 . 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. iStf] vSs Qre is doubtless correct. SINIPI] the infinitive absolute
continuing a finite verb, cf. Dav. Syntax, 88 a. iSx] another instance of
the confusion of Sx and Vp. The latter alone is in place with Dip in the hos
tile sense. sixS] must correspond with the word adopted in v. 8 ; read there
fore 3&gt;NS. A lier-in-ivait does not stand against any one; he lurks for him.
14. f nyctyc SN iDi] and who turns aside to thine obedience makes no sense
in this connection, no is only another spelling for IB&gt; as is indicated by &pxw
(S; njjCPD is the abstract for the concrete the subjects of the king, Is. n u
2 S. 23 23 (where however the text is doubtful). 15. inSnn ovn] 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 ornn to become ovn 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 : I have been
accustomed to consult the oracle for David on his other expeditions, with your
knowledge and consent ; therefore you cannot charge me with it as a crime in
this instance. Saa] read Saai, &lt;. 17. DJ] is lacking in &lt;g. UTN] &gt;JW
Qre is doubtless correct. 18. The name of the Edomite is here written j&gt;n
instead of JNI. In pronunciation the two were probably alike. in niflN NB&gt;J]
must mean wearing a linen ephod, (5 omits ia.* 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. :nn iflS] at the end of the verse is lacking in and superfluous.

* In addition to what was said above (on a 18 ) 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 f&r Religions-
wissenschaft, I. p. 297.

XXII. I7-XXIII. 2O9

20, 21. One son of Ahimelech escaped, whose name was Abia-
thar. His only refuge was with David, and to him he went, and
told 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: /
knew that day, because Doeg was there, that he would certainly
tell Saul. He therefore accuses himself as accessory : / am 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 236. in-os] on the name
cf. BDB. and reff. 22. The somewhat awkward sentence must be rendered
as above. Omitting OP with &lt; AB , we might also omit the second -o and get
simply TJP *un ;m o which would be smoother. TOD] must be corrected
to Tan with &lt;&& Th. and most recent scholars (cf. Dr. Notes). PBj-Saa] @ B
omits Sa, whereas &lt;S L inserts it before no. 23. &gt;&gt; j and "psj have become
transposed in f^. 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 first 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 Philistine 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 2 . 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. I5 44 , though David s men had a different notion. If the
identification with the present Kila 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. 6 , 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 Judah~\
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 much
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 into thy hand.

5. In accordance with the command, David and his men went
to Keilah and fought against the Philistines, and drove away their
cattle~\ which they had brought in order to carry off the plundered
grain. (P inserts they fled before him 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. 9 . The text has suffered in transmission, but
may be plausibly restored so as to give the following meaning :
And when Abiathar son of Ahimelech 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. n^jp] cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 193, who refers to the Tell-el-Amarna letters,
ZDPV. XIII. 142; Guerin, /W&lt;?V, III. 341 ff; GAS., Geog. p. 230. 2. ^xn]
the direct question is put to the Oracle as in the cases already noted.

3. an roT^D Ss] is perhaps an expansion. The original form of @ seems to
have read simply to Keilah of the Philistines (pointed out by We.). The fact
that noi&gt;n does not correctly describe a plundering expedition need not
weigh very heavily. David s men would naturally state the case strongly.

4. f ru] the participle is used of the immediate future, as frequently. 5. VSPJNI
Qre, is to be preferred. @ L makes the order this : he fought, they fled, he
slew, and drove off the cattle. 6. The commentators all remark on the im
possibility of wa TV nflN*. The simplest explanation of it seems to be that
the first two words have been transposed. By inserting a i we get a fairly
good sense : wa nissi TV rhyp. This is the actual text of @ L 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 hand, for he has entrapped himself in
coming 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 him\ 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 Jty 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

i SAMUEL

and my men info the hand of Saul? also receives an affirmative.
13. David and his men left Keilah, 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 in the
Wilderness] the Wilderness of Judah is meant, overhanging the
western shore of the Dead Sea. And Saul sought him continu
ally, but Yahweh did not give him into his hand. The allusion to
the Wilderness of Ziph is an intrusion.

7. "Oj] gives no meaning proper to this context : Deus abalienavit men-
tern ab eo (Schm., p. 773) is without parallel. SElt and the Jewish expositors
make the word mean to deliver over, but without support. (& has TTfirpaKfv,
evidently reading -or, a verb often used of God s handing over his own into
the power of their enemies, Dt. 32 30 Jd. 2 14 3 8 I S. I2 9 . It is safer to restore
this word, for which we have direct evidence, than to conjecture something
else. For -up Bu. adduces the following -UDj, 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. j?DB"i] cf.
15*. -\ii V] a few MSS. have *m*S. But -nx is the proper word for besieging
a fortress. 9. Bnno] the verb occurs in the Qal, Prov. 3 29 6 14 , 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. "vyS] for the direct object. Dr.
cites a few instances, but possibly "vpn should be read. 11. no p a ^*vjD*n]
is in place in v. 12 where we find it repeated. A part of it is lacking in so
that the conjecture of We. is probable that the whole was lacking in @, but
that owing to another error of that text J-UDTI was inserted later. 5 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 m&gt;-i from @. A scribe got the second question in the wrong place,
and left it there without erasure. From TV at the end of the verse &lt;&gt; B omits
to the last word of v. 12 ; a clear case of homeoteleuton; the eye of the scribe
fell upon the second mn&gt; -IDNM instead of the first. @ L has inserted the miss
ing words though retaining the wrong reply to the first question. 13. ~2 2O
PIKB] where @ has about four hundred. It is difficult to decide between
them. @ may have been conformed to the statement in 22 2 . 1B&gt;X3 WWITW
a genuine Semitic expression, cf. Koran 53 16 : "Then covered the

XXIII. 12-19 213

Sidra tree that which covered it." 14. in iaiaa ina aam] 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. 19 .

15-18. Jonathan s visit. The verses are a distinct insertion.
15. David feared because Saul had come out to seek him} 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. 13 , which tells that David escaped. And David was then
in the wilderness 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, i8 3 2O 8 .

15. The verse seems based on 26 3 . 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"^] is intended (Ew., GVI*. III. p. 127,
E. Tr. III. p. 92). David s fear is the proper introduction to Jonathan s con
solation. nsnna] other cases of the preposition with the He locale are cited
by Dr. In the following verse however nann 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 Khoreisa
seems to be adopted by GASmith and Buhl. Kl. supposes it to be the same
with the mn &gt;;% 22 5 . 16. i-p-nx PTHM] cf. Jer. 23 14 Ezek. I3 22 Job 4 3 .
17. nj^s] cf. 2 Chr. 28 7 Esth. io 3 .

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 14a in its original form. The second
half, however, is superfluous, and restoring the connexion we

214 i 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 down ; and it shall be our part to deliver
him 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 attention still, and know the place where his
foot rests / The text cannot be called certain. According to J^,
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. i5 55 , and still bears the name
Main. 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. /;/ the Arabah to the
south of Jeshimon\ is in fact sufficiently explicit. 25. David
went down to the crag which is in the Wilderness of Maon. 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 from Saul, and Saul and his men 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 whkh follow. These also seem inconsistent with
each other unless we suppose Horesha to be located on the Hill of Hachila,

XXIII. iQ-29 215

which is unnatural. We are obliged therefore to strike out as later insertion
all that follows nnxoa. The last clause was put in under the influence of 26 1
and nsnn 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
26 1 it is apparently east of it; cf. v. u (We.). nSonn] occurs only here and
in 26 li3 (Glaser restores it by conjecture in I5 7 for nS^in); some copies have
nSon. p^n] is used of the Desert of Judah here and 26 1 - 3 , cf. Num. 2i 20 .
For a description cf. GAS., Geog. p. 313; also Robinson, B2&. I. p. 500 f.
20. niN-^nS] elsewhere PIN VDJ. Here we should expect SDJ. For u^i seems
to have read irSx connecting it with what precedes. wS&gt;n would be the regu
lar form to express what we need in this context. 21. onVrn] confirms the
emendation made in 22 8 . 22. won] supply a*?, I Chr. I2 1 *. The ellipsis does
not occur elsewhere however, and perhaps we should read won, De Rossi,
with 6 MSS. Some editions prefix \ itoi ijni] one of the two words is
superfluous, and &lt;& B has only ijni. The words OB&gt; inxi IQ 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 &gt;D to Di. 4 has
eV rdxfi tte?, on the ground of which Th. following a hint of Ew. reads mncn
where his fleeting foot may be. But the adjective is uncalled for. Ki.
reads n^nn as an adverb : know 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 ny&gt;jnc,
cf. Is. 34 14 , or jjiVnc, Ps. 91*. But there is reason to suspect that the corrup
tion is deeper, and that Saul really said : spy out (iS-n) his resting-place cun
ningly, because he is very sly. Something like this seems required by the
concluding part of the verse. ICN 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. (J| reads
o5 efrrcTe (curare) connecting with what precedes: hasten where you say
(he w), 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. &lt; B omits
PDJ~SN . . . SDD, and what remains gives a satisfactory sense. fiDj SN] prob
ably we should read hy (as so often). They were to return resting on a cer
tainty. pyo] identified by Robinson. The village lies not far south of
Carmel. In this place (H L has rf) (ir-tiicdy and Houbigant * conjectures there
fore pj?B&gt;. But as the Ziphites were active in the matter, the Wilderness of
Maon is appropriate enough. n3"\j?3] 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. 2i 20
23 28 and Dillmann s note. 25. Jppa 1 ?] read )trpa t ? with @3L& (Th.). 3tti]
is inappropriate. (5 had -WN which is evidently original (Th.). 26. SINP]
add viK! with &lt;H. ram] cf. 2 K. y 15 Kt. David was putting himself into a

* Cf. Josephus, Ant. VI. 280 (Niese, II. p. 54), *V 77} 24&gt;u,f&lt;&gt;9 e^

2l6 i SAMUEL

panic in getting away. anay] which is used of protecting, Ps. 5 13 , seems
inappropriate here, so that the conjecture of Kl. who reads wy is acceptable.
28. i" 1 ^] on the Daghesh (Baer and Ginsb.) cf. Ges. 26 22 s. npSncn yVo]
the expositors are divided between the interpretations Rock of Divisions and
Rock of Escape. The latter would be more appropriate if |V?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 Jidi, Robinson, BR 1 . 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, i3 2 . The Wild-
goafs Crags, on the face of which he sought David, are not yet
identified, but the ibex (bedri) 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. i-7 217

Wilderness of Judah. Into one of these caves Saul went to relieve
himself j cf. Jd. 3 24 , 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 shalt
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. O-^jpn] cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 97 note. &lt; L has TTJS 6-fjpas riav
which possibly points to D^yn -m. 3. IDnV] Ginsb. gives -pDnS 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. also
speaks euphemistically, but Aq. rendered airoKevuaai (Theod. Questioned), and
Josephus describes Saul as eVetytfytej/os vttb TUV Kara QIKTIV, with which com
pare ut purgaret ventrem 3L, and rumix isyn 1 ? u Only J5 (which makes Saul
sleep} breaks the consensus of the ancient authorities. TO-V^] indicates
a cave with branching recesses. D Ott"] 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 replies 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 4a - 6 - 7a - 4b - 5 - 7b . The 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 so

218 I SAMUEL

introduced the incident of the skirt. Verse 7 joins directly to 4a , and what
is between has been inserted. Verse n is inserted by the same hand and is
as readily spared as 4b ~ 6 . 4. ns N ovn] it would be grammatically correct to
translate : this 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
pj ^JJN run are in the regular prophetic form. I have therefore supposed
such a reference here. The other view is defended by Dr., Notes. "p^N Qre,
is correct. 5. IJD HN] should have the article or be defined by a genitive.
Th. proposes to insert *?^cn. @ however reads rrjs $iir\ot$os avrov instead
of SiN!? 1 ? -WN, and the latter is suspicious from its conformity to v. 4 . Restore
therefore iS^a *\n r-N. 6. mmo ^ n^S-i] so in 26 11 i K. 2i 3 . 7. yD2"i]
the verb means to rend or tear, Jd. i4 6 . Even if we suppose a figure of
speech, the action described by such a figure is too violent for the situation.
(J| Kal cireurev may point to Gtt&gt;M as conjectured by Cappellus {Critica Sacra,
P- 33) J ^ might also represent B|?M which would be appropriate here. Bu.
proposes J.UEV, citing 25 26 - & 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 went 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 if] repayment of
evil with good. As already shown the verse must stand or fall
with 4b-6 . 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 nns] should apparently be mns as read by &lt;J| AB , and we should
possibly omit NSM with &lt;5 B . The reading of &lt;@ L is considerably shorter than
either of the others Kal ^i}A.0e AauiS e /c TOV o"irr)\aiov OTriVw 2aoi/A. \fytav
omitting from one oiriffw to the other. 10. "p^y i*n] Saul s eyes had not
seen anything in the cave, but the appearance of David made clear what his
situation had been. We should retain the text therefore, instead of changing
to T^JD nep with &. ISNI] is irregular as pointed out by Th., We., Dr.
The emendation to JNCNI suggested by We. on the ground of /col QVK Tj/SovX-fjdrjv
commends itself. Ki. adheres to $? translating man sprach mir zu, but the
tense is wrong. IL reads IDNI = and I thought to kill thee ; but it is scarcely
possible that David would confess an intention of this kind. onrn] evidently
requires ^j? to be expressed as is actually done by 2L On the ground of &lt;
however we may restore onsi (We.) ; the similarity of N and n in the old-
Hebrew alphabet is remarked upon by Ginsburg, Introd. p. 291. 11. -ONI]
is curiously connected by @ L with the preceding: he is the Anointed of
Yahweh and my father. ( B reads simply KO) I5ov rb TTTfpvyiov. 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. mx] only here
and Ex. 2i 13 . 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. ^D-ipn] should probably be plural the following word
begins with n. ~p] should be 13 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 20 .
15. &gt;jafla)J 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 man will find
his enemy and send him 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 wilt not destroy my name

22O i SAMUEL

from my clan~\ the blotting out of one s name by the destruction
of his children was the gravest calamity, 2 S. i4 7 . 22. With
David s compliance the interview ended ; Saul went to his house
and David and his men went up to the stronghold.

16. in ... IDJOI] is suspected by Bu. and is in fact doubtful. The same
words occur in 26 17 where they are in place and are followed by David s
answer. 18. nNi JCtJ] nnto Qre. n-um] the conjectural emendation of
Kl. to nStJim 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 ivay of good,
namely (T&gt;N PN) : Yahweh delivered me into thy hand, etc. 19. in^"] is
usually assumed to be a question and Dr. compares Ezek. I5 5b . It seems easier
however to emend with Kl., reading ^i instead of -oi (cf. 3L quis enint),
striking out E"X. Otherwise we must assume an anacoluthon : When a man
finds his enemy and sends him on a good path Yahweh will reivard thee.
The author in this case intended to say: Yahweh will reward him, but
changed the construction. nrn avn nnn] is possible, but the following clause
is difficult. We should probably read nrn aitan nnn with Kl. 20, 21. These
verses with the first three words of 22 are coloured by Bu. as a very late inser
tion (cf. J?S. 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 3 .
It may have followed immediately on ip 18 " 24 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 house, cf. i K. 2 34
(perhaps also 2 K. 2i 18 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 7 ~ 9 ) would favour this
view. There is a statement to the effect that the alleged ^nes
of Samuel were transferred to Constantinople, A.D. 406. The
wilderness of Paran to which David is 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 Constantinople. lie himself of course rejects that which the

XXIV. 2I-XXV. 3

credulous and superstitious accept. pB imc] known as the seat of Ish-
mael, Gen. 2i 21 and one of the stations of the Wandering, Nu. io 12 I2 le .
On the ground of Madv &lt;S B most editors are disposed to emend to p&gt; 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 wealthy 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 life 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 27*.

2-13. The provocation. The situation is described: There
was a man in Maon\ a locality already mentioned 23 24 ; 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 Kurmul, is directly south of Ziph. Nabal was wealthy
in flocks, and at this particular time he was engaged in shearing
his flocks at Carmel~\ 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. By 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 15

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 us, and we did not jeer at them\ 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 7 ] 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 for thy son 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 in these days who 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 my 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 two hundred
remained with the baggage~\ an arrangement made also at a later
time, 30 10 .

2. &"Ni] we expect U"S Tni, and a case analogous to the text is difficult to
discover. nz^D is used of the flocks and herds, the shepherd s work, as it is
used of the crops the -work of the farmer, Ex. 23 16 . Similarly rtSjffl of the
shepherd s flock, Is. 4O 10 . So-o] on the site, Robinson, BIP. I. p. 495 f., GAS.,
Geog. p. 306, Buhl, Geog. p. 163. Sm] of great wealth, like Barzillai 2 S. I9 33 .

3. "733] the word is not quite such a nickname as we think from the transla
tion ^07. It means reckless (cf. Is. 32 6 ), and might be accepted as a compliment
by a man like Nabal. SMON] tries to make the word more euphonious by
softening it to Abigaia. njpp] Is. 19* 2 S. 3 89 . laVa Kt. : oSa Qre. 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-iS 223

his heart. The Qre is doubtless right. 4 foepuiros KWI &lt;fs. On the clan
Caleb cf. Moore, Judges, p. 30. 6. "nS] is unintelligible. The punctuators
intend it to represent ^ns 1 ? : to my brethren. But Nabal alone is addressed, so
that we should at least make it a singular, to my brother. Even then the sen
tence is awkward and there is reason to suspect corruption, especially as the
following i is superfluous. The versions seem to have had no different read
ing. I suspect that nj is a corruption of V? (or ns) and that in Ti 1 ? we have
the &gt;n or clan, to which I would join the i from the next word, making nmcNi
vnSi iV : and you shall say to him and to his dan. The whole sept would be
gathered for the shearing. Houbigant suggests: nnx TIN iS ro omcNi. " R.
Sal. et R. Levi : sic fiat tibi post annum incolumi. D. Kimchi : sic fiat tibi
per omnem vitam. Et pro se citat Chaldaeum. Magis placet Tremellius, qui
vertit post Luther: Et dicite ei t si incolumis est. Forte sic: Et dice ti s 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. S]
read N^I with (!I2uS. The i at the end of the preceding word is the occasion
of the error. ouoSan] on the pointing cf. Ges. 25 53 /. 8. aio or] else
where of a festival, Esth. 8 17 and also in post-Biblical Hebrew. Cf. also
aoio onjnc, Zech. 8 19 . in] with loss of the N, Ges. 26 , 720. -pjSi TiapS]
&lt;H has only T vie? &lt;rov, which seems most appropriate. 9. imri] most
naturally means and rested from their weariness. Undoubtedly a considerable
journey in the desert is presupposed, so that we may retain the reading. (5
reads DpM and connects with the following, L giving the right order : KG!
ai&gt;Trri$ri&lt;r( Na#aA KCU aireKpiOr]. From the character given to Nabal we might
expect some manifestation of anger, cf. 2O 34 , so that much may be said for this
reading. 10. onaj?] the article is necessary and is found in &lt;&. D^iDncn]
perhaps, as Kl. suggests, -who play the robber. 11. ^c] 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 ^&gt;\ 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 from 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 wall to the flocks against marauders. 17. The situation is
critical, for evil is determined upon our master] cf. 2O 9 . 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 i SAMUEL

Besides bread and wine, there were five roasted sheep} Gen. i8 7 8 ,
five measures of parched grain\ i y 17 , a hundred bunches of raisins
and two hundred cakes of figs } that the bunches of raisins were
counted is evident from 2 S. i6 l . 19. The present was sent on
before, as in the case of Jacob s meeting with Esau, to make a
favourable impression.

14. Tjn] had told while the messengers were returning to David. ~ij;j
onyjnn inx] is redundant. omits n&gt;j. (&lt;5I L has a double translation
of anyjnn). The conjecture of Kl. adopted by Bu. is attractive (reading
o^jnnn). o 1 " 1 ^ t2&gt;"&gt;i] means he flew upon them as the bird of prey swoops
upon its victim. Whether 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; Kal QtK\tvev air
avrSiv @ implies DHD JOM. But Nabal had used insulting words as well as
turned from them. $& seem to render ana op^, cf. Ps. 95 10 = 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 ana BJ73M
= and he kicked at them, cf. 2 29 Dt. 32 15 (Tanch. cited by Th.). 15. unvna
mao] (g prefixes KO.I 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 J.
17. WllH?f*] the preposition should evidently be Sp. iaic] the p of com
parison : he is more wicked than that one can speak to him ; too wicked to speak
to. 18. S jnax and row? may show only the ease with which i and are inter
changed, but there is reason to suppose that both are remains of forms once
current, cf. Ges. 26 24 by^v. D^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 ephas here. HNDI] Kal ytpop &lt;EV &lt;&. We might expect raisins to
be measured rather than counted, but the reading of |^ is protected by 2 S. i6 l .
We. conjectures that the translators read NIPDI here and rendered KO.\ y6fAov
which is found in one codex (HP 236). 19. S^j] lacking in &lt;S B , should
probably be stricken out.

20. There was no time to spare : She was riding on the ass y
and coming down the side of a hill while David and his men were
coming down towards her, and she met them] came upon them
unexpectedly is the natural interpretation. 21. Before the meet
ing David had said : Only for 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 enemies 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 16 ) does not hold. The oath was to the effect that David
would not leave alive of Nabal s household a single male the
not very refined description is used also in i K. 14 i6 n 2i 21
2 K. 9 8 . 23. At the meeting, Abigail alighted hastily in order
to show respect, cf. Jd. i 14 , and fell upon her face before David }
the customary obeisance to a superior. 24. And she fell at his
feet and said: Upon me be the guilt} 2 S. I4 9 . In dissuading
David from carrying out his oath, she would take the responsi
bility. So Rebecca assumes the curse which Jacob anticipates,
Gen. 2 7 13 . Let thy maid speak in thine ears} her humility is in
strong contrast with the arrogance of Nabal. 25. Let not my
Lord give any attention 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 bound in 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

226 i 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 nephesh 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
delivered thee~\ instead of waiting for the deliverance promised by
God. When that time comes, he will remember 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. rvm] has arisen erroneously from the following *on. The tense is
wrong as well as the gender. Read simply fcom (Bu.). nnoa] in the shade
of the mountain does not seem satisfactory. iBDa { gives a good meaning
on the side but we have no other trace of a Hebrew word ino in this sense.
3L has ad radices montis. 21. "|N % ] in the restrictive sense: only to be de
ceived have I done this. n?S] is used contemptuously as elsewhere.
22. in o^S] makes the whole imprecation nonsense. Kimchi says it is
a euphemism for TnS. Clericus, following Abarbanel, makes the meaning to
be : may God give David" 1 s enemies the wealth of Nabal, but this is quite con
trary to the uniform sense of D nSs r\wy&gt; ro. 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. -vpa ^ntrc] 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 JTP seems to understand all who have reached years
of discretion, while some expositors have taken the phrase in the opposite
sense of young boys, others interpreting of the lowest slaves. The question is
discussed at length by Bochart, Hierozoicon, I. II. 55. 23. mjc" 1 ?;? TH cxS]
the phrase has been confused by a scribe; restore n&gt;cN~Sj? "\ ijoV (We.).
24. ^cni] is lacking in &lt;S B which makes the clause begin with the preceding
inntpm : and she prostrated herself on the ground at his feet. Repeated pros
trations are in order however, and I have retained f^ (Kl., Bu. read with &lt;& :
v*?.n *?p jns mne&gt;rn). &gt;JN~O] emphatic repetition of the pronoun, Davidson,
Syntax, I. pyn] at the first blush it seems as if Abigail means to assume
Nabal s guilt. But the parallels, 2 S. 14 Gen. 27 13 , 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 ! nanni] the conjunction is omit
ted by (j$2L, and the construction is quite as good without it. & omits the
last three words of this verse and the opening words of the next, reading
only : let thy maid 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 &lt;&.
"?i?&gt;San C M N] 2 S. i6 7 , cf. 2O 1 . Saj Sy] lacking in &lt;J| B , 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. 31 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 -IC&gt;N instead
of o is awkward and probably points to interpolation. I suspect the original
form of the sentence to have been : Sa:3 vrv . . . cro-a xian -|j?jn ne&gt;N mrn ^n
ui T:TN. 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 "\yoi TH which required the second mn\ 27. naia in the same sense
Gen. 33 11 Jd. I 15 I S. 3^. NOH] read naoan. 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. psj no] 2 s5 2 S. 7 16 I K. n 88 (all late passages). nicnSn
mm] i8 17 . TD C] cf. I K. I 6 Job 276. 29. opM] read Dpi hypothetical
(cf. Dr. Notes). mm n*] the bundle is thought of as containing the pre
cious things which the master of the house keeps in his immediate care
with him. j? u&gt; pn rp -pna] we should expect the 3 of comparison and then p.

228 1 SAMUEL

Still it is possible that the 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. "pxi
ivuS] I3 14 . 31. npisS] 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. "jfltrSi] read ~\BV^ with ( and five Heb. MSS. ycnnS)]
add -n with . That one s own hand should save him, is a standing phrase,
Jd. 7 2 . 34. Tixsni] a mongrel form, having both the preformative of the
imperfect, and the ending of the perfect, cf. Ges. 26 76/6, Nestle in ZATW.
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 TN-ii? 1 ?, which seems to me more probable. 35. TOS &oxi] 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
Nabal s 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 became stone~\ a stroke of paralysis is the natural
explanation. 38. Ten days later, Yahweh smote 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 of 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 Pal ft den 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, &lt;& renders
when Nabal had recovered from the -wine. 38. D^n] should perhaps be
D C% though the writer may have in mind the ten days (which actually elapsed
in this case) as a known period. 39. Sa: -PD] is connected with 31 by
Driver. The other construction Ssj TD ^noin (preferred by Dr. Weir) seems
to me more vigorous. ia&gt;x-o mrp a^tpn] as in the case of Abimelech, Jd. 9 s6 .
S JONa -OTI] seems to be parallel to Cant. 8 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. roVnn] 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, I4 50 . SKJHPD] a Jezreel in Judah is men
tioned Jos. I5 56 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. ^fl] is SN^O in 2 S. 3 15 . tJS]
in 2 S. tinS, is rendered A/ifi s in B and Iwcis in (S L . D&gt;Vjc] the only Gal
lim mentioned elsewhere, Is. io 30 , is evidently in Benjamin. &lt;&gt; B has Po/u/uo
and

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 I 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 9 " 15 , which is assigned by competent authorities to J.

XXVI. The identification of the narrative with E seems in this instance
especially precarious. Budde (fiS. 228) gives only the following marks:
o^-no which he does not allow to be a mark of E in 2 S. I5 10 ; Sjys which
occurs in this sense only once ly 20 ; ma&gt;NiD I9 13 but also I K. I9 6 , which
can hardly be attributed to E; David s standing on the top of the mountain
like Jotham, Jd. g 1 , 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 DTI^N, which is also common in D; S jnn which occurs in
J, Gen. 43 6 Ex. 5 22f -; 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 nn-nn which is char
acteristic of J, Gen. 2 21 I5 12 . Cf. also rnb ja v. 16 , found in 2O 81 2 S. I2 5 neither
one of which is E.

1. The Ziphites bring 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 19 in our present text. 2. Saul s force here con
sists of three thousand men as in 24 2 . 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 camping about him. 6. David asks his two
companions : Who 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. 22 1 .
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, i8 n iQ 10 . One blow would be all that was
needed. 9. David forbids him : For who can lay his hand on
the Anointed of Yahweh and be innocent?"] the reverence for the

XXVI. 1-12 231

king is the same as in 24 6 ; there more pronounced if anything.
10. David s intention is to leave Saul in the hand of God
either Yahweh shall smite him ] by a direct stroke, as in the case
of Nabal, 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 from Yahweh had fallen upon them~\ like Adam s uncon
sciousness, Gen. 2 21 .

1. On reviewing 23 19 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 18 , and has now been displaced by the
fuller (double) story contained in 23 19 -24 28 . n^-on] a number of Heb. MSS.
have n^-on, and & seems to have read nStin. 4. PDJ ^N] the name of a
place is expected, as was already evident to Schm. who translates ad certunt
(locum). &lt; AB has e KeeiAa, (f| L els Se/ceAcfy, neither of which will do. Pos
sibly we should read iroj SN to the point just in front of him. 5. &lt;& AB
omits the clause SiNtr . . . NTI by homeoteleuton. ^Jyo] occurs also 172,
but what is meant is unknown. has here Xa^ir-fivrj, a covered chariot. It is
perhaps no objection to this that it would not fit 172. 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. ipa^D Kt. : vraoo Qre both here and in v. 7 .
6. pM] David answers his own thought. ^SoTix] one of the numerous
foreigners who joined David s force a Hittite like Uriah. On the Hittites
cf. Moore on Jd. 3 3 . *B"3N] from the analogy of other proper names, the
second member of the word should be the name of a god. rrnx] the sister
of David, according to I Chr. 2 16 . 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 25 . 8. ^N Qre is to be preferred. psai rnjna] as
pointed out by Krenkel (ZATW. II. p. 310) we should read psa i-ujna for
the fact that Saul s own spear was to be used is important. The conjunction
is not read by &lt;S2t, while & renders pwa n^x nin rvjn. 9. rhv &gt;c] should be
followed by the reverse tense, not by npj) as here. A " seems to have fallen
out after 13 (cf. Dr., Notes) this is favoured by @. 10. ON &gt;:&gt;] cannot be
the adversative particle, nor can it introduce the substance of the oath after
nim in for it would give a meaning the reverse of what David intends. The
^ therefore must introduce the substance of the oath, which is stated in three

232 I SAMUEL

possibilities, of which ON indicates the first, the others following with IN.
12. TUPNID] as suggested by We., a D 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 IPIPJOEO striking out VINC-.
The received text seems to be defended in Ges. 26 87 s.

13. David went 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 ( B for Abner s
answer is, therefore, to be preferred : Who art thou that callest?
David had not called the king at all. 15. Having got Abner s
attention, David reads him a lesson : Art not thou a man ? 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 y my son David?
Evidently the old affection has been touched. 18. Having got
a hearing, David expostulates freely : Why is it that my Lord is
pursuing his servant? 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 21 (J.). But if they bt
men, cursed be they before Yahweh"] the imprecation wil) fall upon

XXVI. i 3 -2 5 233

them and punish them. For they have now driven me from union
with the inheritance of Yahweh, saying : 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 J^.
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 young 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 21 .

13. inn] the particular mountain which was adapted for his purpose.

14. iScrrSs ntop] 6 Ka\wv ( B : 6 KOX&V /*e ; ris el, (TV; &lt;j| L . 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 inquietas regent IL.

15. SN motr] we should read hy as in the next verse. 16. PID"^] cf. 2O 31
2 S. I2 5 . pnDirnN)] is corrected by Bu. to nnox m But it seems not un
likely that the governing force of the first ^ was in the writer s mind so that
he could use the accusative particle, Davidson, Syntax, 72, Rem. 4.
17. ^Sip] 8ov\6s ffov &lt; AB . "The more courtly is less original" (We.).
19. nonDnn] the verb is rare, but there seems to be no doubt as to the
meaning, cf. the Niphal in Is. I4 1 . 20. nns tp;ns] is the same phrase used
in 24 15 . There it is in place after the question after whom, etc. But here the
thought is not the insignificance of David, but his helplessness. ( AB reads
&gt;rcj, which is also favoured by ns, which is ungrammatical in the present text.
-WND] the conjecture of Kl. who reads ntrjo has everything in its favour.
Only thus is the comparison fully expressed. snpn] the partridge is named
from its loud clear note.* 22. n&gt;jnn A?.] the Qre demands n&gt;jn, making

* Readers of Ginsburg s text will be puzzled by the word nnN 1 ? near the opening
of v. 20 . It is a purely clerical error, the copyist having duplicated the word just

234 SAMUEL

I jnn the genitive. But the Ktib may be retained, making i^an the vocative.
23. TO] is doubtless to be corrected to n&gt;3 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 living, 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 n ~ 16 . It is remarkable for
its silence concerning the oracle and the warning given to David
to remain in the land of Judah, 22 5 . It presupposes the marriage
with Abigail, unless the mention of her in v. 3 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 19 " 28 , where David is nearly captured by
Saul and escapes only because Saul is called away by an invasion
of the Philistines.

1. David said to himself: Now I shall be destroyed some day
by the hand of Saul ; the only 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 rims 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. i-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. i5 31 , and again
in the list of Simeon, Jos. iQ 5 . 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 kings 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 Jf. Both seem too
short according to Achish s own statement, 29*.

The section ~ 12 (according to We. 7 ~ 12 ) 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 M
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. HSDN] cf. 26 10 . IHN~DV] seems not to be used in this sense elsewhere,
but is confirmed by @. "o] we expect ON "o, and on the ground of @ we may
assume that the original was aScN ON :&gt; in which the loss of ON is easily ac
counted for. UDD] is not represented in @ AB and can well be spared.
2. niND-iPtPi] rtrpa.K6ffioi &lt; B . 3. mSmsn] better read the masculine form
to agree with Saj (@). 4. iDv] read rp&gt; with the Qre. 6. jSpx] the

2 $6 I SAMUEL

identification proposed by Conder (cited by Buhl, Geog. p. 185) seems to have
no sufficient ground. 7. The verse is said by Bu. {RS. p. 231) to be mis
placed. It is possibly an interpolation like the most of such data. 1L read
four months, and the D^D 1 " may have arisen by duplication of the two letters
preceding. &lt;S A renders n n;aiN &gt;D&lt;, 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. D^D* 1 ] for a year, Jd. I7 10 2 S. I4 26 .
Objection to the coherence of *- u with the rest of the chapter is raised by
Stade, GVL I. p. 252 and by We., TBS. p. 140 (who includes v. 7 ), cf. Comp.
p. 253. The defence of the verses is undertaken by Kamphausen, ZATW.
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 Amalekites\ 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 Egypf\ 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 man or woman] 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, 3O 29 .
Jerachmeel is, in fact, reckoned as one of the clans of Judah in
i Chr. 2 9 - 42 . 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, thinking that he had broken finally with Israel and would

xxvn. 8-xxvin. 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 believe. 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 Philistine 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. vum mt!&gt;jn] the Geshurites certainly do not belong here, and the
second word is unheard of elsewhere. The Qre substitutes nnni which
would perhaps do, as Gezer was Canaanitish down to the time of Solomon,
i K. 9 16 . But I suspect nion (Dt. 3 5 ) to be original notice the resem
blance of J and JD in the older alphabet. &lt;S B has only one of the two names.
Against Gezer is to be urged its location, too far north for David s forays
(cf. Moore, Judges, p. 48). njn] must refer to the tribes just mentioned.
The feminine plural in such cases is unusual but not unintelligible. oVi"D]
does not fit in this context. We., Dr., correct to oSan following a hint
given by ten MSS. of &lt;S (HP.). Telam, as shown above (on 15*), was a
place on the southern border of Judah. 9. rom] the tense indicates repeated
or habitual action, whereas Jtyi calls attention to what took place in each
single instance. 10. VN] should apparently be JN which is found in some
MSS. of 3 and sustained by %T&, whereas @1L seem to render "O SN or ^D hy.
11. nvy ro -ir^S] it is highly unnatural to make in rvyy no the speech of the
supposed fugitive and what follows the statement of the narrator. This IDNV
should be stricken out, and the whole half verse made the narrator s state
ment. This is supported by It. Kl. supposes the first half of the verse to be
a gloss, and this is not improbable. 12. tt"N2n] Gen. 34 30 Ex. 5 21 . Smtpo]
some MSS. and editions have VNIC". XXVIII. 2. pS] lacking in 3L, should
perhaps be emended to pN, though David s thought may be : because of this
expression of confidence. For nns read nnp with @3L. v ^N"i t ? -\Dtp] the
equivalent in @, apxto-o&gt;iJiaTo&lt;f&gt;ij\a, is the title of the chief of the bodyguard
at the court of the Ptolemies, cf. Deissmann, Bibelstudien (1895), p. 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. 17 18 , 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. 17f - 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 language 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 1 . The next
statement explains the difficulty Saul had in finding the means
of communicating with the shades he had removed the talismans
and necromantic 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. n^aij is superfluous; njD is read by &lt;1L and 4 MSS. of ^. The
word seems to represent inoa of 25 1 , for which it was substituted in the trans
fer, to avoid scandal. nuNn] 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 3 IN is classed not with persons, but with
things objects of idolatrous or superstitious practices. Thus in the familiar
passage in Isaiah (8 19 ) : and when they say : Seek the ni3N and the D jjrv 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 s ) that Egypt shall seek the idols (D^^N) and the D&gt;BN and the HUN
and the D^yp, 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 24 ) tells
us that Josiah destroyed the nut* and the wyv&gt; and the Teraphim and the
idols and the abominations the last three are certainly objects of devotion,
and the verb used (nya) is more appropriate to the destruction of these than
to the slaying of men. More significant is the assertion (2 K. 2i 6 ) that
Manasseh made (npj?) an aw and a ^jro which could be said only of a talis
man or fetish. There seems to be no passage which is inconsistent with this.
Dt. i8 10f - 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 aiN or
^jrv, or one that inquires of the dead, where the 31N SNU (not the SIN 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. IO 2 ), 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 after the max and the n-oyv (Lev. 2O 6 ) is entirely in
accord with my supposition, and so is the sentence pronounced upon man or
woman with whom is an ais (Lev. 2O 27 ). Not much stress can be laid upon
Jewish tradition in this matter, but it is significant that the Talmud makes a
aiN Vj/a one who asks the skull of a dead man (the citation is given by Levy,
NHWB. s.v. SIN), 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 jn~p 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, s.v.}. Bearing in mind the widespread use

240 I SAMUEL

of parts of the human body in magical rites, it does not seem too bold to con
jecture that the aiN 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 3ix rbyi of this chapter
would then be the sister of the DID^D nVya of Nah. 3*; the figurative use of
the latter phrase does not interfere with the parallel. D^jJTn] always men
tioned in connexion with 31N, are something of the same nature. The reader
may consult Driver on Dt. i8 n with his references; Noldeke in ZDMG.
XXVIII. p. 667; Stade, GVI. I. pp. 425, 504; Konig, O/enbarungsbegriff des
Alien Testamentes (1882), II. p. 150.

4. The Philistine camp was at Shunem, at the west foot of the
ridge now called Jebel 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. io 14 , and therefore 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 of Jebel Dahi. A
description of the locality is given by Stanley.* 8. Saul, for very
obvious reasons, disguised himself, cf. i K. 22 30 . Coming to the
woman he makes his request : Divine for me by the talisman and
bring up for me 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-is 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 me, 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 cloak~] 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. IQ 18 2 K. 4 8 (cf. also the Shu-
nammite, I K. I 3 ), still bears the name Sultm, Buhl, Geog. p. 217, who also
mentions Endor. ^iDp] on the form, Ges. 26 46 e. Methods of divination
among the heathen Arabs are described by We., Skizzen, III. pp. 126 ff., 135 ff.
9. -orpn] the plural should be restored; the final letter has been lost in
the following r. 10. TV] the Daghesh is intended to guard the pronun
ciation of the emphatic letter, Ges. 26 20 h. 13. a^Sy TPNI DTI^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^N with a plural adjective are found
Jos. 24 19 (E) Dt. 5 23 i S. ift-M, etc. 14. pr] 6p0iov &lt;5 seems to represent
*]pT (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 {Marginalien, p. 15), saw in the word
a declaration of Samuel s vigorous appearance.

15. The dialogue is begun by Samuel : Why 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. i4 9 . 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. 6 . So I have called thee, to tell
me 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 and 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 ( B we get : And to-morrow thou and thy sons
with thee shall fall, and Yahweh will 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 me set before thee a morsel of
meat, and eat thou that thou mayest have strength and make thy
journey} a very sensible proposition. 23. Saul at first refused,
but his servants, as well as the woman, urged him. At length he
rose from the earth and 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. nsnpNi] the pointing is anomalous and perhaps designed to allow the
choice between N^INI and rnpsi (Nestle, Marginalien, p. 15). 16. -pp]
is misspelled for "px, 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; /xera rov v\-ri&lt;riov aov points to ijn ay which is adopted by Th.

XXVIII. is-XXIX. i 243

and others, and favoured by j&. But Saul s rival is mentioned later; here we
expect an allusion to Saul s complaint that he is in straits. 17. V?] may be
read as a dative of advantage. But it is better to restore ~\^ with five MSS.
of $%, &lt; AB , and 2L. 19. Either the first clause or the last is superfluous. As
Samuel would more naturally conclude what he has to say of Saul before pass
ing on to the fate of Israel, I have omitted the opening clause of f$ (We.,
Dr.). Stade, on the other hand, retains a and omits c . &gt;op] shall be with
me would seem to require the verb; @ AB found o^So: *pj? which is restored
by Th. 20. IHDM] seems to be the wrong verb. Perhaps by pointing -no?!
with Kl. we can retain it. Comparison of here and in v. 21 shows that it has
the same verb in both places; We. therefore restores SUM here, conforming
it to the other. But the argument seems precarious. 23. ma 11 !] the con
text requires nxs-&gt;\ Sx] should be Sy with some MSS. 24. "pnD Sjj?]
a calf tied up in the house like the lambs which are stilled " crammed " by the
women in Syria. inani] for inoxrn, Ges. 26 68 h.

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 fidelity. 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, 3i 10 . 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 hundreds 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 Hebrews ?~\ 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 him from 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,
I4 21 . With what 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. 11 . This would naturally be somewhere in the
great plain of Esdraelon. This Aphek cannot therefore be Aphek in Sharon.
2. "uno] the native name of the Philistine rulers, 5 8 , of whom Achish was
one. 3. The on:r I take to have been the military commanders in distinc
tion from the D&gt;JID, or civil rulers. The latter indeed marched to the war
and led their troops. But there must have been some sort of general staff.
ow nriN D^a^ PIT] is extremely indefinite some days or some years would
hardly be the reply of a man who knew the situation : yuepas TOVTO fovrtpov
froy @ AB ; ^STJ Sciirepoi/ tros afatpov @ L agree in making the time two years,

xxix. i-i i 245

which would be simply D&gt;JW ni (adopted by Bu.). tVflj] add ^w with
4. The second o^n^So n is lacking in @S&gt;1L. nonSna] read
with . The change was made under the influence of the preceding
(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 Philistine 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 15 . 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 not 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 morning,
thou and thy men who came with 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 J^.
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. ins**] &lt;& prefixes KOI, meaning: not only thou but also thy going out. It
cannot be denied that |^ would be smoother if it read "]nN* aitai nnN *r;?3 IBM.
But ( does not seem to have the better reading. 9. Tiy-p] probably should
be njn\ DTI^N "[N^DD] in the two other instances of the comparison, we find
a^nSNn DD which should perhaps be restored here, 2 S. I4 17 ip 28 . The words
are lacking in &lt; B 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 &lt;J| 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 ynK najn which does not
seem natural in the mouth of Achish, I restore inpj) nnK with &lt;8 L . The same
recension reads at the end of the omitted clause &lt;ty 0,yyt\os Beov, 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 the 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 were 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
wept 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. 2 . Probably it is a gloss. 6. David was in great straits ]
Gen. 32 8 Jd. 2 15 ; for the people proposed to stone him~\ 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 of angry men, Jd. iS 25 2 S. ly 8 . 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 shalt surely overtake and shalt surely
rescue.

XXX. 1. Y^cyi] cf. v. 18 , doubtless to be read pSnjn with @. 2. na UPN]
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~PKI
(Th.) which would include the old men and boys. 3. nontt njm] the same
construction in v. 16 . 5. The verse is supposed to be a gloss by Bu., and can

* Cicero, cited by Sanctius, Schm. p. 964.

XXX. i-i; 247

in fact well be spared. 6. nxm] Ges. 26 67^. The masculine form is used
elsewhere except in Jd. io 9 , cf. Davidson, Syntax, 109. ua] read rjn with
the Qre, cf. v. 22 . "Ui p?nrpi] the clause reads like a later insertion; it is
not exactly duplicated anywhere else. 7. Abiathar occurs 22 20 23*, probably
from the same document. 8. ITIN] might be construed as the hypothetical
introduction to the real question: if I pursue, shall I overtake? But (5 reads
interrogatively, and the answer *i"n favours that reading restore therefore
lTwn (We.). nnjn] cf. I K. II 2 * 2 K. 5 2 6 23 , 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 of figs } cf. 25 18 . For a starving man this would be enough.
His spirit returned to him] 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 Philistines, Zeph. 2 5 . 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 drinking 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 men who
rode upon the camels and fled.

9. nwan] conjecturally identified with Wadi Gazze (by Guerin, Judee,
II. p. 213) * or with its branch Wadi Sheria (by Buhl, Geog. p. 88). onnum
liny] 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 him, so that there were none
to stay at Ziklag. We must treat the clause as an intruder (We.). Ew.
(F/ 3 . III. 144, E.Tr. III. p. 105) proposes to insert a clause four 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. 21 . The context indicates the meaning,
cf. njfl a corpse from its limpness. 11. nsc c^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.). anS V?-)jmi] 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 gave him food to be followed by the details. 12. D pDX Wi]
lacking in ( B , and not improbably the insertion of a scribe. It would not
do to give a starving man much food at one time. 13. ns&gt; i ?B&gt; am] 3 MSS.
of |^ add a^ which seems necessary, cf. 9 20 . 14. 2:u] the verb used is
followed by Sx in v. 1 , and the preposition should be inserted here (We.).
V -on] 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
(25 16 ). Elsewhere they are mentioned with the a \-iSo as making up David s
body guard, 2 S. 8 18 . Cf. E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. I. p. 367.
here, reminding us of a similar confusion in $% in 2 S. 2O 23 :
mirr^ -WN-tyi] the difference in the form of expression indicates that the
phrase 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 &lt;S L 5&gt; agree in
adding: and he sware to him. 16. B jjn] 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 ar&gt;i] seems to have had JOM
DDM in an-iSs which is adopted by Bu. But in such cases the shorter clause
has the presumption in its favour. PI^JHD] it is still disputed whether the
morning or evening twilight is intended. In the majority of cases *\vn 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. DmneS] 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 a 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 annriND. The Bible Commentary
suggests arnriD 1 ?; We. annnnS (adopted by Bu.); Kl. arvjnD SDS.

18, 19. David rescued all that had been carried away, nothing
was missing\ 2 S. i 7 s2 . 20. The meaning of the obscure verse

XXX. 18-25 2 49

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,
and 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 me we will not give them of the booty which we rescued^
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 Yahweh has \_wrought~\
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 t

So is the portion of the one who 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 that from that time on they made it a
statute and a precedent in Israel. David s decision in the matter
became the precedent (tsBttffc) ; it was a statute when he made it
a general rule. Cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuctf,
p. 248 f.

18. The two wives seem to be an afterthought, as in v. 6 . 19.
seems to belong before 0^3"i&gt;n, and this is the order in @. Possibly however
a word has fallen out; we should expect: 0^3 ijn DIJJ J p. 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 suum quod Uberaverant dtixerunt greges et armenta 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: in SSa&gt; m DJ on^o 1 ? pVnj? unj IB&gt;N npsm fNxn VO~PNI. 21. D:J^M]
should probably be D^IPM, David being the natural subject, &lt;J!2L SNIPM] on
the other hand is read as a plural by &lt;&. The men left behind would be the
ones to ask for the welfare of those who had gone into the battle (We.); for

250 I SAMUEL

onS we should probably read nS (= iS). 22. So] is lacking in &gt;. E&gt; ] the
singular form is no doubt thoroughly idiomatic. But if we retain it we should
apparently change both jnj and u*?xn to correspond. It is easier therefore to
read UDJ? with 8 MSS. of f^, and with (JI&IL. 23. "IE&gt;N HN ^HN] undoubt
edly reads -IPX nn which is to be preferred, because it makes all that follows
a reason for the dissuasion. But in that case jru is left without an object and
must be replaced by another verb, as ntpp, 14. 24. -nin] of the Ktib is
only a scribe s error. 25. Stf-iB" 1 ?] S^na^a found in some copies and editions
seems a little better here. run avn ip] 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 kinsmen] 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 30 , there mentioned in connexion
with Hormah and Ziklag; cf. also Bethul, Jos. 19* (also with
Hormah). Ramoth-Negeb one of the cities of Simeon, Jos. iQ 8 .
Jattir, Jos. i5 48 2i 14 (with Eshtemoa). 28. Aroerwas originally
mentioned in Jos. i5 22 . The name still attaches to a ruin east-
southeast of Beersheba. Siphamoth seems to be mentioned no
where else. Eshtemoa, Jos. i5 50 2 r 14 identified by Robinson.
29. For the unknown Racal of $fy we should probably read
Carmel on the basis of (. The cities of the Jerachmeelite and
the cities of the Kenite } 2j w . 30. Hormah Jd. i 17 Num. 2i 3 .
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. injnS] *al TO?S it\-i\&lt;r \.Qv avrov &lt;& seems preferable; &lt;S pmanSi has the
conjunction like &lt;J|. 27. jMmA] written as one word by Baer; in Gins-
burg s text two words connected by the Maqqeph. The name occurs in
&lt;S B also in Jos. I5 30 (S Da f) just before Hormah. In our passage has
BaiBarovp which is favoured by Ew. and Th. For Ramoth &lt;& BL Rama; in
Jos. IQ 8 where |^ has na-i, @ L has Pa0/tov0. ima] lv Te996p &lt;5 B goes back
to inpa. Both names are found in the lists of Joshua (is 42 - 48 IQ 7 2i 14 ). Cf.
ZA TW. VI. p. 6. 28. ijnp 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. I5 22 we now find mjny for which
B has Apowf)\. Probably ~\y\y should be restored there (cf. Dillmann s
Commentary and Bennett s text in SBOT.}. rncfifr of Ginsburg and the
common editions is written niDjp by Baer. In this verse &lt; B has one name
more than f^, inserting A^aSei which may be a corruption of Aporjp (We.).
It does not seem to be a sufficient basis on which to restore njrpp (Ew.).
6 L seems to have read pp ny from v. 29 . For Picas : 2a0ei @ B . j?Dntt&gt;N, cf.
Buhl, Geog. p. 163. 29. The verse is extended in @ B perhaps by duplication
from the preceding. It agrees with ( L in giving the name Carmel, which
Ewald substitutes for Sr\ For the Kenite, @ has the Kenezite. Kenaz was
a clan of Judah, Jd. I 13 , but the parallel I S. 27* seems to decide for the
Kenite here. 30. Hormah, cf. Moore on Jd. i 17 . ftpjr-naa in the early
editions according to Baer; in many recent ones (Jablonski, etc.) &gt; nju. In
&lt;J| it is represented by Beersheba. The absence of so prominent a place as
Beersheba is remarkable and the name is perhaps original. \&y however is
the name of a town in Judah, Jos. I5 42 ip 7 . iny occurs nowhere else in f^.
It is suggested by Buhl (Ges. HWB 12 .} that it is the same with -in? noticed
above, which is twice named in connexion with ]&y. I should substitute
Arad, Jd. I 16 . 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 1 " 10 ), 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 31 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. p 54 is closely parallel.
There, it was to escape death at the hands of a woman. Here, it
is lest these uncircumcised come and make sport of me~\ amuse
themselves with the helpless but conscious warrior, Jd. ip 25 . The
armour-bearer refused 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 sword 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. lo 1 - 12 ).

1. oicn 1 ?:] Chr. )DnVj 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. wv& ion] tt"N on C.
which is more idiomatic. 2. ip2"vi] I4 22 . nx] 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 (51. 3. SN] read

D^ JN amen] seems impossible and C. leaves out D^JN. But nu&gt;p2

is redundant, and nippa cannot be connected with vnxxDM. Dr. proposes
n^p3 onion D^JN meaning some of the archers, comparing Gen. 37 28 I S. 25 10 .
It seems simpler to strike out ntrpa OTJX as a gloss designed to define omen.

oniDHD "iND ^n 11 !] onvn-p Srvi C. The words are generally taken to mean
he feared the archers exceedingly. But we should expect &gt;JCD if that were the
meaning. &lt;& takes SfW to be from SSn, /cal fTpav^ariffOr] AB , K ai erpau/iaTicrai/ L ,
and this gives a better sense, for the words of Saul to his armour-bearer are

* Schmid, p. 988.

xxxt. 3-13 233

the words of a man sore wounded. D^iDna] els TO viroxovSpia would in
dicate B&gt;nra or o&gt;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. no] seems impossible
to reconcile with the following chapter. 6. For v"?a NE&gt;J&gt; C. has wa Sal, an
intentional exaggeration. viWN Sa DJ] lacking in C. @ B , is a similar exagger
ation. 7. *BJN] C. tP N Sa. For p-vn na?a IIPNI pnpn -npa* C. has simply
papa !&gt;, and this may be original, though it is difficult to see how it could
give rise to the present text. Probably we should read psyn n&gt; 3 (Kl.).
-&gt;nw &gt;&gt;JN] is omitted by C. who was willing to throw the blame upon Saul
alone. onpn] read army with C. and (&.

8. The next day the Philistines came to strip the slain and
found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount 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 Ashtoreth~\ 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 (n 1 " 11 ), undertook to remove
the disgrace. 12. All the men of courage rose up and marched
all night, and took the corpses of Saul and his sons from the wall
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 under the tamarisk tree~\ probably one well
known; and they fasted seven days } in expression of their grief.

8. ntJ&gt;Se&gt;] omitted by C. 9. C. has a free reproduction of the first clause.
ma] C. has PN which is doubtless correct, and which seems also to be im
plied by &lt;@&gt;. 10. nnntPN] the singular form alone is in place. C. substitutes
an&gt;nS. For iypn read ip- pin (Lag. Annt. zur Griech. Uebersetz. d. Proverbien,
p. iiii), cf. 2 S. 2I 6 - 9 . 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 Dagon. On Bethshan, Moore, Jd. I 27 and reff. 11. V^N] 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 SAMUEL

in B C. 12. rfafyfr*93 w 1 "!] lacking in C. which also changes the wording
of the rest of the verse to accord with its own omission of Bethshan, v. 10 .
no* 1 )] read DINOM (51 C. DIP DDK IOT^I] is lacking in C. On account of the
lack of precedent, Bu. proposes to read Dtt&gt; anS HBDM. 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 mp^i)
is inexplicable with the proposed reading. 13. nap^i . . . inp^i] C. has only
rapM. For SIPN.-I, C. has nSsn, a more general word, or perhaps less ob
noxious (if Strx is a sacred tree, as seems probable). The Hebrew name is
reproduced in the modern Arabic name athl, 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. 9 . 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. 1 , 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. 5 as a late insertion and vs. 6 " 11 - ia ~ 16
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. 1-10 255

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,
j s. 4 12 . 3, 4. On hearing that the man has escaped from the
camp of Israel, David asks him : How was the affair /] cf. i S. 4 16 .
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 on Mount Gilboa, and Saul was leaning
on his spear, and the chariots and horsemen drew near him\ in
3 1 3 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 :
Who 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. S0 I stood over him and slew him for I 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 armlft~\ sev-

256 2 SAMUEL

eral such are pictured on the arms of Assyrian monarchs.* For
the custom of kings to go into battle in their regalia, notice the
account of Jehoshaphat and Ahab in i K. 22 30 where Ahab s dis
guising himself is an exception to the rule. And brought 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 replies : / 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 was
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 fortiori 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 10f , 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 tipon thy head because
thine own mouth 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 28 and also i K.

2 32. 33. 37^

1. The natural construction of the verse as it stands is to make vn 3tt&gt; 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 Amalek,
David abode two days in Ziklag 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 in yv nns \-m simply. In this case, there is
no reason why it may not have continued 3&lt;D 31 . pSej?n] should be ^npn
(so 6 MSS.) with & or pSnp with &lt;91L. 2. For Doeg as the messenger, Schm.
refers to Isaaki, and for the son of Agag to Auctor Antiq. Bibl. qui falso
Philo fuisse dicitur. Doeg is also given by Pseudo-Hieronymus, Questiones.
DJ?D] is read by @ DJ?D, but $% is preferable (We.). 4. Dj" ISN] another

* Nestle, Marginalien, p. 16.

I. 10-16 257

case of TTK in the sense of &gt;D, I S. I5 20 , cf. Davidson, Syntax, 146, R. 2.
nci] is omitted by (S L &lt;&, perhaps rightly; B inserts: KO.\ aireQavev Kal 2aovA.
6. ^nnpj Nipj] evidently the two forms are intended to be from the same
root, cf. 2O 1 . D^anon ^&gt;m] we read nowhere else of masters of the horsemen,
and @ omits ^j?a here, unless o* nnrcipx a covers both words. Everywhere else
we find D^cno joined with am. Possibly some one started to write o&lt;xn ^;-a
(Gen. 49 23 ) and afterwards discovered o^eno in his text. inpann] strictly
means that they had already overtaken him. 8. ncsoi Kt. : ^DNI Qre. The
latter is necessary. 9. ^S&gt; ] implies that Saul had sunk down which ought,
however, to be distinctly expressed. vatpn] occurs nowhere else, and the
meaning is doubtful : OKOTOS Sfivov (S possibly a corruption of ficorMtros =
dizziness* The same idea seems to be expressed by sj-ns J5 (cf. Nestle, Mar-
ginalien, p. 16 and reff.) : angustiae It, Nnvn E 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 my
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. &gt;IPDJ iiy-^r-o] is unusual. It is supposed to be by hypallage for
^ii OJ Sa -njna (Ges. HWE^.s.v. Sa). But the only analogies cited are Job 2; 3
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 &gt;&gt;DJ nnSa ^a : for my strength is consumed,
that is, / am utterly exhausted, cf. Ps. 84 3 , where, to be sure, the soul is con
sumed with desire. Graetz {Gesch. d.Juden, I. p. 224) proposes to read Sa
for *?a. 10. )Scj] on the pointing cf. Ges. 26 61 b; the word must mean Saul s
falling to the earth, showing that he had sunk down in his exhaustion. nn]
of the royal crown 2 K. n 12 . mpxto] occurs only here and Num. 3i 5 \ but
nipx, Is. 3 20 , is another form of the same word. We. and Dr. propose to read
mjjxn here also, as the article seerns required by the following T^N. 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. v-uaa Qre, is sustained by the following plural suffix.
12. "w a Spi mrp op Sjn] is tautology and is relieved by which reads for
the first clause and over the people of Judah. But probably even then one
clause is an interpolation. 13. ~u] cf. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten
und der Juden zu den Fremden (1896), pp. I, 29. 16. For "pen the Qre
commands *pi as in I K. 2 37 . The Kthib however is justified by 2 S. 3 28 .
Cf. la vs-&lt;, Lev. 2O 9 , etc., and 12 ici, Ezek. 33 5 .

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 SAMUEL

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. 22 he takes up the panegyric
of the departed warriors swifter than eagles, stronger than 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, Gent 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 Nationalges dngc der Hebraer as well
as his Blumen althebr discher Dichtkunst, neither of which I have seen.
Translations are given also by E. Meier, Poet. Nationalliteratur d. Hebr.
p. 123; Ewald, Dichter des Alien Bundes, I. p. 149 f.; Graetz, Gesch, d.

1. 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 16 . 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 slight 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. IO 13 , and was possibly also cited
in the original of i K. 8 13 , in both cases as authority for a poetical
quotation.

18. ne&gt;p mw ija noM? IDN^] there is no reason why the author should
not say WM if he meant that David commanded something. We expect also
ppprrnN instead of the simple ne&gt;p. 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

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 &lt;5 omits ntrp; but this leaves us pretty much where we were before.

Ew. conjectures taipp for nap 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 atrp for which he cites Is. 2i 7 . GASmith changes to nwp and
regards the whole clause as a gloss. But why should a glossator get it into
his head that David not only sang the nrp 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 na&gt;p the result of
abbreviation, SINB nrp having been shortened to tpp and then read ntpp. He
also supposes these words an insertion. We. has a theory to account for r.ep.
He thinks a glossator explained D^ansn in v. 6 by putting in the margin ^; a
n;pp, and that one half of the gloss crept into v. 6 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 -IDNM
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 IDNM 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 ICXM represent the opening verse of the dirge. Kl. (followed by
Bu. in his text) supposes the original reading to have been nitpp mim ij&gt;a
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 "ja was origi
nally parallel to the &gt;axj?n which (as we shall see) must be restored in the
next verse. But if so the natural emendation is &gt;D3. An entirely appropriate

opening of the dirge would be

n-nrn &gt;aa

After "Da had become corrupted to "ja 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. oxn] is defended by Dr., though he finds it a little 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 18 , but we are expressly told that the point of the comparison is his swiftness
of foot. @ AB ffTJ\&lt;0&lt;rov and @ L a.Kpi0a&lt;rai both seem to render o^n. On the
ground of this, Kl. conjectures osyn which commends itself; the feminine
form being chosen because Israel is the mother of the fallen heroes, ^nna
should be pointed to agree with this. SSn] rendered as a plural by (Sit, is
collective.

20. Tell it not in Gat 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 10 . 21. Mountains of Gilboa !
May no dew descend ; and may no rain fall upon you, ye fields of
death ! 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 oil~\ 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. p^Sja nn] is suspicious because Gilboa was the name of the mountain
ridge itself, not of the district. We should probably read y^Sjn nn, favoured
by &lt; L 3t. Kl. proposes to restore yzh) onn be desolate, Gilboa ! an extremely
attractive conjecture. TtTVk seems to require a verb, ^ ircVoi &lt; L : ^ Karaftri

262 2 SAMUEL

&lt;S AB ; insert therefore TV. 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).
niDnn ntpi] is unintelligible : fields of offerings have no place in the context,
the i is useless, and the form ns&gt; suspicious. &lt;J| L upy Qavdrov is probably right
in reading the last three letters as the word me. In that case, the simplest
expedient is to restore the accredited nns&gt; and to put the article for the two
letters not accounted for men nntp is not very remote from the text and
gives a satisfactory sense. Bu. conjectures niD"in ma&gt; referring to Jd. 9 31
which is however itself corrupt (cf. Moore on the passage). It would be
better to read nirnn with Jer. I4 14 Kt.; fields of deceit fit the context fairly
well, and the same meaning is got by Kl. who proposes mm nntr; GASmith
reads niDinn ntt i; Graetz makes rnenn vw, equivalent to mp -&gt;DnD Jd. 5 18 .
The variety of suggestions (and the number might easily be increased) shows
the difficulty of the reading. rvtPD ^a] is usually understood to apply to the
shield, in which case we should read nwo which is found in 23 Heb. MSS.
and some early editions. We. independently conjectured this to be the true
reading. Graetz proposes rvz&gt;D "hi : the weapon of the anointed. it, makes
the words refer to Saul quasi non unctus, and this was adopted in AV. The
reference to the shield was understood by (81, and by some of the Rabbinical
expositors. Budde makes a new verse begin with this clause, translating : Not
anointed with 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 : 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~\ the figure seems
entirely appropriate ; and there seems, moreover, no reason to
change the order of the clauses.

22. onaj aSrro D^Sn me] 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 fctra 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. JWj] 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 16 . In life and in death
they were not dwided~\ 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 8 . The vehemence
of its attack is the point of the comparison, cf. Jer. 4 13 . They
were stronger than lions ] Jd. i4 18 .

23. rims] 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 19 . For the golden jewels with which he decked them, cf.
Jer. 4 30 .

24. naa with SN is not common, but cf. Ezek. 2y 81 . We should perhaps
read hy with 10 MSS. D&gt;j-ip o&gt;] with dainties is the natural meaning of the
words, but the construction is harsh, and & is obliged to insert DoS S&gt;3iDi. It
seems better to emend with Graetz (Gesch. d.Juden, I. p. 192) reading O^ID Dp,
cf. Jd. I4 12 Is. 3 23 . nj? is collective as in Ex. 33 6 .

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 : Jonathan 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 -pro into IDHD &gt;Sa VONM a variant of which he
supposes now to stand at the end of the dirge (where (5 L reads tmOv/jiriTd for
But if this be original, it is hard to account for the corruption.

264 2 SAMUEL

Graetz corrects jruw to SNT^ which would give a good sense in itself consid
ered. But the opening of v. 26 would then be very abrupt. We. points out
that several Greek codd. read tis Bdvarov eTpavyuaTia07j(s) (6 L adds e&gt;oQ
which would allow us to restore nSVn ntD 1 . Kl. goes further, suggesting:
&gt;JN rn^n ^nina, in thy death I too am wounded, while Bu. reads in his text
SSn inina &gt;aS, wy -foar/ w 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 !
Thy love for me was beyond the love of women.

We thus conform to the metre of the rest of the composition.
The love of 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. n."inSflj] on the form as here pointed cf. Ges. 26 75 oo. 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 nnxSoj, thou wert
wonderful, an emphatic repetition of nnpj, 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 nsSflj taken adverbially would require the IND to follow.
27. nerftan] &n0u/ATjTci is found in &lt; L 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.

1 8. 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 f h iricircumcised 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 .the 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 Samuel, 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 16 .

II. l-4 a . David becomes king of Hebron. After this, that
is, after receiving the news of Saul s death, David asked of
Yahweh~\ 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 10 - 20 Jos. is 13 . The writer counts it to Judah, Caleb
having already become a clan of that tribe. David went 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 Philistines allowed him to
extend his kingdom so far as he did.

1. The name fn^n 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. i 10 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. VIPJNI] the suffix is superfluous; read
with &lt;S B . It is possible that the text of 2 - 3 was originally shorter.
ys] is supposed to mean in the towns in the district of which Hebron
was the centre. These dependent places however are called elsewhere onxn,
or else the daughters of the chief city, and there is no clear parallel to ny
jnan. It seems better therefore to read jnan -vpa and take -pp in its primary
sense of fort or citadel, cf. 5 7 - 9 . There is no reason why David s procedure at
Hebron should differ from that at Jerusalem.

4 b -7. David s message to the Gileadites. The fragment ob
viously presupposes i S. 31, and seems to continue that narrative
directly, for 3i 18 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. i-y 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
will 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 Saul 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 : They 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. @ L translates as if it had ncn instead of T^N;
@ B transfers T.TN, making it follow issS, while & omits TJ&gt;N. Bu. does the
same on conjecture but does not profess to regard the resulting text as origi
nal. Kl. proposes to read mx-Sj; for nnxS, cf. Gen. 26 32 . I should think
ni3Z&gt;-nx equally appropriate they told David the names of the men. But
the insecurity of our footing is evident. 5. ^E jx] &lt;& B has i]jov/j.fvovs (r)yeyu&lt;-
vas L ) representing &gt;S&gt;3, cf. Jd. 9 61 (@ A ). For run -iDnn @ A ( B is lacking
here) has rJ&gt; eAeoy rov 0eoO which is perhaps original; @ L omits nrn.

6. nx?n raisn] 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
nipyx a cohortative : let me show you this friendliness. But a king would
hardly take this tone. It is best therefore to change nxrn 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 10a and n , two chronological statements such as else
where belong to the final redaction of the book. 8. The verse
follows i S. 3 1 13 . 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 taken Ishbaal and brought him over to
Mahanaim\ 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 3 . This account brings it into
connexion with the Jabbok, and from 2 S. i8 23 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 y the well-known transjordanic district, and the Ashe-
rite, north of the Great Plain, Jd. i 31f , and Jezreel, and Ephraim,
and Benjamin, and [in fact] all Israel. The original narrative
continued by adding lob : 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, like i S. 13*. The data are
suspicious. Ishbaal could hardly have been forty years old, and

* Cf. Kamphausen, " Philister und Hebraer," in the Z A TW. VI. pp. 43-97.

II. 8-i i 269

it seems altogether likely that he reigned more than two years.
11. Another insertion possibly occasioned by Wa , 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 5 , and we have no
reason to doubt its correctness.

8. nEa~"N] 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 Spasm, i Chr. 8 33 9 39 . We find traces of the original form
in some MSS. of and i in this passage also. The reluctance of the later
Jews to pronounce the name Baal led to the substitution of nca for it, even
in proper names. Another method was taken with this name in I S. I4 49 .
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.
D OHD] K. TTJS Trapf/jLftoXrjs : 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. 1 3 s6 - 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 Jordan, p. 433 ff.) seems to lie too far from the Jordan valley to meet the
requirements of 28. 18. 9. mi?Nn] of a clan of this name we have a trace
in Gen. 25 3 . But they were evidently Bedawin and not likely to come under
Ishbaal. The Israelite tribe n:?Nn seems to fit the case. Th., following Ew.,
adopts nvyjn, which is supported by &lt;& and some MSS. of 3t. It seems
doubtful however whether the Geshurites, who had a king of their own at
about this time, 3 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 ^N and hy are used together in this verse. The
original writer must have used ^y throughout. 10, 11. The authorities are
pretty well united in the supposition that 10a - J1 are redactional insertions.

27O 2 SAMUEL

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 out~\ from Hebron as (&
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 was
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. ruyjj] Ta&adi &lt;JI A . The place is five miles west of north from Jerusa
lem, cf. Robinson, Z?A &gt;2 . I. p. 455 f. 13. UNV] Yahweh is father, cf. ^N N
and 2NiSN. INS 11 ] &lt;S adds $K Xeftpuv, adopted by Bu., but the insertion is
more likely than the omission. aia&gt;jo &gt;i] does not necessarily mean (as Kl.
supposes) that the meeting was unexpected, cf. Ex. 4 27 . nrp] is superfluous,
and in fact impossible, after the suffix in meum. Probably it is a corruption
of some word defining the circumstances Kl. suggests D jn, camping. ruo

II. 12-23 271

, . . PITC] as in I S. 14*. 14. ipntm] 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. i-ayi] " of the individuals passing in
order before the teller" (Dr.). s^NSi] omit the i with &lt;&S. 16. A difficult
verse. The interpretation must proceed from in&gt; iSo&gt;i which most naturally
means they fell all together, i.e., the champions fell dead, not the two armies
came into conflict as is supposed by Kl. The clause "ui prm 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 injn 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 iptm could not in itself mean that he struck his
sword into his fellow, dejixit gladium 3L. I suspect the corruption to be in
B&gt;Nn3 as is alleged by KL, though I cannot accept his emendation. After WIN
&lt;S inserts rp x ft P &gt;L probably correctly. Dnxn] might be of the sharp knives
as is perhaps intended by the punctuation. The conjecture that 4 TU&gt;V
iiripov\&lt;av goes back to D-nxn, first broached by Schleusner, and accepted by
Ew. and others, does not seem well founded. E.irl&ov\os nowhere occurs for
is (or mx) but generally for p- , once for is. There is no question of plotters
or liers~in-wait % but of determined enemies, 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 23 . 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 unwilling 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 spoil~\ trophy enough, without aspiring to the conquest
of the general. 22. Abner makes a second attempt to dissuade
his pursuer : Why should I 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 2O 12 where alone such a standing still of the people
is in place.

18. Vxntpy] similar names are tttVPJJ and rvtpy. A similar n in trame Num.
I 10 . DOS the plural of ox; the same word is used of the mature gazelle in
Arabic. 19. povrSp] where we should expect *?N. But *?p is repeated in
v. 21 . 21. "\~&gt; ntoj] the dative of advantage is frequent in such connexion, as
in i 1 ? -no of the following verse. insSn] 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. TNI
&gt;JD NPN] a duplicate translation of &lt;@i B goes back to njo nr i\xi obviously
the poorer text. 23. mnn nrwa] is supposed to mean with the butt of the
spear. It is doubtful however whether annx 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 ivjinx 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 by Bu. 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.

24-111. 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
and made themselves a phalanx~\ a close knot like the bunch of
hyssop, Ex. i2 22 . 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 know
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 commanding the people to turn from the pursuit

II. 23-IH. I 2/3

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 night 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 dawned upon them in Hebron. HI. 1. Con
cluding notice of this paragraph : The war was prolonged . . .
but David kept growing stronger, while the house of Saul kept
growing weaker.

24. The hill is described as *pn mj&gt; ^Q"hy, where rvj is obscure and prob
ably corrupt : (JI B has Feu which might represent &OJ or &gt;y. We. supposes n&gt;j
to have arisen by the erroneous duplication of the two preceding letters to
gether with n from "|-nn so that he restores "in ^o Sy which is adopted by
Bu. He also proposes to read "aiaa for lain. 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. nns nyuj] as the mention of the Hill of Amman is
superfluous unless the rally took place upon it, we should probably restore
here HON PJDJ with Ki., Bu. 26. runrwa] I have ventured to read njnnwn
with L . njn] the i is omitted by &3L, but not by @ as We. asserts. How
long dost thou not command, where we should say : How long dost thou refrain
from commanding? 27. nSyj] the verb is used of giving up the siege of a
city, Jer. 37 5 - 11 , cf. Num. lo 24 - 27 . In this place @ O^ /ST? seems to have read
n^jn; 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. ID 1 "!] the same verb with an accusative of the coun
try traversed (as here) is found Dt. I 19 2 7 . 30. vipo i] cf. I S. 2O 18 . Ssnipjn]
is connected with the next verse by &lt; B (or by the editor). It does not seem
T

274 2 SAMUEL

natural to make Asahei prominent in this way, to the ignoring of Joan and
Abishai, who must have been equally active in the combat. 31. vjxji] 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. ina] is incomprehensible, perhaps a mar
ginal gloss which has crept into the text. ( Ij omits it (so j$ which inserts nc
at the end of v. 30 ), while @ B represents insc. 32. an 1 ? ma] for which 9
MSS. (DeR.) have S maa and (5 has cV B. III. 1. nmx] cf. Ez. I2 22
Jer. 2cf. The word seems better than nain which was read by &lt;&.

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. Amnon the first born, afterwards notorious, was the son
of Ahinoam mentioned above, i S. 25 43 . Chileab, the son of
Abigail, bears a name which reminds us of his mother s blood.
Absalom s mother was a daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a
small Aramaic kingdom, i5 8 . 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 14 and is followed in his text
immediately by 5 13 ~ 16 . It is in fact probable that the notices of David s family
belong together. Whether they ever stood at the end of 8 14 is doubtful.
2. nS&gt;i] for which Qre proposes n*?v\ The Kt. is probably for nV^, cf.
similar instances in Piel, Ges. 26 69 u. 3. ^N^D] may have some connexion
with the tribe Caleb. SrasS] the form varies between Sjpas and Svrax.
*wj] is brought into connexion with Aram, not only I5 8 , but also I Chr. 2 28 .
It is contiguous to Bashan Josh. I2 5 . 4. mj-KS (H L has Opvia; (S B y Opvei\.
5. in PSTN] for which I Chr. 3 3 has inti&gt;N, 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. 2O 12 ), and would have
given no offence in the time of David. Read therefore "in runs. The sins
of Jerusalem as enumerated by Ezekiel (22 11 ) include the humbling of one s
sister, showing that such marriages were entered into down to the time of the
Exile.

III. 2-8 275

6-39. Aimer 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 12 ~ 16 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 12 would join well to v. 1 . But the
division comes more naturally after v. 19 than after v. 16 . 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 Saut] as is shown by the instance which follows.
7. Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah^ cf. 2i 8 . 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 Jfy, is necessary to the sense. It
is preserved in ( L . 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, i6 21 , 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 10 . 8. The reply
of Abner is not a justification of his act but an assertion of his

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 accomplish 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] i S. 3 20 . 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. 1 it would be superfluous, but that it did so follow is
not certain. pinno] 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, 1 S. 3O 6 . 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. rvN~ra] an Edomite clan
bore the name n-s, Gen. 36 24 . Before IONM &lt;85 L inserts al eAoySrjj/ avr^v
A&evv/lp, and after the same word @ inserts the name of the king, as do &IL
and a few MSS. of flf. 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 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 1 (= 22 3J ). 8. aSo B&gt;*on] the expression is not used elsewhere, but
seems intelligible without supposing a contemptuous reference to the clan
Caleb. n-nmS -ix] must qualify 3^3, 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 (5, 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 I a Calebite captain, that is, a turbulent freebooter ?
Omitting rnirpS we get a fairly good sense. ntyyN] in the frequentative
sense. The house of Saul is defined so as to include his brothers and his
comrades. It is unnecessary to insert i before vn~Vx, as is done by some
MSS. of f^, by (Si and IL. The guilt of a -woman (genitive of the object) is
evidently regarded as a trifle. We should read npN with , so We., Bu., al.
9. V?~ns&gt;j?N] + ev TT? ^ue p? Tf-vrri &lt; 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. 21 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. 20 ) 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. 13 David stipulates that Abner shall bring her back. In v. 14
he sends for her to Ishbaal. In v. 16 Abner accompanies her as far as Bahurim,
but apparently not to Hebron. It is not unlikely that this account (vv. 14 ~ 16 )
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 1 " 4 .
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, whom I bought for a hundred foreskins of
the Philistines } the reference to i S. iS 25 - ^ is obvious, but the pas
sage knows nothing of David s paying double the price demanded
by Saul. 15. Ishbaal sends and takes her from her husband,
Paltiel ben Laish~\ to whom she was given by Saul, i S. 2$*.
16. Her husband followed her weeping as he went as far as Bahu
rim, a place near Jerusalem, i6 5 . 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

2/8 2 SAMUEL

had 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 !
For Yahweh has said to David : By the hand of David my servant
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
difficult to move.

12. -(0*6 pw ^D 1 ? "iDwS innn] is unintelligible and certainly corrupt. @ L
has simply ets XejSp&j/ \4yuv which looks like a conjectural emendation.
&lt;5 B has els ai\a/j. ou %v irapaxprjua heyuv, but what this represents is difficult
to say. That David was in Telam at the time seems to be the intention,
though elsewhere @ renders this name by TcAe ^u. 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 pis
could stand for psn which is not the case. If Abner had meant to ask whose
is the land? insinuating in manu mea est terra ut ad te transferam,* he must
have said V"^x n &lt;| c 1 ?. Even if this were the reading, the following icN S would
be unaccountable. Of the proposals to emend the text, Kl. s deserves mention.
He supposes the original to have been "IDN"? nxiN ^ nnV Tinn SN-IB n&gt;a So,
all the house of Israel is under my hand to give to whom I please ivhen I
say. The sentence would be an appropriate introduction to what follows.
13. jeV~DH \a] is redundant, and -us 1 ? is lacking in (5, which also reads r.$on,
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. E^N] the reading naN on the
basis of &lt;g 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. SaoaSfl] the fuller form of the name which
appears as "vho I S. 25**. iriS] E"S Qre agrees with the form found else
where. 16. anna] elsewhere mentioned as on the road from Jerusalem to
the Jordan valley, ly 18 . 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. y&gt;E&gt;in] is to be
changed to yans with 40 MSS. and the versions. nj^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 aptid Schm., p. in.

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, and 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-V/ATTOO-IOI/.
Abner agrees definitely : / will 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 shalt 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^ js^i] there seems no reason why we should not point with the
article, which is in fact required by the following ns&gt;N. Read D^sSi with Bu.
21. naips] (81 seems to have added NJ which however is not called for.

ffov ^ia.Q-fjKf}v ( L . The reading of f^ seems the best, for Abner s promise
looked to what afterwards occurred, 5 3 . *?J3] can hardly be with 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, and 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, 25. The second

28O * SAMUEL

ascribes to Abner treacherous motives : Dost thou not know Abner
the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee~\ under pretence of
friendly negotiation ; and to know thy going forth and thy coming
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 him 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. N:J] as generally recognized, the true reading is DI&O (Ginsb. gives wa
in the margin) the 3 having disappeared in the of the next word. 31] is
omitted by ( L and is in fact superfluous; how much booty they brought with
them does not concern us here. 24. -]V?n] throws emphasis on the fact that
Abner had been allowed to go away at all. (j| has eV flp^vp conforming to the
clause in v. 23 . 25. &lt;& and Sb read NiSi at the beginning of the verse and this
word is probably to be restored (Th.). -U2N~nx] rfyv KaKiav *A&ti&gt;t&gt;T]p &lt;& is
attractive (Kl.). "|Ni2E] is changed by the punctuators to JN^D for the sake
of the paronomasia. 26. rnon] is called by Josephus Brjo-Tj/jS. The transla
tion of Josephus in Bohn s Library speaks of Ain Sarah near Hebron, of
which I find no other trace. 27. For -pn read TV with &lt;f (Th.). trcnn]
always elsewhere we find zrcnn VN which is found here also in 13 MSS. and is
favoured by @. WIN] is awkward, so that Bu. restores 3NV TIN with @ B .
I suspect however that PD^I 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. q ls . 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
spindle } 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. 27 , 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 o&gt;c] one is free from an obligation, Gen. 24 8 , or from the guilt
incurred by violation of it, Nu. 5 31 , or from the one who has a claim based on
the obligation or the violation, Jud. I5 3 . In this case Yahweh has the claim,
for innocent blood cries to him for vengeance. The double p I am inno
cent towards Yahweh of the blood does not seem to occur elsewhere. The
original reading of @ was i nn; D instead of mm D^D. ^DID] &lt; L represents
^m which it makes the beginning of v. 29 . 29. iSm] the verb is used twice
of the tempest, as whirling upon the head of its victims, Jer. 23 19 3O 23 , and
once of the sword Hos. u 6 . It does not seem appropriate to the blood which
is the subject here; &lt;S L omits the verb altogether and it is possible that it read
simply mm elsewhere used in similar context. VNI] read hy\ with 10 MSS.
and the versions. "|Sfl3 pnnc] as shown by Dr., it is better to adhere to the
established meaning of "\^s, 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 i:nx as suggested by Ew. (^7 3 . III. p. 160, Eng. Tr. p. 117) on the
basis of @. 31. trpte&gt;] the clothing of mourners. Schwally (ZATW. XI.
p. 1 74) compares the ihrdm of the Moslem, which however is not of haircloth.
rvjcn] 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 into 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 22f . 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 7] 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. mcsn] the verbal form is infinitive. S^j] 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&gt;niru] of a pair of bronze fetters as in Jd. i6 21 .
PDJD] is probably to be pointed as a participle (Kl.). 35. nron 1 ?] cf. I3 5 .
The verb occurs only in the document of which this chapter is a part.
36. Soa] reads So, making it the subject of the preceding 3B"i and omitting
3iB at the end of the verse. This is favoured also by &lt;& and 1L, and is
preferred by We., who is obliged, however, to strike out DJIfHw ^rpa also.
Would it not be better to strike out the whole half verse as a gloss?
38. *?nj)] 7 9 ; for SnJi nr however, 2 has Sru ~\tr. For *?mPU J5 and some
MSS. of $| have SNT^C. 39. ~p] the word means tender in years, or deli
cately nurtured, Gen. 33 13 Dt. 28 54 . 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 Y?DD nM -p, too tender and
lowly for reigning. But it is not likely that David would openly express this,
even if it were his thought. L makes the clause apply to Abner and trans
lates (TvyyevTis Kal KaQiardpfvos virb rov &a&lt;ri\f(&gt;s, and with this agree many
MSS. of @, only reading fcaflecrrajuevos. The original would apparently be

III. 34-IV. 4 283

pfl) in Nini, though he were relative and officer of a king {yet these sons
of Zeruiah were too strong for him is the continuation, reading HDD for JDD).
For other conjectures see Kl.

IV. 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, 2b - 4 .

1. When the sort of Saul heard that Abner had died in Hebron,
his hands were limp] he lost courage ; and all Israel was thrown
into confusion] 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 5 they are mentioned in the reverse
order indicates that the present clause is part of the redactional
note. They are described as sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of
the Benjamites~\ Beeroth was a city of the Gibeonites, Jos. p 17 , but
is reckoned to Benjamin Jos. iS 25 . 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 Beerothitesyfo/
to Gittaim} also a city of Benjamin, Neh. 1 1 33 , 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 cleaning wheat, and she grew
drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in\
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 room]
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 b ringer 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 men 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. SiNt^-p] is proper without the insertion of J^IPN made by (SJ5.
the addition of irpf made by We. and Bu., is not favoured by the best MSS.
of. 2. SiNB&gt;~p] is here impossible and we must insert SystPN 1 ? with &lt;&.
The identification of Beeroth and El Bireh is objected to by Buhl (Geog.
p. 173) on the ground that Jos. 9 17 indicates a place southwest of Gibeon, and

IV. 4-V. 285

that Eusebius locates it (OS. p. 233) on the road to Nicopolis. Butcf. Rob
inson, BR 2 . I p. 452; Baedeker, Palestine", p. 212. hy~] is evidently for Sx.
3. ima^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 because 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 3 , but it is doubtful
whether it belongs there. nao^BC] the name has been changed like nBO~aN
to avoid pronouncing the word Baal. We find S?a ane, I Chr. 8 84 9*, and
along with it tya nn, 9 40 . From the analogy of Jerubbaal we naturally inter
pret *?;?a anc, Baal is a warrior. This was changed by the ingenuity of the
scribes to ntPB^BE, who puffs at the shameful thing (We. TBS. p. 31; other
conjectures are cited by Nestle, Israelitische Eigennamen, p. 120 f.). @ B calls
him Me/j.&lt;f&gt;if}6ff6e, the name which it has also for Ishbaal, whereas &lt; L has
M/j.&lt;f&gt;i&da\. This indicates that the name has undergone two transforma
tions; first it was made Mephibaal and then Mephibosheth. 5. onnxn 33C D]
{ has, curiously, the sleep of kings. 6. The opening word as pointed in jjft
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 (5 which introduces an entirely new feature; Kal iSov
T\ Oupupbs TOV O IKOV fKaQaipev Trvpovs Kal evv(TTaj-ev Kal eKaBfvSfv (wai Sirvufftv^.
This is adopted as original by Ew., Th., We., and later commentators, though
they differ somewhat in the retroversion : p&gt;m ajm a^ton nVpo man m;?2&gt; njm
is given by We. and adopted by Dr., Bu., whereas Kl. rejects both texts and
constructs a new one on conjecture. itaScj] generally means to slip away, to
escape. The only analogy for the sense required here is I S. 2O 29 , and even
there it is doubtful whether the writer had not the usual meaning in mind.
7. The second vrNTrN is omitted by &lt; L 1L. 10- ^] introduces the sub
stance of the oath. iT&gt;?a] fvuiri6v fj.ov is probably original. The point is
that the Amalekite was punished in spite of the nature of his tidings.
V? ^nn 1 ? i^x] can be justified; but (since We.) TJ N is generally thought to be
an erroneous insertion; the clause is then sarcastic. 11. p&gt;nx~a"iN~rx] is
unusual though not entirely without parallel, Ex. 2i 28 Nu. 2i 9 , cf. Davidson,
Syntax, 72 R. 4, Ges. 26 117^. xVn] is lacking in (&, but the question is more
vigorous than the direct assertion.

V.-XXIV. David s rule over all Israel.

V.-VIII. The establishment of the kingdom. The tribes
make David king, and he establishes his capital at Jerusalem.
He is attacked by the Philistines 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. L2 seems later than
the simple statement of v. 3 . 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. 1 , it is probable that this
is a different document. And the king made an agreement with
them~\ cf. 3 21 . 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 word of Yahweh by the hand of Samuel. But this
agrees with v. 2 rather than v. 3 . 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. 3 which alone I suppose to
be from the earlier document. The vv. T ~ 3 are repeated substantially in I Chr.
ii 1 - 3 . 1. Ssoa" nsatr Sa i*o&gt;i] Chr. has SN-\& *?a wapM because the people
were in his view a homogeneous whole. nDN^] is lacking in Chr. and 3L,
whereas innS is omitted by (5. 2. ir^y] lacking in Chr. N&gt;SID nn^n] Kt.
corrected in the margin to N^icn n^n, which is of course correct; notice
(N)OCH which follows. 4. o^aiw] the versions and 17 MSS. have D^aiNi.
5. vhw\ vw^v @ L thinks it necessary to make the exact sum of forty years,
and puts 32 years and six months here.

V. i-8 28/

Budde removes vv. 4 - 5 from this position and inserts them in connexion
with 3^, 5 1 *- 16 after 8 14 . 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. 17 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 men} his regular soldiers are evidently
intended, went 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 18 ). The remainder of the
verse is obscure. Apparently, the Jebusites say to David : Thou
shalt not come in hither for the blind and the lame 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 : meaning that David cannot come hither, is
unnecessary and probably a later insertion. 7. David took the
stronghold of Zion~\ 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 dwelt in the fortress} which he
had just taken, and built it round about from Millo\ the fortifica
tion or retaining wall mentioned also among the works of Solomon
i K. 9 15 , 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 1 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. nStprv] 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, iSo 25 - 46 i83 14 . 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, omyn yvDrrcx "o =
but the blind will have removed thee, is inappropriate. The tense is wrong,
the verb should be plural, and -von is not used of repulsing an enemy. We. s
emendation, TVDt, meets two of the objections but not the third. It has been
proposed therefore to correct to rrvon 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 DX o is not original and
that the conjunction is 13. The yvDn ON then represents a verb with the
object say "px lyjn 11 or pimnp; avrftrr^aav &lt;& 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. II5 5 " 7 (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 = o^y and the OIHDIO, 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. 8 .
The Chronicler omits all after the first njn, perhaps by homeoteleuton.
7. fvx] later a poetical name for Jerusalem itself. Robinson s identification
of Zion with the southwestern quarter of modern Jerusalem is now generally

V. 9-16 289

given up. in vjr N^n] is superfluous along with v. 9b . 8. "Dy nan"^]
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 -njxii &gt;MM, though the
form of the verb is correct, "njx occurs in only one other passage and is not
certain even there. In later Hebrew the word means a canal or pipe, 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 seiver 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
j?:m 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. &lt; sees in nm a dagger, Aquila a watercourse, and Sym-
machus a battlement. isjtp] for which Qre ^NJS&gt; : @ B Kal TOVS ^laovvras.
man] @ interprets correctly when it renders ol/coj/ Kvpiov. 9. p^i] read
rua^i with 6&gt; (We.). NiSnnJ the word occurs in the name of a fortress (?)
Beth-Millo, Jd. 9 6 . 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. 8 .

11. And Hiram king of Tyre] the prominent commercial city
of the Phoenicians ; sent 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. o*vn] probably a shortened form of a-vrw. 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 probably his slaves. vp] lacking in @ B , us
in fact superfluous. 12. NCM] is active Yahweh had exalted his kingdom.
PNPJ, that is, a Niphal, is read by @ and Chr. 13. D^ .PJD] omitted by Chr.
The action of David shows no acquaintance with the Deuteronomic law, Dt.
I7 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. aStfrvc] -rva i Chr. I4 3 . 14-16. The list of
David s sons is repeated in i Chr. 3 5ff - and I4 4ff -. By duplicating t3 i ?Q &lt; &gt; L &gt;N and
inserting njj (duplicate of jsj) the number is there increased to thirteen in
stead of eleven. y-rSs is y-p va in both places in Chr. ; Baa\et/ict0 &lt;& B and
Baa\i\aO &lt;S L 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 down 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 Rephaim\ 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 my enemies before me like the breaking of
waters~\ through a dam. Baal Perazim is possibly referred to as
Mount Perazim Is. 28 21 . 21. They left their gods ] as we should
probably read, and David and his men carried them away.

17. mwnn VN TVI] although the citadel of Jerusalem has been called a
mren v. 9 , 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. D&gt;Sflin] r&v Tirdvuv &lt;&. Robinson, who
makes the identification (fitf 2 . I. p. 219), gives no reasons except the declara
tion of Josephus. The location however answers the needs of Jos. I5 8 i8 16 ,
and would be a natural route for the Philistines, cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 91.
19. nSyxn] confirms what was said about the stronghold. 20. ps] of the
breaking down of a wall, 2 Chr. 24? Ps. So 13 . Vya 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. DTOX 1 ;] for which Chr.
has Drnn^N. The latter, which was also read by &lt; here, is doubtless original

V. ly-VI. r 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 &lt;S L . 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 like a proper name. 24. Specific
directions giving an omen : And it shall be when thou hearest the
sotmd of marching in the tops of the balsams, then thou shalt act
promptly, 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 Philistines from Geba~\ the place is doubtful, to Gezer]
in the border of the Philistine territory.

23. a on] 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.

3^33] o- NDon Chr. : 0-012 J5. Some derivative of roa is indicated by roC
K\av6fjiwvos &lt;&, so that the Bochim of Jd. 2 5 was in the mind of both transla
tors. But the location does not seem suitable. 24. iJJD io] i^Difj is preferred
by Qre. n-\j?x] the article should probably be prefixed with Chr. jnnn]
look sharp is our colloquial equivalent. 25. &gt;3J] airb ra^adav (& agrees with
fiyajD 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. in] 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 life 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-

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. y 1 . 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 ; and with songs and with harps and with lyres and
with drums and 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 Uzzah} 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 5b ) ; 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

to be taken up and carried by the Levites (4 15 ) . 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 Uzzafc] 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 6 , making the gathering of all Israel to be for
the purpose of taking Jerusalem. He then makes v. 2 follow directly on 5 12 ,
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. 2 referring evidently to the young men of
Israel of v. 1 . ^DII for IDS ), cf. Dr. and Schm. -ny] is superfluous and
probably an erroneous insertion. For 30,000 ( has 70,000. 2. ^pao]
would naturally define the people with David as the burghers of Judah, and
is so understood by @. 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 nSpa,
so that it is easy to correct here to mini Spa, the &gt; having been duplicated
(We.), or to mim n*?ya. Both I Chr. I3 6 and Jos. 15 identify the place with
Kirjath Jearim. ou&gt; Q ] one of the two words is superfluous, lacking also in
. 3. npaja "\N] is possibly corrupt, as it seems unnecessary to describe
the location so exactly, and it is omitted by Chr. NTJ?] here is for rup.
vriNi] is naturally read as vrw or rnx. But it seems strange that his brother
should not be named as well as Uzzah. ITIS, as another form of imnN, is a
possible proper name so that I have retained it. nann nSjyn J is an obvious
case of disagreement, and it seems clear that the eye of the scribe wandered
from nVjyn, which he had just written, to nSjp early in the verse so that he

294 2 SAMUEL

repeated npaja . . . ntinn before he discovered his mistake. D^nSxn pnx oj?]
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. D Z&gt;na ^y S:a] 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.
on&gt;a&gt;ai ty Saa the first two words occur again in v. 14 . &lt;& has a double
translation, one half of which confirms this restoration, the other half consists
of the words which represent TjTbaa in v. 1 *. D ppjD seem to be sistra (the
word is rendered (rciffrpois by Aq. and Sym. according to Field), instruments
used in the worship of Isis. 6. JIDJ] 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
fwa with Chr., or No&gt;5a/3 with (& B , cannot be determined. &lt;S L reads Opva TOV
If&vaaiov, an evident correction, intended to make the Ark select its perma
nent abode thus early. nSpii] requires w 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 |. itDDr] is a rare word and the passages
in which it occurs throw little light upon its meaning here. In 2 K. p 83 it is
used transitively of throwing a person out of a window. It would be natural
to interpret here therefore the 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. (& irepifo-iraffev aitr^v seems to find
the object expressed IBDB and so with & MUIC. Calcitrabant 1L seems
to be a conjecture only. ttnSttft] after the nvr expressed above is superflu
ous. SarrSj?] is lacking in &lt;S B and therefore suspicious. There is no Hebrew
word ^V known to us : eiri rrj irpoirfTciq &lt;S L : super temeritate IL : pro igno-
rantia \ : &gt;*?ntt&n Sjr 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 Sj; w n^tP nrx hy. More likely they represent an attempt to give the
exact location, now unintelligible. Kl. conjectures atam ^&gt;y which he supposes
to mean on the side beam of the cart on which Uzzah sat. But this is pre
carious. D^nSx jnN op] for which Chr. has o&gt;nSs ^o*? as has @ L . The latter
is probably original, for it would be more likely to be corrected into the other
phrase. &lt;S B combines the two readings. 8. *op&gt;i] must be impersonal
as in similar instances one called the place, etc. 10. DIN~-O&gt; ] the second
part of the name is probably the name of a god, and the whole corresponds to

VI. ii-i6 295

nnay. 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. (g) L 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 dancing] the word occurs only in this passage and
seems to mean whirling, like the devotional dancing of the der
vishes. And David was girded with a linen ephod~\ such as the
priests wore, i S. 2 18 . We should probably think of this as a strip
of cloth like 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. 20 ^. 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 coming into the city of David when Michal the
daughter of Saul looked through the window and saw King

2Q6 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 it~\
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. DTiSNn] + /cal eTire AavfS
ETnoTpetyw rrjv ev\oylav els rbv O!KOV JJ.QU &lt;J| L 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 f^ on account of its frank egoism.
13. For the first clause @ has : and there were with him [or -with them~\ seven
bands. The reading seems to have arisen by corruption of |^. 14. -O"OD]
the word occurs only here and v. 16 ; Chr. omits it in his reproduction of this
verse and substitutes pniPD for it at its second occurrence. It was either obso
lete in his time, or he thought it undignified. 15. no] is omitted by @ L J5
and 3 MSS. of f$. 16. rvni] is certainly the wrong tense, as the Chronicler
shows by correcting it to TIM. Even with the correction, the verse reads awk
wardly; it is unnecessary also, for MichaFs remarks are self-explanatory and
the situation need not be described in advance. T?DC] this stem occurs here
only, the Qal in Gen. 49 24 only. 19. tt"NDS] is sustained by some analogous
passages, I Chr. 27 28 Ex. n 7 Jer. 5i 62 . nsc N] 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 ff.

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 ! 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 /
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. 21 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, and 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 religious 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. v-ap rnncN] would be the lowest maidservants, cf. the phrase a servant
of servants. mVjj niSjn^] two forms of the infinite construct. Probably one
is an erroneous insertion; else conflation of two readings has taken place.
o^pin] is used of wild and reckless men from whom, of course, decency can
not be expected. @ seems to have read anp"n, but we have no evidence of
a class of dancers in Israel who could give point to such a comparison.
21. rnrp ijsS] needs to be completed by an affirmation of some kind, which
we find in @ which reads : opx^ffo/^ai evAoyrjr&s Kvpios. If this were original
we see how the scribe omitted the words, his eye falling upon the second mrp
instead of the first. It seems probable therefore that we should restore the
whole, reading mrp -jna ipin OJN nin&gt; -oaS. The participle ip-io seems the
most natural form. -vju TIN rmS] cf. I S. 25 30 . 22. Ti^pji] &lt;& reads &gt;nSjji
which is perhaps original. ^&gt;?a] read with TJ^2, 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 1 ? 11 ] 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 {Einl*. 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 possession of his house~\ apparently
the new one built by the Phoenicians : Yahweh moreover had
given him rest round about from all his enemies ] 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 came 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. (&&. 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. va^N ^D aoDD iS-rrjn] Dt. I2 10 25 19 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 3B"~^ into iw* ntrso
with the intention of making this the immediate sequel of the bringing up of
the Ark. 2. jru] doubtless a shortened form of rvj-u or SNJPJ, cf. also
iSo jnj 2 K. 23 11 . 4. nirn 01 TVI] i S. I5 10 ; the phrase is frequent in

VII. i-io 299

Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 5. nnsnj nriN sS Chr. The former is probably origi
nal because the change from it to the other reading is more probable than the
reverse. 6. ppnai SHND] & renders only paD3. Chr. has Snx SN VHND
psfDDi which should evidently be completed by adding ptPD Sx. 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. pa&gt;n is used of
the tent of Korah, Num. I6 24 , and of the dwellings of the Bedawin, Ezek. 25*.
7. Tnm i:nn] seems more vigorous if we point na^n have I at all spoken ?
It is so rendered by &lt;. V33] is to be corrected to ^too2&gt; Chr., for it was the
Judges who had been commanded to shepherd Israel, cf. v. 11 .

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 fre
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 Yahiveh 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 dwell in their place ;

And they shall no more be disquieted

And violent men 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

3OO 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 from all thine enemies, and Yahweh will make known to
thee that Yahweh will make 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 shalt 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 shalt lie down with thy fathers,
That I will raise up 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.
2Q 21 . One s children come forth from 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 :

/ 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 applied to Solomon i Chr. 22 28 6 . 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 s5 2S 28 i K. 2 45 . 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. i26ff.

8. ]Nxn -IPIND nun-p] &lt;g B has simply IK rrjs pdt&gt;o pas rS&gt;v irpoBdruv. For
MIND some MSS. have nnsr. SNntt"" 1 ?)?] we should probably omit hy with
some MSS., &lt;&1L. 9. TE&gt;jn] 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 name. But parallels are not frequent, and it
seems simpler to suppose an expansion of the original text. Snj] should be
stricken out with Chr. B . 10. SsiC" 1 ?] read SfrOtt" with some MSS., J5.
nSi;r&gt;ja] cf. 3 s4 . 11. fcSi] read pS with &lt; B . For "|S Ew. proposes i 1 ?, and
to correspond makes ^a^N into va^N (GVI Z . 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. mn&gt; -]h nvni] is difficult. 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 "|S IJN), which
&lt;S saw to be I^-UNI, 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 Yahweh. The most plausible reading yet sug
gested seems to be Bu. s "|S TJD ^jni with omission of mn\ Even thus the hurt
seems only slightly healed, mrv at the end of the verse is corrupted from rrm
at the opening of the next verse. 12. rvm should introduce the verse as in
Chr. and (S. isSn^] isSn 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. (Comp. p. 257) and Bu. in^SttQ NCO] Chr. and &lt;5
have 1ND3. 14. The 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.
15. -noi] should be TON according to Chr., (SIJ5IL- vrvDn T#N SINS: D&gt; C
pjoSo] Chr. has simply -pjcS rvn -WHO 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; (Q moreover found T^ND although it has VTVDH.
Three stages of the text are therefore represented in Chr., (&, f^. 16. "pjSDBi]
is supposed by Prof. Briggs to be an interpolation. TJD 1 ?] cannot be right,
and should be changed to ^aS with (SJS Chr. changes the wording of the
whole verse. INDD] the conjunction is prefixed by S3L and also by @, which
however reads his throne as it does his house and his kingdom. 17. fvm]
iwi 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 : And 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 me 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. 18-29 303

his people. 23. The confused sentence seems originally to have
read : And who is like thy people Israel ; \is there] another people
in the earth which a god went to redeem for himself as a people, to
make himself 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
courage 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. 2!?n] the unusual attitude has occasioned prolix discussion on the part
of the commentators, as may be seen in Schm. p. 350 f. Tra ^DI] cf. I S.
i8 18 I Chr. 29 14 . 19. prnoS] is used of distant times in the past 2 K. I9 28 ,
here of distant times in the future. oixn mm rsn] the sentence seems to
have been unintelligible to the Chronicler, who replaces it with iiro &gt;jmNii
n*?&gt; Dn aisn, which however is equally obscure. The versions seem to have
no other text unless f (xnn) reads DNID 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 mecum agis quomodo
homines hominibus agere solent be justified by Hebrew usage. On the basis
of the reading in Chr., Ewald (GVf 8 . III. p. 180, E. Trans. III. p. 132) con
jectures the text to have been nSyn 1 ? DINH lira ^nxini, and hast made me look
upon the ranks of men onwards. But "nn 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.

3O4 2 SAMUEL

obscure. We. gets substantially the same meaning by restoring nm jtnni
DINH, 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 oS? 1 ? of his own motion (suggested by nSynn Chr.). Oettli in his com
mentary on Chr. suggests DIN mina &gt;jn&gt;N-n, und siehst mich an so giitig ah
warest du meinesgleichen. But would this Hebrew sentence express this
meaning ? I suspect that the corruption is beyond cure, but that ^mrn is a
part of the original and that it was followed by -INP, possibly with the suffix;
and hast shown me thy beauty Lord Yahweh would be appropriate in the con
text, and ons may be erroneous duplication of the following &gt;JIN. 21. laira
on] TUJ? naya Chr. : 5*et T\&gt;V 5ov\6v o-ou &lt;J| B . The originality of -pay seems
established, and Nestle (Marginalien, p. 16) restores man "pay naaS follow-
ing an indication given by Chr. in the verse preceding. nSvun] as shown by
Dr., the word does not fit in the present position, and I have adopted his trans
position (from Reifmann). 22. nV"U p Sp] eVeei/ rot/ fj.ya\v6ijvai &lt;re @ L
joined with the preceding verse. The reading of @ L is at least equally good.
D^N mn&gt;] Kfyje, Kvpif pov &lt;g points to mm ^-w which we find elsewhere
in this chapter. 23. SK-US"O] SN-ISS Chr. . The 3 comes from the end of
the preceding words, ZA TW. VI. p. 212. nns] &\\o @ evidently -inn. For
laSn Chr. has "|Sn confirmed by the following ^ and also by @ B . (S L on the
other hand has carried through an emendation reading roSi and -ft. or*]
oy Chr. @ and &. Di^Si] oi^S Chr. &lt;S. iS] ^S Chr. and (S. DaS nw^i]
omitted by Chr. naS] pnS & with which agrees 3L, whereas & renders v.
For n rnjn read niSnj with Chr. ixisS] wib Chr. and @. *]oy] although
the authorities agree, must be changed to TO; . 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. vnSto] 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 : iS nnB 1 ? DTI^N *]S n w* P* "&gt;nN iu StOE IDPD ci
vnSm -"iJ my -OQD enjS nwiui mVnj onV nwj^Ji o i 1 ? oitr 1 ? oy 1 ?. 24. -]S piani]
|nm Chr. 25. ntpjn] B seems to have read nnyi, joining the clause to the
following verse. 26. B omits from nDN 1 ?. It looks as if the verse had been
expanded, for the first half is optative while paj rvrv 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. nnioa] is lack
ing in ( B . laV-nit] is absent from Chr. The phrase aS~nN NXD seems to
occur nowhere else. 29. "pai SNIH] with coordination of the verbs, instead
of subordination of the second, the construction found in I S. I2 22 and in the
parallel to the present passage, i Chr. I7 27 . Cf. Davidson, Syntax, 83.

VIII. 1-18. David s wars. David conquers in succession the
Philistines, Moab, Zobah, Damascus, and Edom. The brief

vin. 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 them} Dt. g s Jd. 4^,
cf. Jd. 3 30 . 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. And he smote Moab and measured them off
with a line making them 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 4 . This writer
seems to have no knowledge of David s obligation to Moab, as
indicated in i S. 22 3 . 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. i4 47 i K. n 23 . Accord
ing to 2 S. io 6 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 12 . 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 twenty 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 of 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. i4 26 .
8. And from Tibhath and from J3erothai~\ 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. 7 .

1. nDNn j&gt;nc~nN] 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, rvnjai nj JIN 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 :
7-V o.&lt;po}pi&lt;rp.fvT]v @, possibly reading cnjnn or Vvun; rbv xaXivkv rov vtipayw-
yiov Aq. points to the text we have : T^V Qovfflav rov &lt;f&gt;6pov Sym. is the origi
nal of frenum tributi (?DDH JPD) It: NHDN ppn @T represents the tradition
known to Aq. : NDJ ncn & 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 ON
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 the Philistine cities which had a king
was Gath.

viii. 5-s 307

metropolis, in which he is followed by Dr., while Bu. leaves a blank in his
text. 2. ^ana] is put in the plural by B . aan] on the use of the ad
verbial infinitive cf. Davidson, Syntax, 87. Sann NSm] the contents of ont
line : &lt;& gives the proportion two and two, and It gives it 0&lt; and one.
3. "\T&gt;mn] Chr. has "\Tjmn and Afymoa/&gt;. Some MSS. have the same form
in this chapter. The name is evidently similar to -VJ^N, ni^ax, and nryr, and
the first element is the name of the god Hadad. That it is Hadad and not
Hadar seems evident from the names Benhadad I K. I5 18 , and Hadadrimmon
Zech. I2 11 , as well as from the Aramaic and Assyrian parallels. Cf. BDB.
and reff., especially Baethgen, Beitr dge zur Semit. Religionsgeschichte, p. 67 ff .,
also Schrader COT. p. 190 f. The god Hadad (Addu) is met in the Tell-el-
Amarna Tablets (Winckler, 149" I5O 7 ), in Arabia (We, Skizzen, III. p. 51),
and apparently in Edom, Gen. 36 s6 . am] Pao ( Pacty&gt;) reminds us of
Rahab, Jos. 2 1 and rvarn, I Chr. 23 17 . na] 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. w a&gt;^n 1 ?] 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 (38 12 ) 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. ^vtffr^ffai does not imply that
the translators read a- xnV with Chr., cf. Is. i 26 @. nrua] is sufficiently explicit
without the addition of ma (Qre, Chr. and &lt;S). 4. o^sna niND j. att ) tjSx]
as the chariots are alluded to immediately after, it is probable that they were
mentioned here. Chr. and @ agree in o^cna D^N nyattn a:n ^Sx, 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, npy 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. DOXJ] cf. I S. I3 3 .
7. ^toSip] x\ib(avas &lt;& 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 &lt;g with the D JJD of I K. I4 26 would favour shields. In Ez. 27"
the same word is rendered by quivers which Symmachus has in the present
text, whereas Aquila has here collars, cf. Field s note, Hexap. Origenis, I.
p. 558. VN] read ty. oStPw] + /cal eAajSej/ aura 2ou&lt;rctKefyi 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 &lt;J|, and is probably not original. 8. naao]
Chr. nnuao : &lt;5i L MorejSctK (of which @ B Ma&lt;raK is probably a corruption)
seems to confirm the reading of Chr. &gt;mani] pDDi Chr. : Kal K rG&gt;v e/cAcKToiv
@ perhaps reading mnaoi. The name here reminds us of Beirut. -INC]
-f "ui O -nN noSv HP? na Chr., contained also substantially in @ and I. The
interest of the Chronicler in all things that pertain to the Temple accounts for

3O8 2 SAMUEL

his insertion of the sentence, and it has probably 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 and to congratulate him~] for his suc
cess, for Hadadezer had been an enemy of Tou~\ 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. From
Edom] is probably to be read. The other countries named in
the verse we have already met.

9. &gt;i?n] with Chr. we should probably read i&gt;*n : ( B ovov, Thou 21; but
0ae &lt;5 AL . 10. o~\r] in which the first element might be the name of
Yahweh. Chr.. however has ainn and G leSSovpdv which confirms Chr. to a
certain extent, for @ B has iSovpad/j. in Chr. ij?n niDnSn I^N] cf. "jriDnVo V ^JN
Is. 4i 12 (Ezek. 27 10 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. D-IND] DVWD Chr. and (55 besides n MSS. 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 t in the Valley of Salt~\
the location is brought into connexion with Edom again in 2 K.
i4 7 Ps. 6o 2 . 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. iniDHD WBO] but the reputation was not made on his return but by the
smiting. &lt; connects DIP in ipyi with what precedes and then goes on : KO!
4v r$ &va.KaniTTtiv avrbv ^Trdra^ev = ron ntt ai. The difficulty in supposing
this to be original arises from the simplicity of ron which could hardly be cor-

VIII. 9-i8 309

rupted into iniDPin. I suspect therefore that we should read

Others have conjectured that a clause has fallen out after DIN. Gratz ( Gesch,

I. p. 255) makes a conflate text from this and the Chronicler. Th. inserts
om ns T 1 which is adopted by Erdm. and Keil, cf. also Kohler {Gesch. A7\

II. p. 288) who calls this the common hypothesis. We. adopts the reading of
. D^N] read onx with Chr. @j, 6 MSS. of J.

15-18. The administration. David himself acted as chief
executive and constantly administered 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. And Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over
the Cherethites and the Pelethites~\ that is, the body-guard. And
David s sons were priests ] there seems no reason to change the
plain meaning of the word.

16. n^Ts] on the meaning of the word cf. Jacob, " Beitrage zu finer Ein-
leitung in die Psalmen," ZATW. 1897, P- 76. 17. pnx is called here -p
31BTIN. 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 -\nox~p iSn riN which however seems
necessary, for Abiathar acted as priest until the reign of Solomon. -jSn riK]
iSnoN Chr. is perhaps based on the difficulty just noted. nno] Ao-o @ B :
Sopeuaj L : *O2&gt; 2O 25 (where we find "lijtrovs @ B : 2ot&gt;rra @ L ) : N:ria&gt; I Chr.
i8 16 . The reading Ntrity accounts most naturally for all the variations. Per
haps we should make the next word ncion. 18. Ti-oni] read with the paral
lel THUD hy. &lt; in order to make sense inserts ffv/u.&ov\os. The endeavour to
retain the received text, by taking i in the sense of ay (Kimchi, Schm.), is
unsuccessful. The Cherethites are known to us as Philistines from i S. 3O 14 .
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. II, 8. The Rabbinical expositors show their
lack of historical sense when they find here the Sanhedrim or the Urim and

3IO 2 SAMUEL

Thummim (Isaaki and Kimchi cite this from our JRabbis 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. 3O 14 Ezek. 25 16
Zeph. 2 5 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. D^ro] 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 Y?on T&gt;V D jPNnn. Cf. also auAopxai &lt;&gt;. But 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* : // came to pass when David was estab
lished in his house, that he said : Is there left of the house of Saul
any to whom I may show kindness 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
servant 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 man 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. 2O 14 . 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 Ammiel, in Lo-Debar\ a man
of wealth and prominence, as we gather from \f. The place was

IX. i-i3 3"

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 : I will restore to thee all the land 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 shalt 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 2I 1 14 , 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 obligation towards Jonathan.
At first view this seems natural, and the impression is strengthened by the fact
that we have an unusual p nn at the end of 2i 14 which is easily made
?a .IN I.-IM and appropriately introduces 9*. 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 2i 7
which otherwise seems entirely in place. Finally, it is difficult to see how
2J1-14 jf ft W ere 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 9 1 following immediately on
(i 23 . 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, imaa Y?nn w&lt; 13 irm once formed the introduction to the present sec
tion. 2. Top] it is not necessary to add the pronoun, as is done by @ B .

3. DTI^N non] cf. mn&gt; ion I S. 2O 14 . It is difficult to suppose the meaning to
be kindness such as God shows. More probably, it is the kindness imposed by
God in the obligation of the oath. At the end of this verse, Bu. inserts 4 4b
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. nsn V?] AaSa&dp &lt;, is called in ly 27 nan N %L &gt; and (as it appears) in Jos.
I3 26 is called nanV. 6. na^sc] 4*. The mutilation of the name has been
already commented on. imi] in (5 L placed before SB^. 8. ^jnSiy] i S.
20 29 cf. Jud. i 7 and Moore s note. 10. TJix-pS] * r ^ O^KOV rov Kvpiov
ffov @ L is an attractive emendation; with it goes KO! &lt;pdyovrai for iSa$o. 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 nira- flDi is entirely unintelligible as a part of Ziba s response to the king.
The change of jnStt to mensam tuam made by some MSS. of 3L 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 &lt;5i AB eVi rrjs
rpairf&s AauelS (roO jSaajAeW ( L ), 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. N^S] the spelling makes it difficult to
suppose the name contracted from irva^c. It seems to be of the same form
with to&gt;x v. 2 , cf. also Nn&gt;]7 2O 26 . Jastrow (JBL. XIII. p. 112) cites Jerome s
suggestion that the name signifies humilitas, from -pr. 13. n ^na noo xini]
the fact that we have a change from D -Sjn roj of v. 3 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 3i3

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. Nahash, king of the Children of Ammon,
is the same we have met above, iS.ii 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 : Dost 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 messengers 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 two 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. fiDj? ^3 I^D] the Chronicler prefixes e&gt;nj which we should certainly
expect at the beginning of the account. Chr. (ig 1 ) on the other hand omits
fun. It seems to me the name is required in both cases. &lt; however has the
same text with ffi. 2. V^N-^N] ION hy Chr. is more in accord with usage,
cf. Jer. i6 7 . 3. Is David honouring thy father in thine eyes ?~\ the meaning
is : Does it seem to thee that David is doing this for his alleged purpose ? On
the participle, Dr. Tensed, 135, 4. vjn~ ; ~ IN "V n ""3&gt;3] 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. Dn&gt;niniy~i&gt;j] the shameful nakedness of captives is described in the
term nt^ ^wn Is. 20*. 5. nnaisn] 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. i3 21 , near Dan
Jd. iS 28 . Zobah is known to us from 8 3 . 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 14 Jos.
13". Tob is probably the country mentioned in Jd. n 3 , 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 in 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 : And Joab returned from the Ammonites
and came to Jerusalem} marks the close of this campaign.

6. 1112 waj] cf. i S. I3 6 . i Chr. i9 6 substitutes -pn oy i^Nann. Moore
(Judges, p. 399) conjecturally identifies Beth Rehob with Paneas. The fact
that Hadadezer is mentioned in v. 16 without any introduction favours Budde s
theory (RS. p. 250) that he was originally named in this verse, and further
probability is given by the mention of the king of Maacah. aito] can hardly
be Taiyyibeh in Gilead (GASmith and Buhl). The small number of troops
sent from Maacah leads We. to suppose B"N tpx to be an interpolation and
he thus gets the king of Maacah and 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. 8 is decidedly
against it. 7. onajn NasrrSa] 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 ana,}. Chr. has omajn *ox Ss which is evidently intended
for all the army of heroes, though the punctuators perversely read N3V. &lt;&gt; L also
has iraaav TT\V ffrpanav r&v Swarwv with which agree JJdL. I suspect how
ever that either Nasn or Dnajn is a later insertion. Gratz conjectures xasn
onajm. The subsequent account shows that more than the standing army
was engaged. 8. ij72n nns] "vj?n nno Chr. &lt;SI L . Such substitutions are not
uncommon. 9. Wva mra] the construct before a preposition undoubt
edly occurs, Davidson, Syntax, 28, R. i,but as the Chronicler has S*nt!a Tina
it seems proper to correct our text accordingly. &lt;5 L seems to point to ^a "nna
SNI^I whereas (& B renders S*O" mna. 10. ^as] here only, in Samuel.
pjri] the plural is found in Chr. and &lt; B , but is not necessary. It would
be proper in English also to say Abishai drew up before the Ammonites.
12. IJTT?N 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-

316 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 from 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 came 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 difficult to
suppose that the clause he slew seven hundred chariots is original,
though perhaps it may be justified by the analogy of 8 4 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 9 where his sovereignty is limited by the kingdom of Hamath.
They made peace with Israel] cf. Jos. io 1 - 4 .

15-19. The later insertion of the paragraph is affirmed by Winckler ( Gesch.
Israels, p. 139). More exactly, he believes that v. 19b joins directly to v. 14 .
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 Shat}, Baer, and Ginsburg have Hadadezer as
elsewhere in Samuel. aS n] rendered their army by Thenius is doubtless the
same proper name which occurs just below so &lt;&lt;&{. If Cornill is correct
in restoring the same name in Ezek. 47 16 , it was on the boundary line between
the territories of Hamath and Damascus. On the other hand, it has been
identified by Hoffmann (Phon. Inschriften, p. 39) with Aleppo (Haleb). For
*pvtf Chr. has ^oity. 17. nn^Sn] a different spelling of the name. It is
omitted by Chr. 18. .nrpi] the objects of this verb seem always to be things
that have life the vine Ps. 78 47 is no exception. The 7000 chariots of the
Chronicler are in line with some other exaggerations of his. S.*nz-nN ic^i]
as in Jos. io 1 4 , whereas Chr. substitutes D&gt;* for ns, like I K. 22 46 . The clause

X. is-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. 14 .

XL 1-5. David s sin. The author has enclosed the account
of David s sin between portions of the history of the Ammonite
war, n 1 being continued by I2 26 . 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 Amman;
cf. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, p. 356; Baedeker, Palestine 2 ,
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 arose from his siesta and
walked 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 one said : Is not this Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam~\ ac
cording to 23 s4 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, for she was
cleansed from 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. D*3H7Cn] is vocalized as though it were B*abfHl and so read by Chr.
(i Chr. 2O 1 ) and the versions. The clause is then supposed to mean eo
tempore quo solent 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 Uavid for not doing as kings (on this theory) usually do. But this

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]
made their invasion. If however we go so far, it is better to accept the Kiib
a^N*?Dn and understand at the season of the year when the messengers of David
first went forth. This interpretation was suggested by Gra tz (^ Gesch. d. Juden,
I. p. 254) and is adopted by Kl. 2. laatPD tyo] it is assumed that he usually
took an afternoon sleep. -|Snm] Gen. 3 8 . Bathsheba is called in i Chroni
cles, 3 5 , SN^D? na jwna, where the 3 has been softened into i,* and the two
elements of the name oySx 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, JBL. XIII. p. 122.
4. nnNCtOD nenpnD *oni] cannot mean and she purified herself by ablution after
coition, which would require ttnpnm. 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 fee f\
refresh thyself after thy journey. And there followed him a por
tion from the king] Gen. 43 i34 . 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 Israel 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 with my
ivife ! 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, i S. 2i 6 . 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 jniy, which we find in some other proper
names, is the original form ; notice Shua, Abishua, Elishua, and Jehoshua. These .
names seem to indicate that yw was the name of a divinity, and this would account
for the change.

XI. 6-21

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 made 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 soldiers^ egregius sane miles et constantissimus
(Schm.).

6. After 2Ni&gt;~V}&lt; @ inserts nosS perhaps correctly, though the presumption
is in favour of the shorter text. 7. ncn^Dn oiStrSi] seems a little odd. But it
shows how oV?s&gt; had taken a very wide meaning. 8. "jSnn nN&&amp;gt;c] the king s
present in this case was, no doubt, a dish from the royal table. 9. S:&gt;] lack
ing in @ B , 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. niDD] 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, I may be allowed
to refer to my Bible and Islam, p. 19. IITD: TH -pn] is tautological, and
perhaps one of the phrases is an error for mm &gt;n. 12. mncoi] is by most
recent expositors connected with what follows, in agreement with @ L . But I
cannot see the necessity. Only two nights are spoken of. The principal
meal was in the evening, as we gather from v. 8 . There is no reason why
David should not invite Uriah that day. 13. N~\,IM] continues the narrative
without pause : Uriah remained . . . and the king 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 be smitten
and die. 16. Joab, in posting the besiegers, set Uriah where he
knew there were valiant men] according to the command given.
17. A sortie was made and there fell some of the soldiers of
David, and Uriah the Hiftite 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 21a . Did not a woman throw a mill
stone upon him from the wall? cf. Jd. g 52 . Joab realizes that the
news of Uriah s death will appease the king and, according to J^,
takes no special care to disguise the fact from the messenger. @ L
has here the whole of the messenger s reply as given in 23f -, 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 commanded him, all
the news 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 field, and
we drove them back to the entrance 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 men, and also thy servant Uriah
the Hittite 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 matter displease thee,
for the sword devours thus and thus~\ so we must translate on the
ground of Jd. i8 4 i K. i4 5 . The meaning seems to be : now one
and 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, encourage 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 Schwallv, 7.ATW. 1892 153.

XI. 2I-XTI. 321

and brought her to his house, and she became his wife. Marriage
very soon after the death of a consort is common in 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.

15. lan] here apparently used like UP. But the original may have been
Nan (Kl.) : flffdyayf &lt; B . 16. iicso] not in observing the city, but in keep
ing guard over it, which was 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. "vpn-Stf] "vpn ris which is found in some MSS. seems better, but
-n-Sj? would be better still. 21. nwv] another instance of the mutilation
of a name because it contained the word Baal. L has Iepo#oaA. which
&lt;& B has corrupted to Iepoj3oo;u. mDNi] Instead of the brief reply Uriah also
is dead, @ L inserts here the whole explanation of the situation as given in
23 - 24 : the men were bold against us, etc. The case is similar to that in v. 2 2 ,
where @ inserts David s speech as Joab expected him to make it. The argu
ments for the originality of the plus 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 &lt;5 L . 22. For fuSon : 6 &yye\os Iua& irpbs rbv &a&lt;ri\ea
els lfpovffa\-fin . 3NV] ir&vra. TO /SrjyuoTa rov TTO\/J.OV. Kal ^6vfj.(a6-r] AauetS
wpbs IwajS KT\. &lt;5. The genuineness of this additional matter is recognized
by Th., We., Dr., Bu., Kl., Ki. 23. why naj] 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. an&gt;S&gt;r nv-iji] seems to mean
we drove them back : &lt;Twn\dtra/j.v &lt; L . Possibly the original reading was dif
ferent, but if so it cannot certainly be recovered. We should expect at least
. 24. *niDn INTI] confusion of N"p and JTV, cf. Ges. 26 , 75 rr.
&gt;-QJ;D] &lt;S L adds oxrei oVSpes 5ea Kal OKT(&. 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. -n^n-nx]
grammatically the nominative to yv ; but the speaker has in mind the logical
force of the phrase, in which -oin is the object of the emotion indicated in
the verb, Ges. 26 , ny/, Davidson, Syntax, 72^4. vnprm] comes in awk
wardly after the command to Joab, and is lacking in &lt;S L as well as a number
of MSS.

XII. l-15 a . 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.
Y

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 n 275 directly to i2 15b : 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 31 26 16 . 6. And he shall restore the lamb sevenfold] reading
with B .

1. PJ] @5 and 3 MSS. of |^ add NOJH. The insertion of such explicative
words is generally secondary, but at the opening of this section the word
seems necessary. After V? @ L adds: t A.irtiyyei\oi STJ /*oi r^v KP KTIV ravriji ,
which is represented also in I, whence it passed over into many MSS. of 1L.
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. trxn] another
case of irregular insertion of s. 2. "VpyS] There seems to be no reason for
this punctuation; the article is necessary to the sense, as we see from tsnSi of
the next verse. 3. n&gt;m] as in Is. y 21 . ^osn] the tense in this and the two
following verbs expresses customary action. 4. -|Sn] as We. points out, the

XII. I-H 323

parallel is close to the use of our word visit there came a visit to the rich
man. vsppn a^aoj there are cases enough of the anarthrous noun in such
a phrase to justify the punctuation. nv^S] the same verb is used of Abra
ham s preparing a calf for his guests, Gen. i8 7 . 6. DTJJJIN] firratrXaaiova
(gB ai.. r rh e change to f was made to bring David s ruling into line with the
law of theft, Ex. 2i 37 (Th.) . SorrnS -WK Sjn] Schill proposes (ZATW. XI.
p. 318) to change S to V?, making the sense: and spared his own. The
received text however seems to make fairly good sense.

7. The application : Thou art the man} 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 wives 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. 10 : 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 : I will take thy wives 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 caused 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\ the text has been
altered to avoid reading an offensive expression. 15 a . The
visit of Nathan, or rather the account of it, is concluded.

7. tt"Nn] &lt;j -ffoffjffas rovro is added by &lt;j|. nirn -iDN*n:i] Bu. supposes these
words with what follows to the word w&gt;*a in v. 9 , to be a later expansion, so
that the original connexion was : Thou 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. *piN rroviN] TO.
irdvra rov Kvpiov crov @ L : *]no PJ3 j$. It is possible that there was originally
a reference to Michal, the daughter of Saul, as is supposed by Kl. DOTN
mwi *?{O2"] as njno 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. " "on PN] probably we should read "&gt;&gt; DN with &lt;S L
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 sword, 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 "un nprn, which would be the
proper continuation of v. 9 after y^a. 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. 11 - 12 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 *" 12 as already shown. 14. rxx;
rnrp -:TN~PN] The verb nowhere means cause to blaspheme. The only sense
appropriate here is indicated by the ynra of v. 10 . The insertion of O*N was

XII. 14-24 325

made to prevent repetition of an apparently blasphemous phrase in the public
reading (Geiger, Urschrift, p. 267), cf. a similar instance I S. 25 22 .

15 b -25. The death of the child. The well-known account
needs but little comment. As already indicated, the half verse 15b
seems to have joined originally to 1 1 27 : Yahweh was displeased
with the thing which David had done, and smote the child . . .
and it became 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 and fasted strictly} the afflicting
oneself was to move the pity of Yahweh. During all the time of
the illness, he came in and lay on the earth~\ we naturally suppose
in sackcloth as ( L reads, and we naturally suppose also that it was
before Yahweh, though this is rendered doubtful by v. 20 . 17. His
courtiers, the elders of his house, stood over him 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. 24 : 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. N3i] the tense indicates his constant custom during this period.
33tt&gt;i fSi] @ B has only one of the two verbs, whereas @ L (with a number of
Greek MSS.) has /cal e /co0ei/5ei/ ei/ aaKKtp = pBa f^i. 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. TI T?\n -nays] is retained by Dr. who translates on account of the child
when alive. We. had however acutely conjectured that the original reading
was n -n":j, and this is confirmed by &lt;5 L and {, as well as by the following
verse. 22. &gt;jjrv] the correction of the Qre (&lt;jjm) is unnecessary, as re
marked by Dr. 24. opM] Nipm Qre is unnecessary. 25. iw "napa] can
hardly be correct. We must read nirv -u-o with @ L and one Hebrew edition
(Cappel, Crilica Sacra, p. 265). &gt;2L add UHN.

26-31. The account of the siege of Rabba is resumed.

26. Joab takes the water 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 my 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 unwillingness 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. roVron -PJ;] is called just below D^DH -v&gt;% which should be restored
here. Rabba itself was the royal city. On the interchange of ruVo and D&gt;D
cf. We. Cheyne conjectures DD^D -vy meaning the citadel, Ex. Times, 1898,
p. 144. 30. ooSc] 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 b:^o I K. II 5 . &lt;& has here M6\x o X M^X^A 4 *
MoAxoJM and other forms, in the various MSS., while @ L conforms to the read
ing of the punctuators. pw] Chr. has PN nai which I have adopted, as it is
confirmed by J&2T here. The received text would assert that the whole crown
was placed on David s head. 31. Dtt"i] I Chr. 2O 3 has "\CM which means he
sawed 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 . pSoa oniN noyni] is unintelligible. The Ktib is probably right in
reading pVoa. The J37D 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 "pjyn into i-oyn with Chr. So Gratz (Gesch. I. p. 256),
and Hoffmann, ZATW. II. p.

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

328 2 SAMUEL

to Absalom, was beautiful like her brother. And Amnon son
of David~\ the author so describes him to show that he was only
a half brother to Tamar. From 3 2 we learn that he was the oldest
son. 2. And Amnon 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 my sister come and give me 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. PJDX] proper names not infrequently end in p; Gideon, Abdon, Eglon,
and others are examples, cf. Konig, Lehrgcbaude, II. p. 153. 2. niSnnnS] is
used just below in the sense of 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 niSinnS = to grow weak, and Kl. SVnnn 1 ? = to
become insane. The latter is attractive. The reason given why Amnon
despaired of any attempt is that she was 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. anjv] &lt;S L calls him
Jonathan which is the name of another son of Shimeah, 2i 21 . 5. Snnm] it
is not necessary in this passage to read SSnnni (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. ig^jfor 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 5 . 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 ( L 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 16 :
And 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. Tamar 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 1 2 K. 5 8 Jer. 2 37 . 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 &lt;&, a
part having fallen out of J^. 22. Absalom, though filled with
hatred for Amnon from that time on, did not betray his feeling in
any way.

8. S^ani] the verb generally means to boil. 9. rmDn] occurs only here.
Kl. followed by Bu. proposes to read miTDrrnN &opm, and she called the
servant, cf. v. 17 . 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. ni^p] Gen. 34 7 ; the
tense indicates customary action. Sins of this kind are elsewhere called nSaj
as here. 14. D prm cf. i S. ly 50 . nnx] should be pointed HFIN: nay
3 MSS. : H*T O.VTTJS @. 16. rms-Sn] is not found elsewhere. miN hy
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 TIN *? with @ L l (We., Dr., Bu.). The presumption being thus in favour
of L we should probably adopt its further reading : ^70^.77 77 KO.K(O. r\ eVxaTrj
vircp T^V irpwrr)! , though some propose to read mnND nxrn njnri nSnj which
is a little nearer f$. 17. ima&gt;D nyrnNJ as the verb which follows is plural
it is not improbable that we should read vn&gt;*j : (5 has TO TraiSdpiov O.VTOV
TOV irpofcrrr}K6Ta TOV olxov. PNT is contemptuous and ^yo intimates that her
presence was burdensome to him. 18. The first half verse is explanatory of
the term D^D3 njro in v. 19 . It interrupts the narrative here, and is probably a
marginal gloss which has been inserted in the wrong place. oS^n] should
be o^iyo (We.). The whole verse is lacking in &. tyji is incorrect, it should
be Syn. 19. nss] for putting on the head in grief nay is more common, cf.
Ez. 27 30 . D^DDH ruro is here rendered r~Qv x ir ^&gt; va - T^I* KapirwrAv by @ B , but
these words are given as the rendering of Aq. by Theod. : r. x- T. affTpayahwrov
@ L seems to be the true reading of . Josephus combines the two : having
sleeves and reaching down to the ankles. 20. prDN which occurs nowhere
else has been conjectured to be a diminutive of contempt. The analogies in
Hebrew are so uncertain that it seems safer to assume a mere clerical error.
Kl. conjectures oj^Nn : has indeed thy brother been with thee. nrccn]
%7jpeuourra (J| B seems to omit the conjunction, &lt;J| L has a duplicate translation.
21. The verse is incomplete in |$, while has an apt conclusion: al OVK
rb irvevfia A/AVOW TOV vlov aurou, O"TI aydtra avT6v, STI ir(H#T&TOKOs avTOv

* As pointed out by Stade, TALZ. 21, 6.

XIIL 2i-3i 331

fa, adopted by Th. and others. The occasion of its omission is its beginning
with toi like the next verse. 22. It is a question whether the mention of
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* ; in Baal Hazor near Ephraim~\ the place
has been identified with some probability about 20 miles north of
Jerusalem. To the festival he invited 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 us~] 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 J^. 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. "nxn Vjn, cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 177. onsN-oy] the preposition indicates
that a place is intended and not the tribe. &lt;5J L ToQpdi/j. indicates that the first
letter should be &gt;. 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&gt; 24-27 are a i ater expansion of the account. 25. p-ifl&gt;i] I S. 28 23 (Bu.-ixon).
inr-OM] can be intended only as a termination of the interview, which is
prolonged only because Absalom modifies his request. 26. xVi] is to be
understood as in 2 K. 5 17 . Similar construction in the affirmative form (^M)
are Jd. 6 13 2 K. io 15 (We.). It is not necessary therefore to point N^V, 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 &lt; I^DH nniPDS nntPD DiSaoN iryi
(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
were 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 Amnon
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 Jf lost a sen
tence which is preserved in &lt;&gt;. Restoring it we read : The
watchman lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, much people
were coming \_on the Beth-Horon road, on the descent; and 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. 2 1 2 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. 39 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 mourned 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. 38 .
It is possible that neither conjecture has restored the original.
Absalom s mother was a daughter of Talmai, 3 3 . 39. The verse
forms the transition to what follows. Emending by (&gt; L 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. onja &gt;jnp OOXJ tnajHw] means: while all his servants stood with rent
clothes. But as pointed out by Th. (We., Dr.) this is not to the point. &lt;5 B
renders orv-ua ns ijnp vV? aoxjn majrSai which fits the rest of the verse.
32. T?on-^a] is superfluous and probably an insertion. nrun ax D"?jro
nD B&gt;] is obscure: for on the mouth of Absalom it was set his death is to be
supplied if we retain the text. But Absalom had not betrayed his intention in
speech, even if we can accept nn^ as a passive participle. It seems more
likely that nD&lt;e&gt; is a noun meaning a scowl (as argued by We., Dr.), or that it
is a corruption. Ginsburg reads noiB&gt;. Ew. proposes naotP : enmity. Even
in this case we should expect jfrSy instead of ^D Sp. According to oriental
custom Absalom would show his anger in his face, even when trying to avoid
an open quarrel. 34. DiSaoN rna^i] 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. 37 . 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 D)Sts&gt; WIN nn^. My
own conjecture is that the author wrote "i:na iij? Nim or something equivalent.
The report of the murder cannot have long preceded the coming of the
princes. O oSn] after this word, @ has preserved for us a line, also originally
ending with o-oSn which has fallen out of $?. It is restored by Th., We., Dr.,
Bu., Kl., in substantially the same form, to wit : nsxn N^I "maa O Oin -pia
D oVn o- SPjN WN-I IOKM l^D 1 ? ij^i. The second aoSn is not represented in &lt;f,
but it was probably in the original $} because without it the following ITID is
harsh, and its presence alone fully explains the error of the scribe. For -pin
inns it is evident that @ had o^in THC, &lt;gB &gt; K T ^ y ^{j T ^ s npwvf)v (Zupdtp
@ L ). 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 -iwj . . . oi^troNi and then discovered that he had
omitted "m SawnM. He inserted the omitted words, and then to get a proper
connexion repeated K* in a shortened form.* -nrpDj? Kt. is made IVPDJ? Qre,
which is favoured by &lt;. 39. iVnn nn Sam] cannot be construed. 6 L evi
dently read nScn nn Sam. For rhs in the sense to be consumed with desire,
cf. Ps. 84 3 I43 7 . It does not seem to be necessary to change PNxS (Bu. reads
nN"V?, Kl. TNtrS) 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.

*It is possible that originally David was said to mourn over both his sons the
dead and the banished.

334 2 SAMUEL

XIV. 1-11. Juab 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 wise
woman] probably one already known to him by reputation. He
directs her to play the mourner : Put on mourning garments, and
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! 5. To the king s question : What ails thee?
she replies : Verily I am a widow, and my husband 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 quarrelled 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 : The whole clan has risen
up against thy servant and say: Deliver up the smiter of his
brother, that we may 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 quench my
remaining coal so as not to leave my 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 to-uch 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. i-i S 335

the fife 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. DiVeoN Sy] the interchange of hy and SN has already been remarked.
With hy we should expect a verb; reading Ss we get a tolerable sense.
2. nppn] the location was recovered by Robinson (BR^ I. p. 486), two
hours south of Bethlehem. 4. -IDNPI] of most editions is a careless scribe s
mistake for warn, which is found in 40 MSS. of |, as in 6&3E1L. At the end
of the verse ( adds a second nytt^n, which seems original (Th.). 5. Sas]
as in I K. I 48 . 6. IDM] 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. insrrnN] T^V aSe^bv avrov ( L is attractive and perhaps
original. 7. n-PDjyji] for which & renders as though it found rretPM, is sup
ported by @ and is probably correct (We., Dr. al.). 10. intom] for nnxam,
and therefore to be read vnsoni (We.). 11. -priSx] 6&v avrov @ B . The
more difficult is to be preferred. noinn] the pointing is difficult to account
for. Kl. conjectures Nnnn, 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 thing 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 banished 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 plans 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

336 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 my 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} literally, 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 implied.
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 king 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 Joab
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. "OiDi] pointed as though a Hithpael, with assimilation of the n, Ges. 2G ,
54 c. The last clause is explanatory of PNTD (We., Dr.), which refers to the
case of the woman herself as just alleged. &lt;g L (following Theodotion) had a
different text, which however cannot be restored with certainty. 14. rnD""o
PIDJ] &lt; L makes the point more plain by rendering on TtQvnxev 6 vl6s aov,
meaning Amnon. v-x DTI^N NE^ N^I] the clause as it stands is incompre
hensible. Taken with what follows, it might be forced to mean : and God
does not take away life, but devises plans that his banished be not banished from
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 away a life before doing so and so is entirely too sweep
ing. Common observation shows that this is not his 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 v .yni for 3 ^m and, joining it with the preceding, render And God does not
take away a soul and then return it, that is : death is irrevocable. We are
then left without a connexion for what follows. B omits N^ : *al ArJM f eroi
o tftoy ^\&gt;\T]v, KO.I \oyi6/ijLei os rov eci&lt;rcu air avrov e ea&gt;&lt;r /mevov, which does not
give any help. ( L which seems to have the translation of Theodotion (Field)

xiv. i6-2 4 337

gives us : al OVK &{ cir OVT&lt; ^vx^, which connects well with what pre
cedes and no one hopes for it (? the water, some MSS. have avratv}. This
evidently substitutes orvVN or vSx for the DTI^N of | and makes C 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 -pen for ^nSsV, and
mj^ for PIT. We. objects to the phrase banish a banished one, but it does not
seem difficult. Ew. changes JttTii in the received text to 3J*in, and is followed
by We., Dr., Bu., Ki. 15. -WN] omitted by two MSS. of % is in fact
redundant. But the author is reproducing the speech of a woman of the
people. VPN 1 i?nri ] is not the usual order and ^JIN is lacking in &lt;& L .
16. C"xn] add Bp3Dn with (5 (Th. al.). DTI^N] &lt;S L {E seem to have read
nin&gt;, which is better. 17. "|nnDS&gt;] restore n^Nn with &lt;{| B , for this is evidently
the concluding part of the woman s speech. nnjD s ] a resting place, some
thing in which one may feel secure. D nVNn ixSas] we rind the same com
parison in I9 28 , where also the point is the ability to discern the right, cf. v. 20
njnS. 19. O&gt;N~DN] usually taken to be for C"~ON 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 10 . The conjecture of Perles (Analekten
zur Textkritik des Alien Testamentes, p. 30) is therefore plausible, that we
should read 3iB&gt;N, for which also J5 nvoo 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 : Behold
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. Why
Joab should have such an interest in Absalom is not apparent.
23, 24. Joab brings Absalom back, but the king commands : Let
him turn aside to his own house, and my face he shall not see~\ the
return was therefore not a restoration to the favour of the king.

21. ^ruc j?] the Qre in some editions is P V &lt;2 J? and so 20 codd. in DeRossi.
But the best editions point according to the consonantal text. 22. rr-] the
Qre perversely commands "pap, 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 i8 18 , and the whole breaks the connexion of the narra

tive. There seems no reason however to put the paragraph at a

338 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 6 . 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 y 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 18 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. nrp is omitted by B , and Ss by &lt; L , while % omits both. As the
shorter text has the presumption in its favour and as SVnS "?Nwa C^N gives a
perfectly good sense we should probably read so, throwing out both the
inserted words. SVnS] in the sense to be praised is good Hebrew, cf. Dav.
Syntax 93. however may have found ssnc, which it read SSnc. 26. On
the construction see Dr. Notes. For 200 shekels, Th., followed by Koehler
(Bibl. Gesch. des A. T, II. p. 345), conjectures twenty; &lt;5 L has 100. 27. inn]
Moaxci 5 L l (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. 2 5 -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)
(1 insert : And the servants of Joab came to him 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. rrnxim] for which the Qre commands rnrnxm. The form rvxvi seems
to occur nowhere else, so that the Ktib here is most easily accounted for by
supposing it to be the blunder of a scribe, cf. Ges. 23 71. The insertion of
&lt;5l 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 Amnon 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 him\ 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 before the king for judgment Absalom 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 one would make
me judge in the land, and to me should come every man who has a
case, and I would give him justice ! 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 man 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. 3I 20 .

1. vjsS o^3n] such runners formed a part of royal state in very early times,
and have continued to the present in the East. 2. irnxrrSD] should probably
be ti"N Ss: vas av-hp @. 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. ^D8"~ ] cf. the expression p"~^ also expressing
a wish, Jer. 8 28 . Bo^ni] is lacking in L 3L. 6. uVns N 3jvi] cannot
mean he -won their affection, but must be interpreted by the similar phrase,
Gen. 3i 20 , 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. 3D 1 ? and aS, and especially Delitzsch, System dtr Bibl.
(1861), p. 248 f. where the parallels are cited.

XV. I-I5

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 20 " 22 (E), and
like that, this vow calls for personal appearance before God with
sacrifice, Gen. 35 1 " 7 . 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
of Israel, saying: When you hear the sound of the trumpet, then
say: Absalom has become king in Hebron. 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 men 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 families 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 strong and the
people with Absalom kept increasing in number.

7. njtr o^mx] 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 the forty to four, which is favoured by &lt;S L , Josephus, Theod.,
and, if we may judge from the MSS. of It, also by I. 8. 3^" ] is erroneous
duplication of the verb which follows. The punctuators try to make the best
of it by reading 3ia", which however cannot be the adverbial infinitive of 3V- .
For the latter, which is read by @, we must restore 3rn or air (Th. al.). At
the end of the verse &lt;5I L adds &lt;?V Xeftpuv, 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. p 7jno] generally spies, but here a
little broader in meaning. 11. -Q-rSa ij?-p xSi] a strong expression they
did not know anything of the matter. 12. N~n DI^ON nSii"!] it is evident
that this is wrong. The only emendation suggested by the versions is to read
3N mpM or *npM as n^i which are supported by various Greek Codices;
or else to insert inxiri with j$. 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. vjS Jin] from nSvj like
/N*n from n^tr. Gilo is enumerated among the towns of the hill country
of Judah. It is not yet certainly identified, but a Beit Jala and a Jala 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
Absalom} 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 &lt; L 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 him] literally, at his feet. The only exception
was ten concubines who were left in charge of the house.

xv. 12-22 343

14. inn ?o] fji^i &lt;f&gt;6d&lt;rri o \a6s &lt;5 L . 15. "p^P njn] is sustained by ,

though we rather look for a verb; & adds ptap.

17, 18. The text has suffered, but we are able to make out that
the 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 Philistine 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 wander 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; when I am going where I am going; David himself did
not know where, cf. i S. 23 13 . 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 for 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. Dj?n] two codd. have voy and this is also the reading of ( B . The
original seems to be ^ which means the people of the household. pmnn no]
the house of Distance might possibly be the furthest house from the centre

* Which is Thenius hypothesis, retained by Lohr, Tk s , p. 172,

344 2 SAMUEL

of the city. But this is precarious. The reading of &lt;S seems to have been
-a-ion nn, which however has been corrected in the chief MSS., cf. Field,
Hex. Orig. I. p. 569. 18. The text of &lt;S has suffered by conflation but its
fulness does not help to restore the true reading. The difficulty with $f 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 WXUfVai therefore, Bu.
with Kl., Ki., following a hint of We., proposes to read run ^nx &gt;&&amp;gt; JN ^31.
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. (GVI*. III. p. 243, E. Tr. III. p. 179) changes o^njn into
onajn which does not relieve the sudden introduction of Ittai in the next verse.

19. -pipcS] might perhaps stand : an exile as to thy place ; but the versions
seem to have read -]Dipsc, &lt;5J51L and one Hebr. cod., whereas & inserts Srx.

20. &lt;S B has a double translation of the opening part of the verse. One
part of this seems to have read with the interrogative PN3 Sinnn. *]jnjN A7.,
is doubtless to be corrected to the Qre. : H^JN, unless we go further and read
TVJN. At the end of the verse PENT "ton are unattached and we should doubt
less insert with (& ~\oy 7\vy* mm which fell out after the preceding -JDJ? (Th.).
21. DN o is not in place, nor is the ON 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. ^tan] cf. Ex. io 10 . &lt;& L
inserts the fang here 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 king 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 tlie 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 :
If I find favour in the eyes of Yahweh, he will bring me back and

XV. 23-30 345

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 Snja -aj? 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 *?ma ncj? 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 onap opn-Sa). Again, for ^o Sy we should
read r jo *y with &lt;S L , and finally nanorrnK TH is an impossible expression and
must have been n:nnn nv "pi : Kara rV o$bv TTJS f \aias rris ev TTJ e p^/iqp G L
probably represents this, and it is not necessary to reconstruct literally -pi
lanca IJPN nvn as is done by Dr., Bu. 24. IPN o^V?n S^i] 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 &lt;&. D^n^NnJ Kvpiov @ B which also adds anl&gt; BaiBap
which if original can only represent inos. The verb )p3M is probably for
XP:PI. The enigmatical -IH-ON ^yi 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 &lt;& L , they
are probably due to an attempt to readmit the displaced Abiathar into the
text. 25. -vpn] &lt;& L adds icpna 32") adopted by Bu. But it is not necessary
to the sense, and insertion is more likely than omission. ijioni] o^o/nat @ L .
27. nNnn] is obscure. It is taken by Ew. as an address to Zadok, as if he
were a seer, which does not appear to be the fact. &lt; B reads INI which is sus
picious from its recurrence at the beginning of v. 28 . We. supposes an insertion
8&gt;Nin pm which has been corrupted into the present text. It is impossible to
decide with certainty. For nutp, I am inclined to read y& (the participle)
the n having come from the following word. 28. -annn nnDjJs] is probably
correct. The Qre substitutes on nianya which is tautological. &lt;5 L finds a
reference to the same Wilderness Olive mentioned above. 29. )au&gt;M] prob
ably atpM (S B , 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 : Turn 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 coming 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 shalt be a burden to me ; but if thou return to the
city and say to Absalom : I am thy servant, O king . . . then thou
canst bring to nought for me 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 servant was I formerly,
and now 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 gone
away and the king thy father has gone away after \_them\ ; 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. 28 . 37. As a
result of this advice, Hushai returns to the city, reaching it about
the time of Absalom s arrival.

30. 1:^*0 BS icn] we find oo&o ion in Jer. 14* where als.o it is a sign of
grief. 31. nni] read inSi with &lt;g L and 3 MSS. of f. It is unnecessary
however to change the verb to Tn (Bu.). 32. "OiNn] 6 apxieraipos Aauei 5 @
as in i6 16 . The original ( was 6 Apx^ eratpoj Aaue(5, 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. I6 2
between Luz and Ataroth. 34. The difficulties with the received text in the
middle of the verse are these : rpns is in an unusual position and separated
by -(Sen from its subject -ON; both &gt;JNI have the i of the apodosis which is
certainly extreme (Dr.) ; and the clause "pay "JNI repeats the first. At the
opening we should expect a salutation of the king. &lt;S has (with slight varia
tions) : Sif\ri\vda(Tiv ol o.8e\(pol trov, Hal 6 $ct&lt;ri\eis Ka.r6in(TQfV /*ov Hit\"f)\v9fv
6 woiTrip ffov to which it adds the reading of ^ in a second translation, only

XV. 3I-XVI. 6 347

rendering r^nx by ta.a6v pe fitrai. It is not impossible that the original had
some such reference as this : thy brother has passed away, and the king tJiy
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 &lt; L . At the end of this verse &lt;5 L inserts
a repetition of what Hushai was expected to say to Absalom. 37. n;n] the
pointing is unusual, cf. Ges. 23 93 //. &O ] 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 18 . The two hundred
fruits were probably figs, Am. 8 1 . 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. "ex] Kl. conjectures IDJJI, and in fact two asses seem insufficient for the
occasion. pp] is translated by &lt;J| B &lt;f&gt;oiviKfs, but by @ L tra\dQa.i\ the other
versions seem to favour the latter. 2. DnSnSi A?. / onSni Qre. The latter
seems to be correct. 3. nwSoo] as indicated above (on I S. I5 28 ) probably
a false spelling of naSno. 4. winrwn] / 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 16 . It seems to have been on distinctly Benjamite terri
tory. There came out a man of the clan of Saul whose name was
Shimei son of Gera, cursing as he came. 6. His hostility was

34$ 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 8 . 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 who came from my bowels seeks my life, how much
more this Benjamite~\ is excusable. 12. Perchance Yahweh will
look upon my affliction and repay me good for his cursing this day\
Nestle (Marginalien, p. 18) compares the Qoran (68 32 ), 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 dusf\ 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. X3i] is the wrong tense, and should be corrected to N3M, so apparently
45. We should however expect the order N3 "in cn\ Shimei is the name of
several men in the history of Israel. The Benjamite clan Gera is mentioned
Gen. 46 21 Jd. 3 16 . 6. iSsDiyni IJ^D] as the Benjamites are elsewhere rep
resented as ambidextrous (Jd. 2O 16 ) one is tempted to make this describe
Shimei as throwing with his right hand and with his left. But in usage pC^D
almost always means at the right hand of a person or a thing. 8. "jnjna *prn]
oi e5ei|e trot T^V Kaniav &lt;rov L is probably only a free translation, though it
may possibly imply injn -jsini. 10. SSp&gt; ^] the Qre S*?p&gt; ro does not seem
to help. It is awkward to join with what follows : when he curses and -when
Yahweh says : curse. I suspect that Kl. is right in reading here as below,
favoured also by 15, V?pM V? wjn : let hint curse ! When Yahweh has said,
etc. "01] o Qre, 11. The verse is supposed by Kl. to be a paraphrase of

xvi. 6-i 9 349

the preceding. There seems no reason, however, why the king may not have
made more than one remark on the same subject. 12. Ji&gt;o] is doubtless
for "jpa. Rabbinical subtlety sees here one of the Tiqqune Sopherim, sup
posing the original reading to have been ir&gt;*a : with his eye, which was changed
to avoid anthropomorphism (Geiger, Urschrift, p. 325). The Qre reads ^jra
which is intended to mean upon my tears. But such a meaning for fp is with
out parallel. jn;3 with the genitive of the object, the sin committed against
me, is contrary to analogy. tn^p] is the reading of Baer and Ginsburg,
whereas the majority of printed editions have \iV?p in the text, with inS^p Qre.

13. SSpM iiSn] is not the usual form of such a phrase, and it is possible
that -jiSn is an erroneous insertion; it is lacking in J5. incj?S] the second
time is awkward : e ir\a.yiwv avrov &lt;S B : cV avr6v 6 L &lt;& may be conjectural
renderings only, but show the difficulty of the word. 14. D D"y] we expect
the name of the place, and it is possible that VQiy represents such a name;
otherwise one has dropped out : irapa rbv lopSdvrjv &lt; L looks like a conjecture.
In I5 28 David expects to lodge at the -onsn nnay, and in ly 16 we find him at
what is intended to be the same place. Possibly this name once stood here.

IPflJM] cf. Ex. 23 12 .

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 the men of Israel made
his train. 16. And when Hushai the Arkite, the friend of David,
came to Absalom and said : Long live the king, Absalom said: Is
this thy friendship 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 and all Isr lei
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 son ?~\ 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. -BM tt"N Dj?n-Sai] al vas avfy Icrpa^A . The latter seems original.
16. iSnn TT] is given only once in &lt;S. The apodosis seems to begin with
v. 17 . 18. N 1 ?] the second time is corrected by the Qre to V?, which is essen
tial. nrn opm] refers to the people there present: KO.\ 6 Aa&y avrov @ L 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 will 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. The 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 which he counselled in those days was as
though one inquired of the word of God.

20. osS ran] addressed to the whole circle of counsellors. 21. SN NO]
frequently used of the consummation of marriage. nx ntrsoj] the combina
tion occurs nowhere else, and it is possible that the Hiphil was originally writ
ten : Karpffxvvas r~bv irarfpa aov @. 22. SriNn] cf. the non of the bridegroom,
Ps. IQ 6 ; also WRSmith, Kinship, p. 168 f.; Wellh., Muhammed in Medina,
p. 178. 23. The Qre bids insert tr&gt;N after SKB, which is certainly smoother.

XVII. 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

XVT. -0.-XVTT. n 351

into a panic t and all the people with him will flee and I will smite
the king alone. The picture drawn has a good deal of probability.
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
&lt;& 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 we carry out his word? If nof, 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. (B&gt; 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 likely 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 in one of the places ] an
indefinite word is chosen, in order to suggest that a great variety
of such places exists and when some 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 likely 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, with thy Majesty marching 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 : We 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, until 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 Absalom ] hence the blindness of Absalom to his
real interest. .

1. srmmx is followed by the dative of advantage here as elsewhere
according to : e/iaury. i5Pjro s .)S&gt;] the 5eo x ^a^ay of &lt;S L seems more
natural to us, but is suspicious for that very reason. 2. Ti-nnm] of throwing
into a panic (stampede) by a sudden attack, Jd. 8 12 . 3. C ^NH SIDH aitto
D nnx \&&amp;gt;N] is unintelligible, as any one may see in the attempt of the AV,
adopted without remark by the Revisers. &lt;S had a different text, which since
Ew. (GVI*. III. p. 247, E. Trans. III. p. 183) has been generally adopted in
the form : trpao nnN iriN B"N IN n^xS nSon aia D. 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 (ZATW. XII.
p. 52) proposes "ui C ^Nn niann ^\2?3, which also gives a fairly good sense, but
does not explain the origin of &lt;&. SD] read *?3) with &lt;5. 5. Nip] read wip
&lt;S. Nirroj] 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, cf. Dr. Notes. For PN~DN L has % iru&gt;s. Probably we should
read J^N ONI, the i having fallen out after nan. 8. mao] &lt;S B adds : al us
Is T/mx?a *v rf TreSfy. The fierceness of wild swine is sufficient to justify

xvii. n-19 353

this comparison (cf. Nestle, Marginalien, p. 18), but as the comparison is
nowhere else actually made in the Old Testament, the presumption is against
it here. D/rms] the point seems to be that David will arrange the camp so
that his own person will be guarded from surprise. 9. nn^ njm] seems not
to be hypothetical : and suppose now that he is hidden (Kl.),