Skip to main content

Full text of "Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 




























Wn 'ren rm ivn »3 iin 



BuVAiD Tnoueiui. Rxvnv, i< 







CHART: TT)^ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT— At thb Emd ot ibb Voltjmb 




I •:.... 

The present state of knowledge and critical t^iinion regardifig-lnHh 
the " ephod " and the " bA. " of our Old Testament is eztremety;-' 
unsatisfactory. •'.-'; 

The so-called "ark <rf the Covenant" is still wrapped in mystery. 
Whatwasit? Where did it come from ? Where did it go to ? The 
later Deuteronomistic diaskeuasts * and the Priestly source of the 
Pentateuch * do indeed pretend to tell us what it was and where it 
came from; but critics very properly reject thdr statements as im- 
historical. Yet while the Priestly "tabernacle" has long since been 
consigned to the limbo of imaginary institutions which never in fact 
eadated, the ark refuses to be dealt with so summarily. For the most 
ancient historical records in the Old Testamoit bear unimpeachable 
witness to the existence of such an object at the very b^inning of 
the Israelitish monarchy.* On the other hand, when once the poat- 
exiUc statements have been discarded, the greatest divergence of 
opinion prevails as to what the object so designated actually was, 
whether in respect to its form or its function, — to say nothing of 
the remoter questions of its origin and ultimate fate. 

The word |nK is plain Hebrew for box. It is used of the coffin in 
which the remains of Josq)h were carried from Egypt to Canaan,* 
and of the coUection-boz which stood in the temple at Jerusalem to 

> Deut. TO, 1-5; I King! 8, 9 ai. Tbe diaikeuutic duuacter of i Kings 8, g 11 is 
obtnuive. Hk Mine is true of tlie lefennces to the uk in Dmt. 10, i-y. vent ib is 
obviously interpolated between tk ind 3; jfta (and with it doubttesi the lut two 
words of verse 1) befne jtip; and verse 5 before vene 10. llieae pamges, it b need- 
lees to say, are in BO way suiq>orted by DeuL 31, at. 

• Ex. as, loff; 37, 1 ff; cf. 31, 18. 

■ I Sam. 4-7; a Sam. 6; 11, 11; 15, i4ff; i Kings a, a6. 

* Geo. so, a6i d. Ex. 13, 19. 



receive the money contijIjWions of the people for the repairs of the 
sacred edifice.' _ ■-. V 

But if the ark Vf1t»,ik 'the Israelites carried into battle ^^ainst the 
Philistines, and'JJavid later removed to his sanctuary at Jerusalem, 
was a box, wfl^^'did it contain ? For of course a box, qua box, must 
contain, soiiiething.* However closely another utensil — whether a 
stoolj'.fi chair, or a couch — might resemble a box in shape and 
appQ^tance, it would scarcely be called a " box " in andent times, 
■.-ftn^ more than we should speak of such an object as a " receptacle." * 
.'.*>. "Some are accordingly of the opinion that the ark ccoitained a meteo- 
•■., ' rite or other saaed stone, transported in pre-historic times from the 
desert or perhaps from Sinai-Horeb. Others think it may have con- 
tained an idol or image of Yahwe. Still others suggest one or two 
aniconic ston^ employed for purposes of divination, which may 
have furnished the cue for the later fiction of two tables of stone in- 
scribed with the commandments declarative of the divine will. One 
writer seriously proposes the brazen serpent made by Moses.* 
The only point upon which critics are very generally ^;reed is that 
the ark did not contain the Decalogue engraved on two tables of 
^ stone, as r^resented by P and the Deuteronomists. 

Just now, however, it is the fashion to deny that the ark was a 
box at all, except perhaps as to its shape. It was a throne, carried 
about on military expeditions or deposited in the principal sanctu- 
ary, with possibly a purely imaginary Yahwe conceived as seated 
upon it. So Dibelius, who has written the most elaborate mono- 

I 1 Kings 13, lo f; i Chron. 34, 8 10 f. In recent dmea KHp!} ITIK has been lued 
in the synagogue to designate the press or shiine in which the nrils of Holy Scripture 
are deposited, llus usage was unknown to the early centuries of our cmi v. Jeteiik 
Emydoptdia, n, pp. 108 f. 

■ The view that the aik waa a mere ben, which contained nothing, is actually put 
forward by Kittel, GeschkhU da Valies IsraeP, I, p. 543; d. also Schwally, StmilitOe 
KHegsaUtrUimer, I, p. 10. 

* This is the common sense view of the matter, in ^ite of all the cases of secondary 
meaning (wliich might be multqilied a hundredfold) adduced by Meinhold {Stadien 
und KrMtta, LXXIV, igoi, pp. 593 ff) to justify the opuiion that the aik was a chair 
called a " box." 
' ' Eennett, Eneydopaedia of Rdigiim and Etkics, I, p. 793. 



graph on the ark.' But for an extreme example of the sort of thing 
now bang printed upon this subject, we must dte Hugo Gressmann. 
In that farrago of twentieth-caitury midrash coverii^ five hundred 
pages and entitled Mose und seme Zeit,* which is already quoted as 
authority for facts by some Old Testament students, Gressmann 
represents the ark as the original throne (that is, boz-sbiq>ed stool) 
of Yahwe and his most sacred symbol, which, at the urgent entreaty 
of Moses, Jethro the Midianite obligingly brought tiom the mother 
sanctuary of Sinai to Eadesh and bestowed upon the Israelites. 
Invisibly seated upon this vacant stool, Yahwe thereafter rode before 
his new-found people, their guide in the joumeyings through the 
wilderness and their palladium in the day of battle.* This is the 
actual history of the ark. The Israelitish tradition concerning 
it went much further. One form of that tradition related how the 
sacred stool had been wrenched from Yahwe's own hands by Moses 
in a mighty tussle on the top of Moimt Sinai (tuentibtts kircis, we 
may suppose) . And with this indispensable object in his possession, 
Moses forced the helpless Yahwe to accompany the Children of 
Israel.^ But the learned author knows that this is not the only 
form of the tradition which was not handed down. So much for 
the ark. 

As regards the ephod, our plight is even worse. Here we puffer 
not merely from ignorance, which tempts to unbridled exploits of the 
imagination, but from more or less definite data which ore mutually 

The ephod was — perh^s among other things, but certainly — 
an aproA or Unndoth ' assumed by laymen as well as by priests when 
engaged in solemn religious exercises. The boy Samuel wore an 

* Die Lade JaJitef. GOtdngen, 1906. ' L. c, pp. 440, 449; d. pp. 355 8, 353 f. 

■ Gfltdngen, 1913. ' Ibid., pp. 330 f. 

' Etymologically IIBK (uulogoua in foim to "^SW , girdle) probably signifies " that 
which b worn in front "; cf. Aratuc 'afada and wofada. Lagarde made the miitake of 
deriving from a usage which is itself secondary a meaning still further removed from 
the primaiy sense of the root. Fot the rest, the prevalent assumption that Hebrew 
TDK is denominative — idiich rests mainly upon the fact that the verb occun only 
in P — is extremely precarioua. 



cphod wheo d<^iig duty at the sanctuary of Shiloh*; David wore an 
^hod, and ^parently not much else, when leaiiing and dandng 
bdore the ark as he conveyed it in triumph to Jnusalem.' David 
was not a priest, and had no conceivable use fcnr an " oiade pouch," 
or " Oracle belt," or anyttung else connected with oracles *; and 
whatever duties the boy Samuel may have performed at Shikdi, 
the author of the story certainly has no intention oi implying that 
Eli immediately surrendered to that stripling his most sacred and 
important function. 

In the Priestly institutions of later times, the word *nDK is used in 
a somewhat specialized, but closely related sense, to desigrmte a 
c^emonial vestment worn by the High Priest over both his tunic 
(niru) and his robe Crvo).* Repeated readings of the identical 
description of the Hi£^ Priest's ephod contained in the statutory 
directions of Ex. 28 and in the account of its manufacture in Ex. 39, 
yield only a vague idea of its tq^>earance; but it is sufficiently clear 
that the writer thinks of it as a piece of sumptuous dr^iery, of no 
great extent, fastened about the waist by means of a belt or sash, 
and suspended from the shoulders by straps. These last, however, 
were ^^>arently less for the support of the ephod than for the sake 
of the breast-i»ece (jvn) and other insigiua which were attached to 
them. And here again the point should be especially emphasized 
that the ephod itself had no cormection with the oracular function 
of the High Priest; that function attached to the pn, not to the 
q>hod. The Urim and Thummim were to be put Stt the |vn* — 

1 I Sam. a, tS. * a Sun. 6, 14. 

* Agaiiut Foote, Jvvmed of Biblkai UUroture, XXI, 1901, pp. i ff; Blhorat, 
Znttdtrijt far die oiUataiiieiilikMe Wiiseraciaft, XXX, igio, i^. 259 B; and, laa dis- 
tinctly, Sellin, OHerUaluche Studitn Tkeodor NOldeJu wm « (ehtptm GdmriHag [mU- 
Mtf, pp. 66g ff, who a)it4)T0inisefl on the view Iliat the ephod ma a linen loindoth 
won exclusively by priests in theii ucred ministiaticMU, which howevet, whoi em- 
^oyed in divioAtion, wm gradually differentiated into a goigeout apron aui^Jeniaited 
with a iecq>tacle for the lacted lots. 

' Ex. 3g, Si I-cv. 8, 7; d. Siiadi 45, S-io. 

* Ex. 38, 30; Lev. 8, 8. In the Letter of Ariiteas, f 97, the Hi^ Priest bean on 
bit breut ri Xcvlvim Xirior, while the qkhod is merely a magnificent [i0^; cf. 
Joa^us, Aimtuitiet, tii, 116 f. 



whatevo: that may mean. !□ point of fact, however, we have the 
evidence of Josephits * as well as of rabbinical tradition * that divi- 
nation by means of the [tm with Urim and Thummim neva got 
beyond the pages of the Pentateuch. 

A third aj^lication of the word TUMt in our Old Testament texts 
has no relation to either of the forgoing. It stands for a solid body, 
carried, not irorn, and otUy by priests, who cherish it as the specific 
inslrument of divination. In the sanctuary at Nob, the sword of 
Goliath (itself wrapped in a cloak) lay behind such an " ephod "; * 
evidently the latter was an object in the round, standing free. Gid- 
eon, we are told, manufactured an " ephod " out of seventeen 
hundred shekds of gold which the pec^le contributed for the purpose.* 

All sorts of attempts have been made to explain away the traits 
which render this use of the word irreconcilable with the other two. — 
The ceremonial apron was sometimes so heavily decorated with gold 
embroidery that it " stood of itself." — " Ephod " was used also of 
an idol attired in an ephod. — Conversely, the ephod was primarily 
the idol, then the idol's garment, and finally the ministrant's loin- 
doth. — It was nuther an idol nor a loincloth, but always a bag for 
the saaed lots; and Gideon devoted to it at most a very small por- 
tion of the seventeoi hundred shekels placed at his disposal. — The 
ephod was essentially an instrument of divination, which might be 
dther a costly idol or a sacerdotal vestment. — AiLd so forth. To 

> AiOiquUUt, iii, 318. The abiaice of any metidoa of DniM Bnd 0*0^ in Srach 
45, 10 f (H) should iita be noted. On the other hand, their omimioii in Aiisteaa 1 07, 
which pretends to describe only what wm seen by the vinting Alezandtiana, should 
not be pressed. 

* Ui(hna,S(ifiix. 13, B^DUTI Onw 1^3 B^JIPtnn B'tTS] VIDVD; d. h. Yoma 
lib. Accoiding to h. Sola 48b and y. QnUiuUn 6sb, to ny DnMe!) ]TQ *TD]r *I]r 
□*Dn^ (Ezra 1, 63 — Neh. 7, O5), in the time of the Seraod Temple, wis as if one should 
say, " until the dead come to life," or " until the Messiah appears " — that is, " til] 

* Judges 8, 33-37. Vene a6b animerates objects taken from the Midianites which 
Gideon did not requiie of the people foi hit " ephod "1 he asked only for thui *DT1 
3RI, and these yidded 1700 shekds of gtdd. The statement of Footc (J. c, p. 14) that 
VIW of verse 17 " refers as much to the purple raiment as to the gold omaments " is 
enoneous, even if s6b is retained u authentic. Cf. Moore's commentary, ad Ice. 



discuss these and similar suggestions in detail would be both tedious 
and unprofitable. Some are manifestly absurd; all are far-fetched. 

Special coodemnation must, however, be passed upon so insidi- 
ously uncritical a statement as that of Beozinger, who sails over the 
difficulty of explaining Gideon's " ephod " as " ein Lendenschurz, 
rdch mit Gold durchwoben " with the concession that " die Zahl 
von 28 kg Gold freilich gewaltig tibertrieben ist." ' The question 
for the archaeologist is not how much Gideon's " ephod " really 
weighed, nor whether Gideon really manufactured an " ephod " of 
any sort, nor indeed whether such a person as Gideon ever in fact 
existed; but whether the author of our story and his prospective 
readers could picture to themselves an " ephod " weighing seven- 
teen hundred shekels (about sixty-five pounds). If they could, the 
object in question was no kind of a garment. Ancient authors are 
rarely silly. 


There is in fact but one sensible solution of the enigma of the solid 
" ephod " — a solution which has the double merit of meeting satis- 
factorily all the difficulties of the case, and at the same time clearing 
up several other knotty problems in Hebrew history and literature: 
The reading HDK , wherever in the Old Testament it stands for a solid 
olfject, has been deliberately substituted by Jewish scribes for a more 
troublesome word.* 

What was that troublesome word ? The readiest conjecture, fol- 
lowing the prevalent opinion that " ephod " stands for an idol of 
some kind, is ^OD, the generic word for n^, though primarily a 
graven image. But a glance at Judges 18, where Sdb and ruoD have 
(consequent upon the insertion of 17, 3-4) been systematically 
added to Q*Enni "neit (as the text now reads), and continue to stand 
there side by side with the latter, makes it impossible to suppose 
that *TWK represents an attempt to eliminate an objectionable ^dd. 

' Bdiraiteke ArchSeleti^, p. 547. 

■ TlusMlutionof the difGculty has been suggested as regudi the two most obstinate 
passages, Judges S, aj and i Sam. 21, 10, by Moore, EMcydopa«iia Biblka, (xiL 130S f; 
d. col- 1307, note a. 



And even assuming — what is less likely — that the alteration to 
TuiM in Judges 17 f took place before the interpolation of ^DD and 
nsDO, it is just as hard to imagine that iibm was substituted for an 
original ^DB only to be regularly supplemented later by the same 
word. A like argument applies of course tothewordnsoD, the speci- 
fic term for an idol cast in metal, which Judges 8, 27 would seem to 
favor. Moreover, it may be confidently affirmed that no scribe 
with whom trmn could pass muster in that context would have 
found an image of any kind embarrassing. 

The fact is, however, that every sort of image is positively ruled 
out by the language of i Sam. 3, 28, where Yahwe declares that the 
family of Eli had been chosen ^Jth *Ti6K ntttr^, to carry an " ephod " 
before me} For, manifestly, a physical representation of Yahwe 
could not itself be said to be carried " before him "; and it is quite 
impossible to assume that an image of some other divinity or numen 
was carried before Yahwe or employed so conspicuously in his 
service. Clearly mBK has not displaced any word signifying an 

But the same passage, i Sam. 2, 38, renders untenable the hypo- 
thesis that the word displaced was D'n^K , as suggested by Moore for 
Judges 8, 27 and i Sam. 21, 10; ''ith D'>n^ TWtah, in the mouth of 
Yahwe, being likewise quite impossible. Moreover, though o*n^ 
might be used by metonymy to indicate physical objects consecrated 
to, or representative of, deity, and to emphasize incidentally their 
paramount significance — as when Laban says to Jacob, of the fam- 
ily teraphim purloined by Rachel, -rhm nK nsu rxh, Why hast thou 
stolen my divinities ? and Jacob answers, n<n* th ytbui itton lev Dv, 
With whomsoever thoujindest thy divinities, let Mm not live *; or when 
Micah protests to the Danites, regarding his capttured " ephod " 
and teraphim, xn Dnnp^ 'n'tpv iBw *ni>M nK , Ve have taken my divinities 
which I made, and how say ye unto me. What aileth thee ? * or again 
when the Philistine8, on learning that the ark of Yahwe has been 

' atfitar «^ov« of GB U palpably tnmcated. TIDK HKiP^ in thii context, unlike 
11DK ttVl ol I Sam. 14, 3 and sz, 18, demands a complemeoL 
• Gen. 31, 30 33. » Judges >8, 34. 



brought down to the Zsraditish aimy, say to themsdves, DviSk ms 
mrron ^, Deity has arrived in the camp '; or, finally, when the priest 
accompanying Saul's anny says to the king, o-rhtin ^ D^ nnpa. 
Let us draw nigh here to the deity, with obvious reference to the porta- 
ble instrument of divination * — I say, in ^ite of this well-attested 
usage,' we cannot for a moment suppose that David said to Abiathar 
D*n^Kn rann, Bring me the deity! where the present text has mrxx 
7IBK71.* Though the phyacal object indicated be the same, the tropi- 
cal designation vrhtt , permissible after ^m nnpj , would be the height 
of irreverence after twv\ . This distinctioQ, I am confident, will 
appear not at all refined to those familiar with the connotation and 
associations of the Hebrew word. And lastly, D*n^K cannot be the 
word displaced, because as a matter of fact, like 'xa and n3DD, it 
has been suffered to remain standing in the very texts which contain 
the furious Tiut , not merely in such a phrase as Cfrfjn m ,* but even 
wbai it serves to deagoate vaguely and indirectly the very object 
which liDM has been employed to conceal.* 


Fortunately, we are not left to ^>eculation or omjecture r^arding 
the object which has been displaced by tick. There is erne passage 
in the Old Testament where this systematic alteration was carried 

' I Sam. 4, 7. Hie aiieiidB.tioiu of the conunenUiio *Te entirely unneceasuy. 
There was nothing " nbaoluU " (Driver, Notts on lie BAren Tad of Ike Books «g 
Samm^, p. 46; and Budde, Saered Beekt eflktOU TesitmUKt, ad kf.) about Bir/m 
in the mouth of any iohahitant of Cuiaan. Against WeUhuucn'a reading (Ar Ttxt 
i» Budiv Samndii, p. 55), and the Sqituagint text upon which it a baaed, it is eoou^ 
to point out that an unhtm^tered Hebrew author would hardly have prepetrated the 
caoophony of ninon '?» Dn^K Q'n^K K3- In verse 7a nOK means Hey Ikontkt, 
which ia followed b 7h by noini a-d liey taid. Vene 8, however, is interpolated 
entire, 131D3 bdug an authentic and cbaiacteristic editorial aoledam. 

■ I Sam. i4> 3fi; cf- ^ene 37 and chsp. 21, 13 15; Judges 18, 5. 

■ lliiB reverent, trofucal usage should not be confused with the contenq)tuoua aUu- 
dons to " gods of silver and gold " of (Ai Testament polemics, iriiidi are best disre- 
garded in diM^'Mnp the ideM and language of andent Iirad. 

* I Sam. 33, 9; 30, 7- 

* Judges 17, s. 

* Judges 18, 5 34; I Sam. m, 13 15 (note ai, 10). 


I SAMUEL 14, 18 13 

out in <aie family of Hebrew manuscripts and was omitted in an- 
other. The Alexandrian Greek has preserved the text of the first; 
the Masoretic Hebrew represents that of the second. 

In I Sam. 14, 18 the text of G^ reads: koI ttrfy 'Saoi>\ r$ 'Ax«&, 
irpo<Ti.yaye ri itjiabS' 6ti aitrds ^ptv t6 i^iiS tp r0 4M>9 txA^ 
bi&Tim' 'Ivpa^X.' The Hebrew original of this was imquestionably 
the foHowii^: Kvm in'a TiBKn wpj mn '3 "nBRn ntrm n>n6 hw? loin 
'new *3l)^.* Excqit for the meaningless stop-gap "neit, 'this text 
is perfectly intelligible and entirely satisfies the context: Saul called 
for the instrument of divination — whatever it was — which Ahijoh 
the priest manipulated for the Israelitish army on the day in 

On the other hand, the Masoretic text of the same verse has: 
.Wit" 'ai »nn 01*3 D'fi^ TPWt rrn 'a D'n^n iriK Hvsn irntA ^Kr iDin 
This seems at first sight distinctly inferior to the Greek, tradition. 
It cannot, as it stands, be the authentic text; for the second half of 
the verse does not construe. The two last words admit of no intN- 
pretation other tlian and Ihe children of Israel,* which can be con- 
nected neither with what precedes, nor yet with *m, and it came to 
pass, which follows at the b^inning oi the next verse. And even if 
the last two words be discarded, what remains of verse i8b is equally 

' The only variant wcsth mentioning ia the reading i)i> i| *(,i)i0iinit toO hoG in- 
■teod of atrds ifpo' ri WoU, found in Cod. Ala., E. A P. 44, 106, lao, 134, and the 
Complutenaian and Aldine editions. TUt, »nce the tesding of B and congeners could 
not be derived from it, must be the result of an eclectic correction on the basis of the 

■ It is wrong to assume an original KIC3 iTn MinfoiaMifpw(asDrivei,I.c.,p.iio, 
and Budde, Kitner Band-Cnnnnailar mm AUtu TatemeiU, p. 94), siuce the ui4>ointe(l 
text might be read MbJ Kin , though NIB'S was of onirse the constnictim intended. 
Besides, KK iTn mn would be he tutd to eatry, rather than ike wm earryiMg, which is 
the sense icquiied before mnn Cn^3 , on Ikat day. 

■ " Dathius: 'literam Vau pro multiptid ejus sgnificatimie putem □q)Iicaie posse 
per (WM sive a^nrf.' Ciedat Judaeus ApeHal Certum roifai est legeDdtim csee ^J13 " 
— Uaurer, Commeiilaritis srammatiait criHau in Vehts Ttslamtnimii, Le^mc, 1835, 
p. 163. Targnm of Jonathan, PesU^, STmmachus, and Jerome lendned *331 as if 
it were *J3 DIP. In stqiport of the same interpretation David Qimhi adduced 1)011 
OnVD3 rrn of Ex. r, 5, as intendins DnW3 n*rw 1\W DIP. This was in fact the 
best he could do. 



iaible; since wnn m*3 crn^Mn |nK rrn *3 , /or fAe socraf ark was 
on that day, demands a predicate. Nor will the mere alteraticn] of 
*n\ to 'JBi>, after the Greek, furnisli the requisite predicate; for 
^]t6 rrn means to wait upon, and requires a personal subject. The 
plain fact is that the Masoretic text is so palpably and obtrusively 
defective, while at the same time every word it contains is so siiiq>le 
and familiar, that it is impossible to suppose its present state to 
have been brought about in any other way than by deliberate muti- 
lation.^ But why was the original text deliberately mutilated ? 
What did it contain that rendered nonsense preferable to its simple 
testimony ? ' Surely not the text of G. For time and again the 
Book of Samuel offers us statements of exactly the same purport. 
The text of G is entirely in harmony with i Sam. a, 28; 21, 10; 
22, 18; 33, 6 g; 30, 7, as well as with verse 3 of this same chapter. 

It should be noted tL&t it is verse 3a, and not i8b, as maintained by Well- 
hausen (/. c, p. 89) and others, that is interpolated. Vene 3B interrupts the 
flow of the narrative from verse a to 3b, and is, moreover, unmistakably tacked 
on to the trtt niKD tw of ab (which origiDolly, with G, lacked irM Qjrn). For 
n^ mn* tn^of course refers to Eli, andniDM tWi (cf. r Sam. 33, 18) cannot 
be a predicate in this context, but only appoaitive. For the predicate, " tiug 
dM Epbod " Oftovaxk, n<mdkommMlaf gym AUmTatamaa, p. 61), -yvatn KrS 
would be required. In spite of its length, thcrefbte, 3a is not a sentence, but 
an item; and there can be no question of a " parenthesis " (Wellhausen, p. 86). 
But even a parentheaa must aim to make the story more intelligible or more 
coiiq>Iete; and the pedigree of Ahijah serves ndtber purpose. For it is un- 
deniably his pedigree that constitutes the burden of 3a, not the fact that he was 
army chaplain. Hiis latter fact was gleaned from verse 18, where the clause 
" for he was carrying the sacred aik before the Israelites that day " is a veiy 
pertinent parenthesis, and indicates as dearly as possible that Ahijah is being 

' Cf. Budde, /. c, p. 94: " I>ei Ven iat grOndlich verdoiben, vielleicht nicht gans 
durdi Zufall. . . . Die Entstdhmg des Verses lehrt ttberdies am beaten, daas man 
uch der BedmUidikeit dei Gegoutandei (lAich be thinki was the cpbod] bemuet 
war." He forgets that, for a member of the Jewish churdi, the High Priest's q>hod 
was authoritatively and quite satisfactarily defined in the Book of Exodns, and had 
existed from the days of Uoses, A pie-ezilic emendation, on the other hand, could 
not have qvared the Scptuagint. 

* Student! of the Mauretic text need not be reminded that there are numerous pas- 
sages in the Old Testament where the Kiibcs have preferred nonKue to an utterance 
wludi was objecdonable on dogmatic or religioua grounds. One such instance is dis- 
cussed in the note on a Sam. 6, ai bdow. 


I SAMUEL 14, 18 15 

mmtioDed by the nanator at that point foi the fint time. The object of the 
diaakeoaat was to connect Ahijah with the piiestly family of Nob (i Sam. aa, 9 
ao) — Ahijah and Ahimeledi, being contemporaries, aie brotheia; and to attach 
both Ahijah and the priests of Kob to the priestly family of Shiloh (i Sam. 
4, 19-93) — all the historic priests of the period scions of one single stock 
repudiated bodQy by Yahwe in favorof the Zadokita{i Sam. a, 37-36; i Kings 
a, 37 ; both passages diaskeuastic). That the pedigree is fabricated and has in 
mind the doaing venes of our story of Eli, is evident from the otheiwise irrele- 
vant mention of Ichabod; " Ahijah the son of Ahitub, the son of Phinchas, 
the son of Eli " would be the natural formula. To throw out " the brother of 
Ichabod " as a gloss, as nme scholais do, ia to throw away the key to the 
critical evaljiation of the whole passage. The words " the priest of Yahwe at 
Shiloh " point in the same direction. The connection of Zadok himself with 
Ahitub in 2 Sam. 8, 17, on the other hand, is the result of purely mechanical 
error, arising doubUess from the insertion of Abiathar's ancestry (ITD^HM p 
31t3*nK 13) above and below the line in a crowded manuscript; although the 
resulting corruption gave rise in turn to the geneaology of i Chron, 5, 34; 
6, 37 f ; cf. 18, 16. For the rest, the worthy genealog^t of i Sam. 14, 3a would 
have been better advised to make Ahitub a brother of Hophni and Fhlnehas 
or of Eli himself; for if he was a brother of Eli's grandson Ichabod, then acoird- 
ing to I Sam. 7, a (which, to be sure, must also not be taken too seriously, and 
may be from the same band) that ill-starred person was not twenty-one years 
old when his own grandnephew Abiathar had been officiating as priest of David 
for at least nine years. The old identification of Ahijah with Ahimelech, per- 
sisted in by most modem scholars, is quite gratuitous. 

This much, however, regarding veise 18 ia clear, no matter what 
the motive for the mutilation of the original: we cannot hesitate 
to restore to the Hebrew, on the basis of the Greek, those readii^ 
which are necessary to the proper syntactical construction of the 
verse; for on those pcants there is no room for difference of opinion. 
We may confidently read ttV3 Kin *3 for rrn *3, and 'ttmtr 'Ui^ for 
^1!" *33i. But having made these obvious and insignificant ccn:- 
rections, we face the real problem, whose current solution is by no 
means so clearly indicated as has been assumed. We are confronted 
with two antagonistic texts: one that of G; the other identical with 
G save that in both clauses it reads trrfntn p-iK where the latter has 
mutn. And of course only one of these readings can be what the 
author himself wrote down. 

If now we adopt the Gre^ reading, everything remains obscure 
and unaccountable. In the first place, we cannot possibly account 



for the prtaeace of arhtun jtm in the Masoredc text. No slq) of 
the pen or careless reading can have produced D^r^iin rriK from an 
original iWKn; while it is simply inconceivable that a Jewish scribe 
should have gone out of his way to corrupt a harmless text, and 
incidentally bedevil the whole orthodox theory of the rel^ous insti- 
tutions of Israel, by consciously substituting the one for the otim. 
For, a late Jewish scribe it must have been, ex kypothesi; since, if 
the ancestor of the Greek escaped it, the alteration will have been 
made in the canonical Book of Samuel. And secondly, if we ad<^t 
the Greek readii^, we have left on our hands a passage which, with 
its impossible " ephod," is utterly baffling and unintelligible. For 
although the present Hebrew text of this passage does not construe 
and the Gre^ does, that cannot blind us to the fact that, taken as 
a whole, both are alike defective, and have in reality withstood all 
efforts at satisfactory interpretation. *nut , as far as we know, was 
the name of a garmoit, and a garment the object here in question 
cannot be. If, on the other hand, we adopt the Het^ew reading, 
we have a text which luminously expluns both the purposed muti- 
lation of the Hebrew and the palpable mystification of the Greek, 
and at the same time answers objectively and conclusively the ques- 
tion we have been askii^ as to the object systematically replaced by 
•nut in the historical books of the Old Testament 

Between these alternatives we cannot hesitate to choose. The 
original text of i Sam. 14, 18 was: |n» r\vv\ rcmh hw "itMn 
'>ww '3B^ mnn ni's D'n^itn tni« tn?3 mn -2 a'n^n,! And Saul said lo 
Ahijah, Bring kitker the sacred ark; for he carried the sacred ark before 
Israel Uiat day. The present Masoretic text resulted from one 
attenqit to dull the edge of this obnoxious passage. The Septuagint 
text resulted from another such attempt. The latter employed the 
more artful device which was resorted to elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
mesDt in the sources of both our Greek and Hebrew texts, namely, 
the substitution of a harmless and none too transparent iidm for an 
embarrassing {hm. The word we have been seeking in order to unlock 

I So KBhler, in Eichhom'* RtptrtarUmfar bibUulM ttnd mertenUbidiMkt Uatratm, 
n, 1778, p. as6- 


I SAMUEL 14, 18 17 

tke secret of the solid " ephod " of our Old Testament is accordingly 
tntt.' And Ike specific instrument of priesUy divination among tke 
ancient Hebrews was tke ark. 

I venture to call attention once more to the fact that I am not 
conjecturing that |nM has been displaced by 'nuK . It is the objec- 
tive testimony of the extant manuscripts and editions of the Old 
Testament that the " ephod " has displaced the ark as the instru- 
ment of divination in i Sam. 14, 18 and elsewhere, or else the ark 
has displaced the "ephod " in i Sam. 14, 18. I am merely choosing 
between the two alternatives presented that which satisfactorily 
e^lains a series of otherwise inexplicable phenomena.* That it does 
satisfactorily eiplain the phaiomena, and that the explanation does 
not, as might be apprehended, raise insuperable difficulties of its 
own, I hope to show in the following pages. 


The Hebrew reading of i Sam. 14, 18, as we have been obliged to 
Tnamj-ain it, was obnozious to the Jewish scribes; for it was repug- 
nant to the explicit teaching of the Pentateuch r^arding the most 
sacred object in the cult of Yahwe. It is, however, equally irrecon- 
cilable with the opinion which prevails among critics in regard to 
the ark at the present time. For this reason, and in spite of the 
principles of sound textual criticism which protect it, that reading 
is all but universally rejected by modem scholars. And from 
Thenius, who blazed the path to the systematic exploitation of the 
Septuagint in 184a, to the present day, it has been rejected in favor 

> Uoore hu suggested the posmbility that |nK vu tbe oii^nal reading in i Sam. 
II, 10; Etieydefoedia BiUka, coL 1307, note 1. 

■ One of the dcf^iable effects of tlie praent welter of qieculatioii and conjecture 
in tbe Old Testament fidd, i> that many adudars no longer recc^nize a sdentific t»D- 
ceduie when they meet it, and treat bH condusioni indiscriminately as opinions to be 
taken or left according to momentary convemcnce or individual temperament. So a 
recent writer, for the lat a sdioUt of considernble attitinmcnti, defends the Jewidi 
doctrine — it has long since been shown to be nothing else — (d the presence of the Dec- 
alogue in the ark in the days of Uosee, itbSie rejecting the tiadltioa that tbe writing 
was the work of Yahwe'i own hand. Hie Jem themselves, it should be obaervcd, 
were more consistent, and ultimately more sdcntific. Hiey neva pretended that no 
mirade was involved. 



of tite " ephod " of the Greek text and the parallel passages in the 
Hebrew by every critical commentator on the Book of Samuel with- 
out exception.' That the impelling reasons for this unanimous rejec- 
tion are of an a priori character, and have little to do with the 
ordinarily recognized principles of textual criticism, will ^pear 
most dearly if the standard commentaries are allowed to speak for 

Earlier commenutois do not venture to alter the received Hebrew text, 
althougli Drusius dtes the Septuagint as according with the plausible inter- 
pretation of David Qimbi (Amulata ad iibros Instoricos Vettris TeslamenH, sive 
criUcorum lacrontm Totnus II, London, 1660, col. ajia); and Dathe affirms 
that the Septuag^t oSers a more satisfactory text, which he refrains from 
adopting only because the Hebrew is supported by all the other and«it versioDS 
{Libri kulorid Vet. Tat. htine tersi et criticis Hhukali, Halle, 17S4, p. ajg). 
Vatablus, like Drusius, followed the mediaeval Jewish authorities in explaining 
D'niwn p*ut of verse 18a as a sort of metonymy foi the Ephod with Utim and 
Hiununim, which were kept " juxta arcam Dei " {/. c, AntuMa, etc., ool. 
3305). So Rashi remarks on D'fPRn JTIK rWJn: "Urim and Thummim "; 
in verse i8b the word D^ must be understood after Q^n^KH pK, presumably 
leaving {jtTE" '331 to be understood as a second subject to totm , the Israelites 
sharing Saul's injunction to Ahijah (so Abiavand). Similarly, ^ regards 
i8a, Levi ben Gcrehon. And David Qimii: Bp Vrip DtinPn nnwm TIDKn 
Xrnvr '?S Bru Smb^ 0'n'?»n pK. See the Rabbinical Bibles, ad Ice, With 
their common sense, and their belief in the age, authority, and observance 
of the Mosaic Law, it was impossible for the Jewish ezegetes to do otherwise 
than relate this verse, as best they mi^t, to the High Priest's oracular appara- 
tus. And with such passages as i Sam. 23, 6 9; 30, 7, besides 14, 3, before 
them, it was the most natural thing in the worid for Ibn Ezra (on Ex. 38, 6) and 
Qimbi to include the Ephod as part of that qiparatus. Nor would it be strange 
if Ibn Ezra had actually paraphrased Saul's utterance with iKwn ntrm ; 
though it must be doubted whether the authentic text of his shorter com- 
mentary really did so, as the longer commentary certainly does not. To 
argue, on such grounds as these, with ^towitzer ("Das Sdiriftwoit in der 
rabbinischen Literatur," SUsungsberidiie der Wiener Academie der Wissen- 
sckaften, 1906, p. 51), that Hebrew manuscripts of the twelfth century sttU 
read TIDXn riB"Jn in i Sam. 14, 18a, is rank nonsense. — Abravanel likewise 
interprets Saul's command as referring to the Urim and Thummim; but he 

> Idonotdasiwlthcriticalauiimentnichanopiiiionaa thatof Ehrlich.AoiufjtoMR 
ntr lubrSiMhen Bibel, m (1910), p. 113: " {Verse r8) Vi^ederum ein Btork entstdlter 
Text, ohne die UOgUchkeit, das Utq)rilngUdie m ermittdn. Von der Lade konn on 
diesei SteSe un^rUiiglich die Rede nicbt gewEsai son." If the last statemott a true, 
critidsm has not the ihadow of a reason for rejecting the Gredi reading. 


I SAMUEL 14, 18 19 

boldly takes the podtion that the DViiwi rriM here mentioned was not the 
Ark of the Covenant, which contained the tables of the Law and which, he 
admits, was at Eirjath-jeaiim, but a certain movable box used as a receptade 
for the Ephod with the Urim and Thummim; and expresses the same opinion 
regarding the {riK spoken of by Uriah the Hittite in 3 Sam. 11, 11 (Donlsaaei 
Abarbandis Ebraeomm doctiitimi commaitaritu in Prophetas Priorei, Ldpsic, 
1686, fol. 86Bb, io5d}. This view, which has since been very generally adopted 
by Jewish writen, Qericus pronounces pure invention (menun commentum) : 
the only object ever called D*rl?Mn |11M was " insignia ilia area quae in sanctis- 
simo Adyto adservanda ctat "; this had been brought from Kirjath-je&rim to 
Gibeah, cither for Bafe-ke^ting or to aid the Israelites in their distress by ensur- 
ing God's immediate presence {Yeteris Testometiti libri kistorici, Amsterdam, 
1708, p. 318). On the other hand, Sebastian Schmidt had no difficulty with the 
category of place: the aik was already at Gibeah of Benjamin, which was only 
another name for the Gibeah belonging to Kiijath-jeaiim; and Saul is merely 
commanding Ahijah to fetch it from the sanctuary on the hill to the camp, 
where it was required to ensure God's presence at the consultation of the oradea 
(/n LibrwH Priorem Samudis commentariiu, Strassburg, 1687, pp. 443 f). 
J. H. Michaelis understood by i\Vii\ " Go and bring hither from Kirjath- 
jearim" {Biitia kebraica cum amtotatUMUna, Halle, 1730, ad loc.). J. D. 
Michaelis thought the ark was wanted, not for consultation of the oiades, but 
to assbt the Israelites with its presence in the impending battle {DaUtche 
Ueberselamg des Alten TesUmaUs tmt Atmerhtngen JVr UngdeMe, V. a, Gjtt- 
tinsel i777> P- 3^): sinularly Maurer {Commentarius grammatkut criHau m 
VOia TestamaOum, Ldpsic, 1835, p. 163). 

Thenius: " Abgesdien davon, dass von einer Translodrung der 
Biindealade von Kirjath-Jearim nichts erw&hnt worden, b^eift 
man nicht, wozu Saul dieselbe herbeiholen I&sst; beachtet man aber 
den ganzen Zusammenhang, sieht man, vie Saul v. 37-42 das hdlige 
Loos befragt, bed^ikt man das p* *pM, v. 19, und vergldcht man 
33) 9; 3O1 7i so muss man ^ch fQr die Lesaiten der R [G^], imtn 
anstatt DTiimn init, iiDRn KPi mn anstatt tS'Thva\ inK n'^n, und -^ 
anstatt '•xa, eutscheiden. Saul will (ganz vie David in den andem 
Stellen) das hdlige, in dem Brustscfailde des Ephod aufbewafarte, 
Loos fragen, was zu thun sd, ob er mit den Seinen gegen die Fhi- 
lister aufbrechen solle, Oder nicht . . . Nachdem dnmalniDM i°in 
piM verschiieben war, bildete sich das Uebrige der traditionellen 
Lesart durch Conjectur." ^ 

1 Di* Bilcher Samidt, ift4i, p. 53; second edition 1864, p. 60; thiid edition, re- 
vised by Lfibr, iSgS, p, 59. 



£eil: "In v. iS Wit die Angabe: 'Bring her die Lade Gottes, 
denn die Lade Gottes war an jenem Tage bd den Sdhnen Israels,' 
sehr auf , da in joier Zdt die Bundeslade in ELirjath-Jearim depomrt 
war und die Anwesaihdt dcraelben in dem kleinenKiiegslager Sauls 
hdcbst unwahrschdnlich ist, auch bdm Erfragen des g5ttlicben 
Willens durch den Hohepriester sonst mrgends der Bundeslade 
Erwabnung geschieht, sondem nur des Ephod. . . . Hiezu kommt, 
dass ftlr die Bundeslade, die kdn Gegenstand war, den man ohne 
weiteres hin- nnd herreichte, das nr*]n nicbt recht passt, dieses 
Verbum dagegen der gel&ufige Ausdruck iiii das Herbabolen des 
Ephod ist, vgl. 23, 9; 30, 7. Alle diese Umst&nde machoi die 
Richtigkeit des masorethischen Testes h&chst zweifelhaft, tiotzdem 
dass Chaid. Syr. Ar. und Vvlg. fUr denselben zeugen, und empfehlen 
die Lesait der LXX." * One can almost hear, oanz nnit Di I 

WeUhausen quotes Thenius as above and adds: "Dieser Aus- 
fdhrung llieniiis' mich asschliessend, verweise ich zur Bestfitigung 
des griechischen Textes noch auf tmbM 3ip des Chald. v. 19 [in place 
of Ji* *lDt*]-" * And elsewhere: " In z Sam. 14, 18 ist w^en 7, z ; 
2 Sam. 6, 1 ff statt D^rt^fn] piM die Lade Gotfes zu lesen iiDim das 
Ephod, ebenso i KSn. 2, 26 wegen i Sam. 23, 6, und zwar beruht 
die Lade auf dogmatischer Correktur." * 

Reuss: " L'arche pouvait avoir €t& cbercb£e & Qirjat-Ie'ailm 
pour cette eq>£dition (ch^. 7, i); cependant on ne lit nulle part 
ailleuis qu'elle servait aux oracles, et la comparaison de ch^. 23, 9 
et 30, 7 fera sans doute pr£f£rer la le(on des Septante." * 

Elostennann: "LXX rA tipoU; notwendig, denn die Lade 
Jahves ist in Eiijath-Jearim (7, 3), und der, welcho; v. 3 einsetzte, 
hat in V. 18 vom Ephod gelesen, diesem Mittel, zu gdttlichn Auf- 
klfijung und Entscheidung zu gdangen." * 

Driver: " We must certainly read, with LXX, UDMn nvin, d, 
v. 3, and especially 23, 9 TiBKn tnrm; 30, 7 -nutn ^'j tu ntrjn. 

> Die BUcker Samud^, 1864, p. 103. 

■ Der TtM iv Backer SmphmJu, 1871, p. 8g. 

* Bled-Wellliuuea, BMeiUmt imAuAUe Ttitamtnfi, 1878, p. 643. 

* La BibU, 1877, ad loc. 

* Dm Bikkv Samttdit tmd dtr KBrngf, 1SS7, p. 47, 


I SAMUEL 14, 18 21 

The ephod, not the ark, was the organ of divination; and, as the 
passages dted show, vm is the word properly applied to bringing 
the ephod into use." * 

H. P. Smith: " The text of G is to be adopted unconditioii- 
ally. . . . Historically we could hardly object that the presence of 
the Ark at Kirjath Jeaiim would decide against this text, because 
our author may not have known of its detention at Kirjath Jearim. 
But the Ephod is elsewhere the means of giving the oracle, and if 
original here may have been displaced by a scrupulous scribe who 
was aware of its dangerous resemblance to an image." And again: 
" The difl&culty in retaining the words D'h^t jr» ncan is prima JacU 
a historical one. The Ark had been settled at Kirjath Jearim, and if 
brought to Saul we should have been told of the transfer. . . . Even 
if we suppose this author not to know of the detentioQ of the Ark at 
Kirjath Jearim, it remains true that we nowhere else hear of it in 
connection with Saul, and the presumption is therefore against it 
here. The second difficult is that, so far as we know, the Aik was 
not used in consulting the oracle." * 

Nowack: " Schon Thenius hat nachgewiesen, das in diesem 
Zusammenhang die Lade kdne Stelle hat, dass es sich viehnehr hier 
um das heilige Loos handelt. ... In der That bat LXX hier dnen 
entsprechenden Text." * 

Budde: "VonderLadekannnach?, igarkeineRedesdn. LXX 
bietet den ganz durchsicbtigen, durch v. 3 bestfitigten Text." * 

Kittel: " MT augenschetnlich sinnlos; liesnachG. Die Lade ist 
(gegen 7, 3; 3 Sam. 6, 3 ff) herdngekommen weil man am Ephod 
Anstoss nahm." * 

Dhorme: " Avec G, lire Tiutn au lieu de ' I'arche de Dieu ' qui 
ne sert pas pour les oinsultations. On a alors iiutn ntrin conmie 

' Notes m the BOrtw Ttxt tff Ike Books ef Simmd, 1890, pp. 83!; tecmid «ditioa 
I9'3. p. Jio- 

* Critical and Exeptkat Commvtdarj on Ike Books rfSamtiet, 1899, m>. iii f. 

■ EandkommeHlar nm Alien Ttslament, igoi, ad Ik. Cf. the nine ■uthor'a Zctp> 
bvck der kebrOiscken ArckSalape, 1894, II, p. 93. 

* Ktirter HonS-Commentar mm AUe» Testament, 1901, ad lae. Cf. Saered Books 
iflkeOid rMtoMMl, 1894, p. 63; exiADitBikker Sicker widSomudyiigo, p. teA. 

* In KauUkIi'b EeiUte Sckrifi its Allen TeOament^, 1909, ad loc. 



dans 23, 9; 30, 7. Le n de DtMti £tant tomb£ par h^l<^raphie, une 
premiere confusion a ieinplac£ tdm par pnK, ce qui a n£cessit6 
t'adjonction de D^n^Mn. A partiT de '3, nous avons une glose qui 
suppose dijk la substitution de a<rh»n iriit k -hdkiI." > 

It is apparent from this rehearsal of critical opinion that the 
rejection of the reading orhtKn pK in favor of TiBKn of the Greek 
rests entirely on two assumptions of historical fact: (i) The ark 
which had once belonged to the sanctuary of Shiloh was, after its 
capture and release by the Philistines, deposited in the house of 
Abinadab on the height above Eirjath-jearim (i Sam. 7, i) and 
remained there tmtil David removed it thence to his newly occupied 
capital of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) ; it cannot, therefore, have been in 
the camp of Saul near Gibeah of Benjamin at the battle of Mich- 
mash (i Sam. 14, 18). And (3) the instrument of priestly divina- 
tion among the ancient Israelites, which is clearly donanded by the 
context of our passage, was not the ark, but the ephod.* 

The second assumption need not detain us, since it begs the ques- 
tion. What was the instrument of divination among the ancient 
Israelites, is the very question at issue, with the presumption by no 
means in favor 0/ the epkod. For we do know that in two undisputed 
passages of the older literature (i Sam. 2, 18; 2 Sam. 6, 14) — to 

> Its Lives de Samud, 1910, p. 118. See also SchlSgl, Die Bllcier SamutUs, igo^, 
p. 88; and Libri SamueHi, 1905, p. xzxv. A similai portion reguding our passage 
la adopted uncomprainismtjy in all tlie recent irarks on the Religion of Israel which 
mentioD it So Smend, Lekthuck der oitUiUtmeiOlickeH RditimstesckUlil^, 1S99, 
p. 136; Eautzsch, aitide " ReligioD of Israel " in the Extra Volume of Hastings' 
Dictionary of the Bible, J904, p. 64g; and in the posthumous German edition under the 
title, Bibliteke Tlieohptdes Allen Testaments, 1911, pp. g6, 118; Stade, BiMisdie Tkeo- 
kgie des Alien TetlameiUs, 1905, P- "71 Kayaer-Matti, GtschifhU der israelitisckat 
Rdigiat^, 1907, pp. S^i, 54; KOnig, Geschiehle der aittestamenlliclien Seligum, 1913, 
p. ai4- 

• "Hie lame theory put forwaid by several scholars to account for the entry of 
□\17Kri p~iK into the Masoretic text, namely, that some scribe knew the ephod was 
' an idol or other heathenish fetich and so replaced it with the ark, has already been dis- 
posed of above: a Fentateuchal Jew could not have objected to the presence of the 
High Priest's q>hod with Ahijah, while an earlier editor could have niade no dungea 
in the text without affecting the Septuagint. Tlie pyramid of succesuve actibal alter- 
ationi auumed by Dhonne, and less explicitly by Theniua, is not amenable to 



say nothing of P in Ex. 28, 6-12; 29, 5; 39, 2-7; Lev. 8, 7 — the 
ephod is a ceremonial gannent which has no relation to divination; 
whereas we admittedly do not know what the historical ark — as 
distinguished from the fiction of Deuteronomistic and Jewish imagi- 
nation — really was. If therefore the first assumption of historical 
fact, regarding the whereabouts of the ark during the events of 
I Sam. 14, 18, can be shown to be untenable or irrelevant, nothing 
stands in the way of our discarding the second, and decidii^ in 
favor of the ark as the specific instrument of divination. The crux 
of the whole matter lies in the first assumption and its attendant 

As long ago as 1835, Vatke ' based upon the Masoretic text of 
I Sam. 14, 18 the opinion that the ark was, like the ephod, employed 
for purposes of divination; and his view has been revived in recent 
times by Holzinger * upon the same basis. But neither Vatke nor 
Holzinger made any attempt to reconcile the authenticity of the 
reading D'n^n iriK in i Sam. 14, 18 with the fact that the ark was at 
the time in question comfortably reposing in the house of Abinadab 
at Eirjath-jearim. If the Hebrew reading of our passage is to be 
maintained, such a reconciliation must be forthcoming. 

That the ark of Yabwe which finally rested in the temple of Solo- 
mon in Jerusalem was at Kirjath-jearim during the battle of Mich- 
mash cannot be disputed. For if the story of 2 Sam. 6 is not histori- 
cal, there is no history anywhere in the Old Testament; and if 2 Sam. 
6 is historical, the fact recorded in i Sam. 7, i must also be histori- 
cal. The historical ark of these narratives was accordingly in the 
house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim from some time before the 
accession of Saul until after the accession of David to the throne of 
all Israel a generation later.' But — why may not the ark of i Sam. 
14, 18 be another ark ? In point of fact, we shall see that it was. 

1 Dit ReUgion dei AUen TaUments, I, pp. 32a ff. 

' Kvner Hani-Commattar tmn AUen Testament; Exodus, 1900, p. 193. 

* Tbe cntiie idgn of Saul — the stoiy of Samuel must be diai^&rded — and the 
nile of David as king of Judah in Hebion fall in the interval, i Sam. 7, a, althou^ 
of questionable origin, will not be veiy fu astny on the nutter of time; dnce Abina* 
dab, wlio has a grown son in iSam, 7, i.ispicsunublystlllBliveinaSam. 6,3. Other- 



The opinion that there was moie than one aik of Yahwe among 
the Hebrews b an ancient Jewish heresy/ originating with a certain 
Judah ben I^ish, a Palestinian rabbi of unusual sanity and insight, 
who flourished at the dose of the second centiu^ A.D.* The following 
is translated from the Jerusalem Talmud: ' 

" It is related that Rabbi Judah ben Laqish * said, Two arks 
journeyed with the Israelites in the wilderness *; one in which the 
Law was deposited, and one in which the fragments of the (broken) 
tables of stone were deposited.* That in which the Law was de- 
wise the houK would probably have been called 31]*3M p 'D T\''2 in the latter pas- 
sage. His son Eleazar may have die^ ia the iutetval. 

I Not ex&ctly a " tradition," as H. P. Smith, I. c, p. iia. 

' Cf. Bachei, Die Agoda dcr Tiuuiaiien, II, pp. 494 1. 

' Shtqaiim 49c; d. j. Sola isbc I use the Bomberg editkm, Venice 1513-4. 

* So the Bomberg edition, both in Sluqdlim and Sayt; and the text of the latter ood- 
tained in the Jeruslialmi Fragments from Ike Genaak, edited by Ginzberg, I, p. aij. 
ThcTosephta, Sofa vii, 18 (ed. Zuckcnnandel, p. 308), also attributes the doctrine to 
Judah ben Laqish. Abiavaiid,/.i;., fol. 85b, dtes the section from 5A«;iiUfli with rmiV 
'KjrrK ^3 instead of vp? ]3 rm' throughout; but his numerous paiaphiases and 
important omismona show condusivdy that he was quoting from memoiy. Buitoif 
the younger, who had Abravanei's commentary as well aa the Jerusalem Talmud 
bdore him, gives a mixed text, with {Tp? p imn* thefirst and second times the name 
ocairs, but 'KJ^^K 13 TrtVV the third time; aodcaIlshimR./«AM£itot£%it from the 
first in his latin tian^tion; BUtoria Arcae Potdtris, Baad, 1659, p. 33. The reading 
*l6lt 13 whidi the Jitomir edition of the Jerusalem Talmud (followed by the Hotifcow 
edition) inserts in parentheses in the text of Shtqalitn (but not in that of Sofa} rests, 
not upon manuscript evidence, but upon a suggestion of the Gaon Elijah of Wilna; 
and this latter, though butuesMd mth an emiMaus argument, was probably not 
wholly indq>endent of Abravanei's misquotation. 

' From this passage Graeti, GtsefnekU dtr Judtit, I, 1S74, p. 160, quoted *3V 
Vn niJriK in suHxirt of his cmtcntlon that a second ait — lacking the tables of 
stone, of couise, so that one fails to ice what object it was to seive — was constructed 
by the Aaronic priesthood of Nob to take the place of the one lost to the FhiUstiaes. 
Which recalls the sermon against the vanity of ladies' top-knots, from the text, " top 
twt come down." The Talmud has imD3 ^B" OS rai'TO Vn nWlK 'Mf. 

* The orthodox ho^adak placed the fragments of the first two tables of stone, 
which were broken by Mose^ beside the second two in the single ark; see b. Bda 
Balira ub; b. BtraduOk Sb. The present text of Siphre | 8a, however, reflects the 
opinion tA Judah ben Laqish in its comment on the statement JfOU flVP IV13 |irM1 



posited was kept in the Tent of Meeting; concerning this it is 
written, And the ark of 0u anenont of the LORD and Moses 
did not move from the midst of the camp (Numbers 14, 44). That in 
which the fragments of the tables of stone were deposited went in 
and out with them (in war) ; and twi« it appears with them (in the 
biblical narrative: i Sam. 14, 18; 2 Sam. 11, 11).^ But the Rabbis 
affirm, There was only one ark,* and it went forth only once, in the 
days of Eli, and then it was captured. A text of Scripture supports 
the Rabbis : Woe unto us! who shall deliver us from these mighty gods t 
(i Sam. 4, 8) — a thing which they (the Philistines) had never seen 
before. (On the other hand) a text of Scripture supports Rabbi 
Judah ben Laqish: And Saul said to Ahijak, Bring hither the divine 
or* (1 Sam. 14, 18). Was there not an ark at Kirjath-jearim ? How 
do the Rabbis dispose of this passage ? (Answer: Saul meant) 
Bring me the pc (the High Priest's golden plate, Ex. 28, 36).* 
Another text of Scripture supports Rabbi Judah ben Laqish: The 
ark and Israel and Judah are linng in booths (3 Sam. 11, 11). Was 
there not an ark in Zion P How do the Rabbis dispose of this 
passage P (Answer:) It (the ark in Zion) was indeed in a booth 
(when Uriah spoke), for it was under an awning * (cf . 2 Sam. 7, 2), 
since the Temple had not yet been built." * We modems must admit 
that Rabbi Judah had the best of the argument. 

orpjth of Numbers 10, 33; TDiHP mmi> nst? 13 vn nanoa nnoy »rr» nr piK 
njnon npo ipd k^ nrm mn' nna jn». 

' ]nOV rnnO tX\n "OJ/tn. UgoUnus, Tktsauna anii^uilalum satranim, XVm, 
ool. tti f, anden et aliquando pratHMti^attes, leading Q^tSVB aa plural and mriD a* 
if from mn. The some nusunderstandiog underlifs t}ie Toscphta verakm: D*DIID 
Onojr 13113 n\1 , though the latter interprets OW^ oorrectly as dual. Before inop, 
mnc can only be an Aramaiztng equivalent of riKIJ . Buxtorf and the Jitomir edi- 
tion actually read ntcno. Aptowitzer,f.e., p. 4g, bases a characteristically muddled 
aigumc&t upon a misinteTpretatioD of this sentence. 

* Here and elsewhere Schwab, Le Talmtid de Jinuolem, V, pp. agS f , attempts lo 
btrmonizc and mistranslates. 

■ Note that the Tabnudic authorities do not comwct this passage with the cpbod. 
For " I'arche oontenant les vttements sacris pour conmltet I'orade " of Schwab's 
rendering one has to come down to AbravaneL 

* For Ti'pa read Tl'pn, as inj. Sofa »ac. 

* Abravatiel, who accepts the orthodox rablAucal view, points out that Uriah*! 
eicuse was factitious, since by the same ttAea he would never In his life have been 
free to go home; I. c., fol. 86b. 



The Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages gave themselves less con- 
ctxn over the subtle, tell-tale testimony of i Sam. 14, 18 and 2 Sam. 
II, II regarding the historical ark, than they did over the ext^idt 
contradiction bequeathed to them by the redactors of the Fenta^ 
teuch r^arding the fictitious ark of Jewish dogma. Exodus 37, iff, 
it will be recalled, asserts that the ark was manufactured in costly 
fashion by Bezaleel, from specifications delivered to Moses (Ex. 25, 
10 fi)) After the latter's descent from the mount with the second 
two tables of stone (Ex. 34, 39); whereas Deuteronomy 10 affirms 
that Moses himself constructed it of plain shittim wood just before 
he went up into the mount to receive the second two tables of stone. 
Accordingly, some held that the Israelites carried away two arks 
bam Sinai, one made by Bezaleel and containing the two sound 
tables of stone, and another made by Moses and containing the 
fragments of the broken tables. The first ordinarily remained in the 
sanctuary, while the second r^ularly marched ahead of the people 
through the wilderness, and accompanied them into battle after 
thdr settlement in Canaan. On one occasion the ark of Bezaled 
was carried into battle without divine authority, when the insu- 
larity was punished by the ciq)ture of the ark and the defeat of the 
people at the hands of the Philistines. The prevailing opinion, 
however, held that the ark which Moses made was in use only 
temporarily, until the completion of the more costly one manu- 
factured by Bezaleel, when it was stowed away in a sort of pristine 
gentzah; and that both sets of tables, the sound and the brokoi, 
were preserved in the single ark of Bezaleel. This alone accom- 
panied the Israelites away from Sinai and into the land of Canaan.' 

So far as it concerns our present enquiry, the doctrine of Judah 
ben Laqish and his heretical successors of the Middle Ages falls far 
short of the truth; which — to return to the atmosphere and langu- 
age of modem historical science — may be stated as follows: The 
historical ark of Yahwe was not a unique btU a manifold object, aUach- 

' See AbiB.vaiiel, I, c., fbl. S5 f. Abiavanel's exhaustive discussion b i^roduced 
with chAncteristic luddity by Buztoif the younger in dieter 3 of the valu&ble woA 
already dted: An area hate quam Baakelfeeil tola tnler Israditas Jueritt An vera 
fraekrmm adhutalia quam Uoiufeetril juaiiiqut Isratlitae ttaimiit beUttmeJustnaitf 



mg to tvery Pale^mian sattcluary that possessed a consecrated priest- 
hood; and the theory of a single ark, corresponding to that of a single 
legitimate sanctuary, is the last simdving Deuteronomistic conceit in 
the theological scienu of the present day.^ Not only was the ark of 
I Sam. 14, 18 a diffomt ask from the one detained at Eirjath- 
jearim, but the one mentioned by Uriah the Hittite as encamped 
with the army of Joab at the si^e of Rabbath Ammon (a Sam. 
II, 11) was perhaps stillanother; the" ^hod "with which Abiathar 
accompanied David on his wanderings (i Sam. 23, 6 9; 30, 7; cf. 
I Kings 2, 36) was certainly another; that in the sanctuary of 
Nob (i Sam. 31, 10) was perhaps still another; that of Micah and 
the Danites (Judges 17 f) was certainly another; and that of 
Gideon (Judges 8, 27) was still another. What is more, i Sam. 14, 18 
is far from being the only passage in the Old Testam«at where the 
scribes have failed to conceal the true state of the case. On the 
contrary, the ancient records contain hardly a ^ngle surviving refer- 
ence to the arit which does not by its veiy language, when critically 
examined, betray the fact that the object was manifold and not 


At this point it will be well for us to abandon the obsolete term 
" ark," which to our sen^ilities has acquired something of the 
dignity of a proper name, and employ henceforward the plain Eng- 
lish " box," which rq>roduces exactly the classical sense of the 
Hebrew word jnit . 

And first attention must be directed to a point of grammar which 
has been sadly overlo(^ed in this connection.* It has been generally 
assumed that, the object being unique, the Old Testament expres- 
Mons mn' p-iK, D'niiK pK, and vrhnn jnv were, to all intents and 
purposes, proper names, with identical, or at least equivalent sema- 

' This thesis, it is haidly necesuiy to tAy, must not be confounded with nich u> 
0[Hiiioii Bs that of Schmlly (/. c, pp. 14 f)> to the effect that the lA wu indeed a unique 
UBtknul institution in the Itiitoiical period, but tlutt before the otlier Imelitish trOxs 
bad allied tbemsdvea with Josqih, one and anothec of them may have had a corres- 
ponding tribal palladium of its own, consecnted periups to another ddty than Yabwe. 

> In a measure, it has been tacitly anticipated in my tianalations above. 



siok^cal value. So that whether a Hebrew author employed the 
one or the other, depended upon the impulse of the moment, the 
exigencies of style, or at best on his individual habit; the sense would 
be the same. Some recent critics have gone so far as to analyse 
the old narratives of i Sam. 4-6 and 3 Sam. 6 into two distiiict 
sources: a J source, employing mn' inK, and an E source, employ- 
ing o>n^ TDK or Q^rhun iriK, to designate the same object and 
expres^g the same idea.* Even the few scholars who have recog- 
nized that the genitive in D^n^Mn rnK has adjectival rather than sub- 
stantive force, and that the phrase should be rendered the sacred 
box rather than the box of Cod — die Golieslade rather than die Lade 
Gottes — have failed to perceive any material difference between its 
actual connotation and that of the expression mrr p^K. Still less, 
so ^ as I am aware, has any critic ever dreamed of a material differ- 
ence between D*n^M niK and a-rbttn rriK. It has been univeisally 
assumed that the only difference between these two expressions Is 
that in the one case God is called D^n^K, and in the other he is called 
D''r6Mn.* The fact is, however, that not only do they both differ in 
meaning from mm jn« , but D<n^M piK and o^ri^n irw have dia- 
metricaily opposite sytUacHcal values. 

In classical Hebrew, such a phrase as D^rhtx piK is an ittdelermin- 
aie appellaiive, the genitive wrhtf bdng employed generically and 
adjectivally; and the e]q>ression as a whole signifies neither the box 
of God, nor yet the sacred box, but distinctly a sacred box. This may 

' So, foT example, Dhoime affinus that a Sun. 6 u " une double namtion. L'une 
(v. 3-4, 6^) a>i>q>renant I'^isode d'Ouzift et se tenrunant pu le noin de Ptrt^-ChaiX, 
sfiputicDt k E. Nous n'y voyons figuier que I'arc^e de Dieu (v. 2, 3, 6, 7). L'autre, 
qui ne parle que de i'ardie de laJnt, contient renlifc de I'ardie A J^nualem, a^rh une 
station chez ObCdfdom ct I'fpisode de Mlcal. On salt que lea passages relatifs i Ulcal 
^)partienneat & J." L. e., p. 334; cf. p. 7. 

■ This enoneous assumption, eiq>lidtly avowed (p. 81), characterizes the entire 
treatment of Hebrew compounds with Q^nTK in Baumgfirtel's Eiokim aiuserkatb ia 
Paiialeuch, Leipsic, igi4; and very seriousiy impairs the value of a painstaking and 
otherwise laudably methodical contribution toward the sdentifii: solution of tlie 
question of the divine names in Gaiess. The tact is, tliat even when standing alone, 
OTOM and D^npKn arc not employed indiscriminately in the older literature — least 
of all in Genesis. 



be seen not only from such abstract and semi-abstract parallels as 
Vtijvt nsn , rdigynts practice; wr^tt TWrv, religious scruple; D^ni)K*iDn, 
sacred faith; O'l^H ins, divine awe; D^n^ nnn, (a) tremendous 
panic; Q'n^K V¥t, (a) miraculous fire; urhn rm, (a) divine spirit 
(tor which the correqwnding unqualified expressions would be run , 
nin', non , im , rmn , e« , rm j not njnn, etc.) ; but also from such 
distinctlyunitaryconcrete parallels as D'nim n'3, M«c/«ofy (Judges, 
17, s; Gen. 28, 22); H'n^ T*^, «« ong*^ (Gen. 28, 12, where D'h^ik 
is clearly not a surrogate for mn^) ; D'n^M I'tj , a religious devotee 
(Judges 13, 5); D*n^M l!''K, a divine agent (i Kings 17, 24). And 
when, in classical Hebrew, the article is prefixed to the genitive of 
such a compound, it indicates, not that the writer is employing in- 
discriminately an alternative adjectival genitive, o^r^Mn, but that 
the whole compound, and specifically the construct noun, is con- 
sciously determined. No greater mistake can be made than to sup- 
pose that classical Hebrew could employ interchangeably D^niw rvs 
and O'fi^n ti'3, D'fi^ vk and D'n^ itk, D'nii« ptn and O'Thm \rm. 
To a certain, very limited extent, the distinction has been obscured 
by textual corruption and by the fact that the Hebrew idiom some- 
times employs the determinate where we should employ the indeter- 
minate; * but of the validly of the principle there can be no doubt 
whatever. By the ancient Hebrews themselves D^n^n ]nK was 
never employed without the distinct consciousness that it was the 
determinate form of an antecedent indeterminate D'n^ tnit . 

This proposition is of such fundamental importance that it is 
worth our while to demonstrate it conclusively by an exhaustive 
survey of the Old Testament usage with regard to one such com- 
pound which occurs often enough in the pre-exilic literature to pre- 
clude the possibility of our result beii^ vitiated by chance phenom' 
ena or textual corruption. I will be pardoned if, in order to secure 
the predsion demanded in such a matter, I employ the prefix 
" deity " with a hyphen, to represent the adjectival D^n^N of the 

' SoiaaSanLM, i7tliewoiiaaofTeko»My8 toD avid, 'nw p BViVKnTi<!ra 
1^1; just as Amos (5, 19) says, TVi Ijrifil nMH *JDD ITK DU* imo. a. 
Geaenitis-Kautzsdi { 116 r. 



Hebrew compound, rather than the more elegant but misleading 
suffix " of God " or the ambiguous adjective " sacred." 

I Sam. 2, 27, a (s^nge) deity-man, D'n^M r*M, comes to Eli. 
I Sam. 9, 6, Saul's servant says to him, " Behold, there is a deity- 
man (D^niiK VVt) in this city "; thoeafter the {aforesaid) deity-man 
isD''n!)Mn er^K, V. 7, 8,10. I'Kia^ 1^,1, a deity-man, DVi^K er^K, comes 
to Bethel from Judah; thereafter Uie {aforesaid) deity-man is vrnt 
Vfrfmn, V. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 26, 29, 31. i Kings 20, 28, a 
{strange) deily-man, DVi^ r^K , steps up to the king of Israel. 2 Kings 
4, 7, Elisha, who is already the subject of the narrative, is tke deily- 
man, tTii^n ITK ; similarly in the sequel, 4, 21 22 25 27 42; 5, 14 
15; 6, 6 9 10 15; 7, 2 17 18 19; 8, 2 4 7 8 11; 13, 19. 2 Kings 
23, 16 f, the deity-man of the episode of i Kings 13 is orhvay trn. 
I Kings 13, 23; 3 Kings 5, 8 30; Jer. 35, 4, the deity-man, in apposi- 
tioa to a proper name, is D*r6Kn I!''m. i Kings 17, 18; 3 Kings 
1, 9 II 13; 4 16 40, the vocative, deily-man, is, in accordance with 
correct Hebrew idiom, arhttn ck . On the other band, in the predi- 
cate: I Kings 17, 24, "I know that thou art a deity-man" — trtt 
crhK. 2 Kings i, 10, "If I be a deity-man " ~a>r6ti irit; and so 
without doubt originally in verse 12, where the Masoretic text now 
reads Q'ni»«n p'k, but G^ has ivOpams ff«w. 2 Kings 4, 9, " I 
know that he is a Ao/y dtfi/y-man " — imp a^r^ rK. Judges 13, 6, 
the Masoretic text again exhibits the erroneous a-r/ytm itk where the 
context demands a deity-man, but again G^ has ivOfxarot 9tov; 
with which contrast rbv ItvBpawov tov 0coO, reproducing the correct 
O'n^n trvt, the deity-man, of the sequel in verse 8.^ 

The above survey exhibits the undeviating usage of classical 
Hebrew. The only case in the Old Testament where that usage 
would seem to have been violated by the author himself is 2 Chron. 
3S,7,wherewehave v^K Ka D'nVMn r*in, though the context demands 
an indeterminate subject. But this is the exertion which proves 
the rule. For, to the Chronicler, the determinate vrhttn vruk of the 

* If GB of Judges lepreaeuU a l&U Greek traiulatJaQ of the fourth centuiy kJ}- 
(Moore, Comntntary, p. dvi; but cf. Thackeray, Grimmar of Ihe Old Testament w 
Greek, I, p. 9), it indicates that, as late as that, the Hebrew text of Judges 13, 6 stilL 
exhitHted the correct D'P^K ITM. 



sequel in verse 9 does not signify the deity-man, but the man of the 
ZMty = Ike man of God; and hence aTh«n itk of verse 7 is ndther 
the deity-man nor a deity-man, but a man of the Deity — a man of 
God. In other words, for the Chronicler, the genitive is determinate, 
and not adjectival but substantive. And the same will be the con- 
struction intended in all otho' cases ^ere the title is bestowed by 
an epigone who had no understanding of the historical institution. 
So vrhnn tcftt two, Deut. 33, i; Joshua 14, 6; Psalm 90, i (title), 
as well aa i Chron. 23, 14; 2 Chion. 30, 16; Ezra 3, 2 (Chronicler), 
is Moses the man of God; and D'n^ itk -i*n , 3 Chion. 8, 14; Neh. 
12, 24 36 (Chronicler), is David the man of God. In 2 Chron. 11, 2 
the author is cnpyii^ i Kings is, 33. 

The Chronicler's use of the divine names has occasioned so much perplexity 
and miaimdeistanding (cf., for example, Kittel, Handkommentar turn Alten 
TeitometU, pp. 63 f) that a few observations on the subject may not be out of 
place, (i) Heemployed mn' — 'much as we employ "viz." for " namely " — 
only as the ideogrammatic spelling of Adonai, his favorite divine name. This 
is the simple explanation of the vast prepondenince of Tnxv over D^nitKd) in 
the writings of the Chronicler. (For the statistics, see B&umgilrtel, I. c, pp. 
68 f) It is noteworthy that, except in two passages copied from Nehemiah's 
memoirs, the spelling *JnM occurs nowhere in Chion.-Ezr.-Neh. (a) He em- 
ployed D^n^n as a determinate ^>pellative — the Deity icar' l^ox^v. (3) He 
employed the old generic title Q^n?M, IMiy, as the equivalent of Adotiai (nvi<). 
So are to be eqdained such phi&ses as D^HTM n'S (ii. 34, 9), O'tTPK K'M (a. 34, 
32), D'niimaT (i. 17,3; cf. a Sam. 7,4), tTfliiK 'B (ii.35, aa) — all detenni- 
nate, and equivalent w« tneaning to nUT Tl'3, mrr H'TS, FlVT in, and mn' 'B 
req>ectively. This substantive D'H^K must be distinguished from the adjectival 
Q'n^ of such indeterminate stereotyped phrases aa Wt^ nn (ii.15,1; 34, 10), 
□'n!>M*inB (11.30,29), and □*ni>K Ti3no (i.i3,aa),whidi the Chronicler probably 
never stopped to analyse. (4) He emi^oyed D'HTK mir to represent the 
double name Adonai EloMm, and hence used it when reproducing rriTV ^31H 
of the older literature, which he pronounced Aioaai Elchim; d. i. 17, 16 17 
with a Sam. 7, 18 19. (5) When not copying mechanically (as in i. 11, 9; 
17. 7 »4 " ^ Sam. 5, 10; 7, 8 a6 respectively), he reproduces niK35( mn* by 
mm alone; cf. i. 13, 6 with a Sam. 6, 2, and i. 16, 2 with 3 Sam. 6, 18. This 
indicates that his oral surrogate for mKlY mn', as well as for the simple mn*, 
of the older Uterature was Adonai. See p. 147 below for evidence that certain 
SqKuagint translators f<dk>wed a similar practice. 

For the period with which we are concerned, when the people still 
possessed the historical institution of the sacred box, or, at all 



events, a living tradition of what it had been, the rigid observance 
of the linguistic usage I have indicated has been abundantly demon- 
strated. Just as it is no accident that the expresdon trn^ vm , 
which is found in the Old Testament only in the predicate (Judges 
13. 5 7; *6. 17). occurs every time without the article, so we may 
confidently assume that in the mouth of the andmt Hebrews p~iK 
Q^n^K always signified a sacteA box; and Q^rhtun jntt ^gnified neither 
the box of God nor the Sacred Box xar' t^x^v, but merely tfie sacred 
box — other already mentioned, or abottt to be identified by means of a 
relative clause, or unmistakably defined by the context. 

It remains to remind ourselves that even nvr p-iH, though gram- 
matically defined for the given context, does not by any means, in 
pre-Deuteronomic thinking, imply that the object so designated is 
intrinsically unique. In this respect nvr p^K carries the same im- 
plications — no more and no less — that are involved in the expres- 
sion mrr raro in the story of Elijah (i Kings 18, 30; cf. i^nruio, 
19, 10); or in the term mn* n*a of the earty codes (Ex. 23, 19; 34, 
a6), the story of Samuel (i Sam. i, 7 24), and the history of David 
(a Sam. 12, 20).' To speak familiarly, " the pen of John Smith " 
is not necessarily John Smith's only existing pen, in the absence of 
a law forbiding the possession of more than one pen. 

With these preliminary observations, we pass to the testimony of 
the records. 


And we may begin by afiBrming that the very employment in the 
records of such an appellative as [rn^M p^K , whether determined or 
not, is evidence that the Hebrews were acquainted with a plurality 
of such objects ; just as the employment of the f^pellative crhtt itr^ 
is evidence that the Hebrews were acquainted with a plurality of 
such functionaries. An object designated nvi* jnK might possibly 

1 Budde'i ofajectkm to the leading mn* n*3 in 1 Sun. la, m (fMratr Bond^im- 
mtKtar, p. 357), like Steneniagel'a to the itme readiDg In Joshua 6, 34 {B anih omm i n l ar, 
p. 174}, it not well taken. The tetm n^a aigues nothing at all aa to the cbarartff of 
the attendant itiuctuit, whether ^n (t Sam. 1, 9), ^nt (i Einci 1, aS), 01 mcftlr 
rata (Gen. aS, 31}. 



be unique in the religion of I^ael as well as peculiar to it; an object 
designated Dvi^ irw was pretty certainly neitber the one nor the 
other. There was of cotirse more than one ovhvt sr*, D^nVt* it^D, 
ot/m -vk , ffTiiiK n*3 , not merely in the world of the ancient Hebrews, 
but also in the service of Yahwe. So, presumably, there was also 
more than one &<n{)K tnn in his service. Nor is anything gained for 
the traditional theory by maintaining that the employment of the 
appellative points to a plurality of such objects only in the broadw 
field of common Canaanitish institutions, but not in the narrower 
field of specifically Israelitish rdigion. For if the sacred box was, 
to the consdousoess of the early Israelitish writers, a common 
Canaanitish institution, then presumably it was not one which thdr 
ancestors brought with them from the desert of Sinai. And we 
should be going far out of our way to assume that, after their dis- 
persion in Canaan and before thdr unification under the monarchy, 
the Israelites adopted a plural Canaanitish institution, but managed 
nevertheless to impose upon it a patuitously singular character. 

If, however, we draw the natural condusion, that the use of the 
iq)pellative orhtt n^K argues acquaintance with a plurality of sacred 
boxes, Yahwistic as well as non-Yahwisdc, then it becomes exceed- 
ingly significant that the appellative is found again and again in the 
most andent narratives in the Old Testament, which actually deal 
with historical conditions and events in Canaan (i Sam. 4, 4 ' 11 
13 17 18 19 31 22; 5, I 2 10; I Sam. 14, 18; 3 Sam. 6, 2 3 4 7 13; 
2 Sam. 15, S4 25 29), although it is cons[acuousty absent in the 
imaginative compositions concerning the olden time when all Israel 
lived and journeyed together as a single company with a single 
portablesanctuary (Numbers 10, 33-36; 14,44; Joshua 3-8).* 

It must be admitted that these general considerations, added to 
the solid testimony of i Sam. 14, 18, go far towards establishing the 
contention that the Israelites possessed more than one sacred box. 
And, in view of the doctrine which has prevuled in the Jewish church 

' Hie Deuterooombtic glou JV\i u of course disrcftanled. 

* If the namtives croceming the sacred box could be analyzed into two distiiict 
souicctduuacteruedbytheuseof mn*;i1K and Q<ni>K(n) pK reqiectively— wbtch 
thejr can not — the " Elohiitic " source would have to be assigned the eailiei date. 



from the very begiiuung concenuog the box of Yahwe, and the 
drastic measures which we have seen reason to believe were adopted 
by the early scribes to destroy the traces of its plural character, it 
would not be at all stupri^ng if we could discover no additional 
evidence in su[q>ort of that contention. But in fact, as already 
intimated, the direct evidence of a manifold sacred box yielded by 
the surviving references in the early literature of the Old Testament 
is abtmdant and unmistakable. 

There are, to be sure, some references to the sacred box in the 
later pre-exilic literature which are neutral — compatible with either 
of the two opposing hypotheses. Such are, for example, the notices 
in the story of the Mosaic joumeyings, and in the pre-Deuteronomic 
stratum of the story of Joshua. These we shall of course interpret 
finally in the light of the hypothesis demanded by the less equivocal 
passages. On the other hand, there is not a single pre-exilic refer- 
ence — not even in Deuteronomy and Kings ' — which is actually 
incompatible with the hypotbesb of a manifold box; whereas there 
are no less than five passages, besides i Sam. 14, 18, which are 
irreconcilable with any other hypothesis. These passages are i Sun. 
3, 3; z Sam. 4, 3f; 2 Sam. 6, 2; i Kings 3, 26; and Jer. 3, 16. 
In addition, there are several passages which become thoroughly 
intell^ble only upon the hypothesis of a manifold sacred box em- 
ployed for purposes of divination; namely, 2 Sam. 11, 11; 2 Sam. 
15, 24ff; and Judges »o, 27. We will examine all these passages 
in the order given. 


In I Sam. 3, 3 the Masoretic text reads: mrr b'ns ur 'pmatn 
trn^ |nK or isnt . As this text stands — and there is no good reason 
for questioning it — it can only mean, and Samu^ was asleep in 
the temple of Yahwe, where there was a sacred box.* A like rendering 

1 I Kings 8, 9 II and the inteipolatiiHU in Deut. 10, 1-5 ore disreguded (or the 
pment; d. pige s, note i. 

* For the looM relative with av d. Gen. 1, 11. Since Eli is pieaumobly uieep in 
•notbcT q)aTtiDent of the Bome building, mn* Vs^l niuit be the single chuidier used aa 
a aaactuBiy. An eariia writer would pnbftbly have taken it (01 granted that the 
tanctuaiy contained a saaed box. 


I SAMUEL 3, 3 35 

is demanded by the preceding clause, ray did Q'n^ i] ; not the 
lamp of God had not yet gone out, but not a single temple lamp had 
yet gone out — all the lamps were still burning.'' Both D^n^ is 
and D'n^K |nK could be determinate only if the expres^oos were 
exceptions to the grammatical principle we have been at pains to 
establish, that is, only if 0'rf?K is not an adjectival genitive but a 
constructively determinate surrogate of the name Yakwe. Such an 
asstto^tion is utterly unwarranted. Nowhere in the story of Eli 
(i Sam. 1-6), either in the earlier or later sections, is crr/» em- 
ployed as the surrogate of Yahwe. On the contrary, Yahwe is uni- 
formly called by his proper name, and actually so in the very sent- 
ence we are discussing. o*rf» throughout i Sam. i-6 is invariably 
an appellative. As such it occurs: (a) In the construct: of Dagon, 
iJ'niiK (5, 7), OTThH (6, 5); of Yahwe, hvntr ^rhn (i, 17; 2, 30; 
5, 7 8 10 11; 6, 3 5); besides irni* in the song of Hannah (2, 2). 
(b) In apportion without following genitive, nin enpn n^rhan mn' 
(6, 20). (c) Of " deity " in general, not specifically Yahwe: of the 
category in contradistinction to Yahwe (2, 25); in the expression 
o*rh« tr^po (so the correct reading), guilty of sacrilege {3, 13); 
in the common Palestinian adjuration, *|<or< rm D*r6M *|^ rvpjr na 
(3, 17); in the mouth of the Philistdnes, nnon '?k D'h^ K3, Deity 
has arrived in the camp {4, 7). (d) In compounds: D'n^K ITK (2, 27); 
O'r^Hij (3,3); D'filwrnK (3. 3; 4, 4 II 13 17 18 19 21 23; 5, 1 
2 10); trnivT (5, 11). (e) Distinctly in the plural, gods: only 
in the scribal inteipolation 4, SI * With this array of facts before 
us, we must insist upon the adjectival character of D<n^K in i Sam. 
3, 3, and upon the rendering a sacred box rather than the box of God. 
However, precisely for that reason, we can afford to be generoits 
on the question of the authenticity of the indetenninate readings 
D'fiiiKij and dt6« pK of the Masoretic text. That the Septua- 
gint has A X^xvot rov Btod and 4 wfit^hs rw 9tov is not to be 

' I Kings 7, 49 and Ex. 35, 37 give us no reason to believe that important sanctuaries 
were served by a dngle light. 

■ The perpetrator of this inteipolalion was bound to have the Philistines talk like 
the unmitigated heathen they were. The author himself knew very well that Q\1?K 
could be construed as a angular by any Hebrew-speaking inholntant of Canaan. 



wondered at, !□ view of the detenmnate inteipretatioD of the in- 
determinate Masoretic text which prevails universally at the present 
day. But even if we concede that the Gredt translator had D*nWi 13 
and D'n^Kii ii"ik , and that these were the authentic readings, we 
should not have altered the fact that trn^K is adjectival. The only 
difference would be the substitution of the reading the sacred box for 
a sacred box; which is much as if one should say, r^arding the 
chancel of a modem church building, " where the communion table 
was," instead of " where there was a communion table " — hardly 
evidence, in either case, that all Christendom has but one com- 
munion table. At the worst, this verse would take its place in the 
second group of passages we have enumerated. For the fact should 
not be overlooked that the author's mention of the presoice of the 
sacred box in the room where Samuel slept is much more to the 
point if both he and his readers thought of it as a box from which 
the priests of Shiloh ordinarily extracted the oracular responses of 
Yahwe. And if it was that, it was of course not unique. Mean- 
while we shall do well to bear in mind the exact meaning and un- 
questionable purport of the Masoretic text of i Sam. 3, 3; as well 
as the fact, that while it is very easy to account for the reading of 
G as arising from M, it is difficult to imagine how the text of M 
could arise from that assiuned for G.' 


Our next passage is i Sam. 4i 3 f. It is commonly recognized that 
the story of the sacred box in which this passage occurs was not 
originally composed as a continuation of chapter 3, but is part of a 
distinct writing of much earlier date which has been imbedded in 
the setting furnished by the opening chapters. Such being the case, 

> lai Sam.4, ti.on tbecontiBiy, 0^1?K pItt cannot be theorigiiul; foi, the s&cred 
box h&ving been introduced in vene 3, the compound appellative in verse 11 must be 
D^nTttn p'W, as regularly dsewhcie in tbe narrative. The scribal emendation was, how- 
ever, veiy fai from intending a substantive construction for Q^npit (cf. Budde, Kvner 
Batid-CoiiulietUar, p. 35); it was merely concerned with avoiding at all costs, regaltl- 
less of grammar, the vocal sequence np?J D'n^Kn , a scruple which will account also 
for the odd gender bestowed upon np73 in verse 17. 


I SAMUEL 4, 3-4 37 

the notice of the sacred box in 4, 3 f is an initial metUitm; and, 
since the box is not referred to incidentally but foims the subject 
of the narrative, the language of the text must, if our contention be 
correct, identify in some way, for the benefit of the reader, the 
particular sacred box whose history is about to be rehearsed. A 
careful attention to details will show that it does that very thii^. 

In I Sam. 4, the Israelites, having rashly engaged in a pitched 
battle with the Philistines in the open plain, are thorou^y beaten, 
and retire to their camp, leaving about four thousand men upon the 
field. Whereupon the chiefs take counsel: nah btniir -ipl nam 
lanpa K31 fnrp (nna) jnn nw t6vo ij'S'K nnpj D'ni?i>D "ith oi'n nw hw) 
reiux miT (nna) pK nit dpd ikeh niiB» Djrn rhtrt iira'K "po "jnn 
(iranan aer). The textual difficulties are not very saious. In a 
document of this early date, the Deuteronomistic gloss nns may 
be struck out without much ado in both verses (cf. G^). That 
leaves, as the only textual question to be considered, the concluding 
phrase D'3-Dn ac, which is ostensibly in apposition to niMM mrp. 

Now, of course, no sacred box was actually designated mn^ pttt 
tranan ar muss in current speech, niitax was itself enough of a 
qualification of mn", without adding an adjectival clause to qualify 
in turn niitav mm. Moreover, at the time here r^resented, the 
cherubim, which were designed by Solomon's Phoenician artisans 
to overshadow the sacred box in the cella of his temple,' were not 
in existence. Dibelius, to be sure, finds the cherubim carved upon 
the box (or rather, throne) itself from the very beginning; where- 
fore, and without respect to the cherubim of Solomon's temple, 
Yahwe was called D'Sian aer, " der iiber den Kervbtn IhrotU." * 
But o^a-ian atr does not mean he that sits oeer the cherubim, any 
more than thvrc air meaiks he that sits over Jerusalem. The idio- 
matic Hebrew for he that sits upon the cherubim — which is the 
point of departure for this interpretation ^ would be ^ a^rj 
vaian ; the preposition being essential even with the participle, 

■ I Kings 6, 33 B; d. S, 6. 

* L. c, pp. 17, li f; d. Eduud Meyer, DU ItrotliltH utid ilm /facUarsUmme, 
pp. 114 f. The archMdogy is origiul; but the pfailolfigic&l blunder is ai tndent u 
the Scptuagint and &i recent as the latest edition of G«semus-Buhl. 



which in turn woidd have to be detennined by means of the article 
in this context; cf. especially i Kings 32, 19; Isa. 6, i; 28, 6; 40, 22; 
Jer. 17, 25; Prov. 20, 8. Di>»n' 2itr is the inhabilant of Jerusalem; 
similarly, trnsn Jgr is the occupant of the cherubim. And we have 
only to repeat this last phrase to ourselves once to realize that it 
is what the rabbis of the Mishnic period called a <U3 , that is, a 
circumlocution deigned to avoid the utterance of a particular ex- 

I have elsewhere ^ called attention to the fact that when the name 
Yakwe began to be avoided in the fourth century B.C., it was not 
always found practicable to substitute Adonai or Elokim for the 
sacred name in the reading of the ancient documents. This was 
obviously the case where the name Yahtee was itself the subject of 
discourse, as in Ex. 3, 14; and also where, as both here and in 
2 Sam. 6, 2, the name Tntat mn* bad to be unmistakably indicated. 
For Adonai Sebaolh was not in those days a construable expression; 
^ce the possessive suffix of Adonai had not yet faded from the 
Jewish consciousness. And while there are indications that Adonai 
alone was used sometimes as a surrogate of the compound mm 
miUY as well as of the plain mn< in the early synagogue,' it could 
not well serve the purpose here, where the point of the text is the 
precise designation of the sacred box. This was not mvc ]nK 
(= -nn itik), but ninnx mn' piK. And it would have been equally 
misleading and confusing (or the reader to call the box 'nSw pK 
Ttaat. But the box of the occupant of the cherubim was too palpa- 
ble a circumlocution to mislead, while it was at the same time 
perfectly unambiguous. For the historic box of Yakwe Sebaoth 
had actually symbolized the presence of Yahwe under the out- 
spread wings of the cherubim in Solomon's temple; and it was as 
Yakwe Smooth that the God of Israel was worshipped in that holy 
place, as once he had been worshipped under the same title in the 
sanctuary at Shiloh.* The " occupant of the cherubim " was there- 

> Jmmal <4 Bibliad LUeratire, XXIV, 1905, pp. 140 fT. 

> This probably accounts for the unqualified KvpfovtrfGB ID I Sun. 4,4. Seefurtbo' 
pagea 31, 146 [. 

» Cf. I Sam. 1, 3 ti; In. 6, 3 5; 37, i6 {- 3 Kings 19, 15); Jer. 7. a 31". b.) w 
12 14; Zech. 7, 3. 


I SAMUEL 4, 3-4 39 

therefore none other than Vakwe Sebaotk. Without doubt, the 
kiwnili or surrogate ETTon ac was first inserted in the manuscrqits 
as a supralinear gloss for the guidance of the reader,' and eventu- 
ally dropped into the line through inadvertence.* 

Omitting the rubric o*3-Dn XT' accordingly, we get the authentic 
text of OUT passage, which may be rendered as follows: And the 
dders of Isratl said, Why has Yakwe smitten us to-day bt^ore the 
PhiUsttMes t Let us procure the box of Yahwe from Shiloh, and let it 
come into our ranks and save us from the hand of our enemies. So the 
army sent to Shiloh, and caused to be transported thence the box of 
Yahwe Militant.* 

Our author realized that the ddiberating elders of Israel had no 
need of reminding each other which particular box of Yahwe resided 
at Shiloh in their day. But he realized also that his own readers did 
stand in need of information on that point. For, long before his day 
and theirs, that box had been separated from Shiloh for ever. 
Accordingly, at his first mention of the box in propria persona, he 
takes care to identify it by means of its distinctive name, as the 
box of Yakwe MUUant.* Having done so, however, he employs 

' Both public and private; for it should be borne in mind in this oonnectioa, that 
reading to Dncaelf without movement of the lips and sound of the vmce is a compara- 
tively modem pnccai. 

* An interesting parallel is sufqjlied by Ps. 10, 3, irture the author undoubtediy 
wrote mn* yVt3 ynt. But the last two words being deemed unpronounceable (cf. 
the remedial gloss <3*M in > Samjia, 14), the euphemistic surrogate ^*I3 was inscribed 
above }'K] , and eventually dnq>ped into the text; with an cfiect which may be ap- 
prcdsted by consulting the latest oommentaiies on the Psalter. Id out passage the 
RCultwaSfOf course, that indue season the leading (rf n^K3X mn'bad tobefacedanew; 
and tbtn it was mechanically conformed to the practice elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
ment. IniKingsig, ij, where theoriginal text wasuoquesticmably *n^M mK3V mn* 
Ernf>Kn Wn nim 'pvrw (cf. Isa. 37, 16), the conqmund name was eventually read 
Aicmoi. On the other hand, in Fb. 80, 1; gg, i the imMb' tryoCn) ZV is au- 
thentic, having by that time come to be emidoyed as an epithet. 

■ For the justification of this rendering of the name Yakiee ^ebaatk, see Excursus I 
at the cod of this treatise. 

* As will presently appear, this individual sacred box was called Iht box t^ Yakict 
UBHamt, not merely because it was attached to the sancttiaiy where Yahwe was 
wonh^iped vaAtt that title, but also — and perhaps more pnsimately — because ^ 
the peculiar formula attending its use in dhrination. 



thereafter only the more or less general terms, the box, the sacred 
box, and the box of Yahwe, with the box of the god of Israel as the 
equivalent of the latter in the mouth of the Philistines. If there is 
a lingering doubt in the mind of the reader as to the exact nuance 
intended in our passage, let him substitute both times for the word 
" box " in the above translation some neutral word like " shrine," 
or " statue," or " standard," and then re-read the whole; wh^i I 
think he will be convinced that the interpretation I have given is 
not only natural, but necessary. 

The identical sacred box of i Sam. 4-6 is not heard of again in this 
ancient writing until a generation later. The sacred box of i Sam. 
14, iS was known to the author to be another box. So also was the 
" q)hod " of the sanctuary at Nob, and the " ephod " which Abia- 
thar carried in the service of David, if our view of the matter is 
correct. But when next this same box of Yahwe Militant re-appears 
in the narrative, the author once more takes pains to identify it, if 
anything still more explicitly than here. We turn, then, to 2 Sam. 


The ancient record of David's removal of the box of Yahwe Mili- 
tant from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem, which is of supreme im- 
portance for our subject, has been so radically misinterpreted from 
the earliest times to the present day, that, at the cost of some dis- 
proportion, I venture to print the complete text of the original 
record, together with my own translation and a few pages of un- 
avoidable comment. 

Part of the existing misinterpretation is due to the fact that the 
story was violently separated from its original setting by a late 
editor,' who, besides numerous other insertions and e^>ansions, 
interpolated the opening verse of chapter 6; thereby transforming 
what was in reality a mere incident of David's campaign against 
the Philistines, into a great national enterprise, involving the whole 
country, and enlisting the services of an army of thirty thousand 

' In ^ite of the tran^KisitioDs of i Chron. 13 and 14, however, it is quite ccitain 
that the Chnmicter had bdote him 1 Sam. $ and 6 b theii present form. 


n SAMUEL 6 41 

chosen men. To stcan the original setting, we must bc^ vith 
the invasion of the Philistines in 3 Sun. $, 17. And from that point 
to the end of chapter 6, the following elements of the Masoretic 
tact must be discarded as unauthentic: 

5, 20-34, entire. As this question has no very direct bearing on 
OUT subject, a few observations may suffice. Witb veise 30 com- 
pare 6, 8 and Judges si, 15. Verse 31 knows the Philistines as 
"heathen." Vase 33 is a slavish o^y of 17a and i8.> The elabor- 
ate instructions of verses 33 and 34 have in mind the oracles of 
prophecy; the author's priestly oracle a)uld only answer a pointed 
question by a simple yes or no, or indicate a particular by means 
of a series of exclusions; cf. Judges i, 3; 18, 5 f; 30, 28; i Sam. 
14) 37 t^^i ^3) 9^1 3(>> ^i 3 Sam. 2, i. 

5, 25, the word p. Compare G. 

6, I, entire. 

6, 3, the initial Dpn; also the second db> and the phrase D^Tun itr, 
wbich together constituted originally a supralinear lectional rubric 
parallel to mtux mn' nv. We may suppose that rubric to have 
been disposed upon the manuscript something like this: 

Qri: VTan 3B" Dr 
Kethib: naast mn* dp 

6, 3, the final nmn togetho' with 

6, 4, njaa •vent titm tcsd mum. An accidental repetition from 
verse 3a; compare G^. 

6, 5, entire. Note htntr n'S ^, and the catalogue of musical 

6, 6, the n of rhtn. See the commentary below. 

6, 8, mtire. Conlpare 5, 30. 

6, 9, entire. An insipid editorial annotation. 

6, 13, entire. The editor's meaning is that an ox and a falling 
were sacrificed at every six paces of the march. " All Isiad " could 
afford them. 

' Eva the Cbnauder felt the Awfcwardnen ol the rqteated props Dame, lod 
wrote pDJQ when Tq>rodncmK vene ai in i Chroo. 14, 13. 



6, 15, entire, ^r* n<3 ^3 a^in, although three months have 
el^eed since verse 5, and the editor has forgotten to reconvene the 

6. 17, the awkwardly appended avhm . 

6. 18, D*o^ewi 7ii>yfn. 

6. 19, owe njn trxA ^r* pan '?A. 

6, 31, mn' -3^ •'Tiprm. This clause, which has in mind veise 5, 
came into the text from the margin (of course without the i)> where 
it was intended as a euphemistic QrS for the offensive egression 
msv *]&!) *n*{)3J, / have exposed myself before Yakwe, at the begin- 
ning of the verse. Ultimately, the forbidden word ^n^U was 
drt^ped from the text, leaving the language unconstruable. The 
Greek bpx^oofiM and tb'Koy'trri'^ icbpuK (the latter derived from a 
marginal injunction, mn-i ipia) represent two other scribal QOtatioas 
having the same object in view; neither expression can represent 
the word deliberately omitted from the Hebrew original. For a 
similar case of several euphemisms surviving in the different texts 
of the same passage, see i Sam. 3, 13.* 

6, 33, entire. A gloating observation by the unctuous editor, who 
was especially interested in vital statistics.* Tlie sympathies of the 
author, who was very much of an aristocrat, are with Micbal.' 

So much for the necessary excisions. On the other hand, besides 
*n*^3) in 6, 21, two words which have been preserved by the 
Septuagint must be added to the existing Hebrew text. 

In 6, 3 the Greek reads : kcU ivtanj koX impfbdri AavM koI ras 
6 Xa6s 6 fur' abrov iwb ray &.pxf>VTu>v 'JoOSa i» &pafi&<ret toS 
iLvayayetp k.t.X., which represents Hebrew: opn ^ai "m iS Dfn 
•n rtfTsnh rhjna rmrr ^ysD v\» imt. As the phrase if ivafi&an 
is utterly devoid of meaning in the Greek, it cannot be an intra- 

> a. Journal of Biblicol LiUrainre, XXIV, 1905, p. 134. 

' Cf. 2 Sam. 3, 3-5i 4, 4; 5, 13-16. Hw same editor is perii^n leqwiuible for 
1 Sam. iS, 18, which contndicts 14, 27 and 1 Kings ij. a. a Sam. 6, 8 shows that 
ntn UCTX yg might be cn^iloyed in unadulterated lomance; and Joaephus, AtOiqm- 
lUs, vii, 143 i, knew " Absalom's Pi&ar " only from the Book of SamueL 

■ Thit rnnnyiA diivd of chapter 7 is of a piece with this mUrask; the historical 
document u continued in chapter S. 


n SAMUEL 6 43 

S^tuagintal addition, but must be the blind tnmslation of an 
original n^poa confronting the translator in liis Hebrew manuscript. 
And since r/>sta , when inserted at that point is equally senseless in 
the Hebrew, so long, and only so long, as 6, s is read as the coo- 
tinuation of 6, i, it is evident that the word was part of the au- 
thentic text; which, in spite of its incompatibility with the editorial 
framework, was preserved in the Hebrew prototype of G, but, be- 
cause of that incompatibility, was dropped in the ancestor of M. 

Another phrase which is lacking in the Hebrew, and which never- 
theless cannot be spurious, is found in the Septuagint vemon of 
6, 3o; where the latter has koX t1/\byii<rti' o&rAf xai ctvcc. This 
r^resents, though not quite idiomatically, Hebrew iDitni innsni, 
as against the simple iDKni of the Masoretic text, and is unquestion- 
ably authentic; cf. 2 Kings lo, 1$. Apparently, some Jewish scribe, 
taking vu-on too literaUy, decided that David might well dispense 
with the impious Michal's " blessing." 

Inserting n^jna accordingly in 6, 3, innsni in 6, 20, and *n*^M 
in 6, 21, we secure the original text of our narrative: * 

2 Samdzl 5, 17 — 6, 22 
D'ne^B b ii»jn ^b" 'n im'j tn ni* intro '3 d'tie^b woen (5, 17) 
pom ipt33i W3 D'ne^Bi (18) rrmofi but ni -m men m ntt ppa^ 
•}Dtp\ T3 Djnnn D'nB^D Sk r6wn tdjA mrr3 in W^ (19) D'Kin 
vnt iMca Tn vjn (25) tt3 O'nB^on hk ini« pi '3 r^y Tn '?» mn' 
•Ml 1K3 tp jf3» D'nE^D nn ii mrr 
tnK iiK otro Tvhsrh n'^soa mw' ^^30 ini* ipk Djn hi nn ^in (6, 2) 
n(>w ^ D-r/mi rnt* m* iiari (3) t^p niKax m-T dc inps ttnt D'niwn 
njf3j3 T«t 3ir3t( n'30 mtten ncnn 
l^n THKi D'nitKn piK oy {4) rAwn n« [rjf« aiMK '» vmci wjn 
vaav '3 13 inni arhtm jnn ^k mp ^ lO) p3 iJ' imi (6) in»*f 'JU^ 
init Dj? DIP ncn bvn hv n^rhnn dp in3i ntjr3 mn' utt nm (7) ipan 


1 One trifling emendation in 6, i>, OHisating of the addition of a single letter, will 
be nmticined in the commentaiy below. 



-lap n'a in moi Tin -rp hs mrr pit m i*^ tdhV -m nan kVi (io) 
nvr -pai n'nn 08*^ 'run m»e nap n'3 mrr jtik an (n) 'lun mit 
ui'a io mo DTK najr nn 
■yam ii> IB* ^3 niti ffwt nsjj n'3 n*i mn' -pa *id»A in ite^ tn (12) 

nntsM nn tk mi« nap n'SD D'ninCT ipk n» ivrivi li-n Dvi^n jtm 
mrr pt» n'm (16) la tidk -lun -n-n mn' ^3th n> i>aa na-iao ttti (14) 
Taiaoi noD in -fjon nn mm p^n npa nepw hxip na ^ain tn Tjt la 
naiia iS" ram nvr '»^ 
'rrim'ib noi -vnt 'jTmn -[va vnpm init i«n mm (nn nK wtai (17) 
mnax mm ora Djm nK ■p^*' m^ms in '?t\ (18) mm *3th Tvhv "m 
Djtn ^a 1^ nmt nvvta nmt lonn nnn Dr6 n^n trn6 D»n ^a^ p^mi (19) 

vraii tru 
TDKm voTam yn rnnp^ inKs? na i>aTj iwm wa nK pa^ in an (ao) 
nnK miiu m^ma rnap nincK 'rjif) diti niaj iiw ^inir lio nrn laai no 
ima iiaDi Tano 'a ina ipk mrr 'lo^ 'n'^Js ^a'o ^k in Tom (ai) dttvi 
T^pa W 'n"m nwo tw 'n^pji (23) imp' ijj; mrr djt ^p tjj 'nn niiA 
nnaatt oop niDM tnt mnoitn ojn 

3 Samuel s, 17 — 6, 23 

(5, 17) And the Pkilislines heard that they had anointed David 
king over Israel; and ail the PMUslines came up to attack David. A nd 
David heard of it and went down into the stronghold. (18) And the 
Philistines came and spread Ihemsdves in the Plain ofRephaim. (19) 
And David enquired of Yahwe, saying, ShaU I go up against the 
Philistines ? will thou give them into mine hand f And Yakwe said 
unto David, Go up; for I will certainly give the PkUisttnes into thine 
hand. (25) And David did as Yakwe commanded him, and he smote 
the Philistines from Geba' to the approach of Geter. 

(6, 3) And David and aU the troops that were wiUt Mm of the men 
of Judah on the way back, went to bring up from thence (that is, from 
Geba*) the sacred box which was especially dedicated to Yakwe MiUh 
anl. (3) And they mounted the sacred box upon a new cart and 
conveyed it from the house of Abinadab, which was on ike height 



And Utzah and Akio (?), the sons of Abinadab, were conducting 
the cert, (4) with the sacred box, Ahio (?) walking ahead of the box. 
(6) And they reached a rock thresking-fioor. And Uszah (who was 
behind) slipped against the sacred box and clutched at it; for the oxen 
had been dunging. (7) And the anger of Yakux was inflamed against 
Uzzah, and the deity smote him there because of his slip; and he died 
there, by the sacred box. 

(10) Thereupon David was unwiUing to take the box of Yahwe home 
with him to the City of David; so David turned it aside to the house of 
Obed-edom the Gittite. (11) And the box of Yahwe remained in the 
house of Obed-edom the Ciltite three months; and Yahwe blessed Obed- 
edom and all his house. 

(12) And it vtas told king David, saying, Yahwe has blessed the 
house of Obed-edom and all that is his, on account of the sacred box. 
So David went and brought up the sacred box from the house of Obed- 
edom to the City of David with rejoicing. 

(14) And David was dancing with all his might before Yahwe. And 
David was girded with a linen ephod (apron). (16) And as the box of 
Yahwe approached the City of David, Michal the daughter of Saul 
looked out of the window and saw king David leaping and dancing 
before Yahwe; and she despised him in her heart. 

(17) And they brought the box of Yahwe and set it down in its 
place, inside the tent which David had spread for it. And David 
offered up burnt-offerings before Yahwe. (18) And when David had 
finished offering, he blessed the people with the name of Yahwe Mili- 
tant. (19) And he distributed to aU the people, to each person one roll 

of bread, one ? , and one fruit-cake. And alt the people 

dispersed, each to his own house. 

(30) And David relumed to greet his household. And Michai the 
daughter of Saul went out to meet David; and she greeted him, and said, 
Bow honored to-day is the king of Israel, who has exposed himself 
to-day before the eyes of his servants' serving-women, like a common 
down exhibitir^ his nakedness! (31) And David said to Michal, I 
have exposed myself before Yakaie, who preferred me above thy father 
and all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of Yahwe, over 



Israd, (33) And though I degrade mysdf even more, and become 
corUempUhle m thy sight, yet with the young women of whom thtnt 
speakest, wUh them I shall be held in honor. 

5, 17. rrmen is not AduIIam (as Wellhausen, Biicher Samudis^ 
and others more recently), but the stronghold on the southeastern 
hill at Jerusalem, which David captured from the Jebusites and re- 
named the City of David. That he could " go down " into it on 
receiving news of the approach of the Philistines, is not at all strange ; 
for we have been expressly told that he had no sooner occupied it 
than he b^an to extend the settlement jrom the Millo northward 
(3 Sam. 5, 9, nn'ni tchan p 3'3D nn pi).» The Millo — whatever 
it was — certainly lay between the mWD on the south, and the 
hill later occupied by Solomon's temple on the north. It did not 
exist in the time of David; but it did exist for the writer of 5, 9, 
having been built by Solomon (i Kings 9, 15; 11, 37),* and so, like 
the term nn'n , it served to mark, the locaUty for the author's read^s. 
If David was in the new town north of the Millo when he beard of 
the Philistine invasion, he would of course "go down" to the nnss. 

The nature as well as the exact location of the structure called 
Kiiwi — instrinsically a determinate appellative, the Millo nar' 
^Td}^ — is still considered an unsolved problem of Hebrew archae- 
ology.* In my judgment, however, there can be little doubt that it 
was a huge causeway or embankment connecting the City of David 
with the temple hill, across a transverse gully which has since dis- 
appeared. So I Kings II, 37 becomes for the first time intelligible: 
Jeroboam did not object to the forced labor exacted from his North 
Israelites for the temple or the palace; but he rebelled when king 
Solomon, vying with nature, undertook the building of the causeway, 
the closing of the gap of the City of David, pu nw -i3d telxn ni* rua 

> 3'3D must not be constnied as a piepoutioa with KITDn |D, but u an advob; 

the pkiaae nn'3i trfmn p is analogous to rhjKn mnn Drn p. 

1 In I Kings g, a4 we mutt read Kl^iDn bn rh nmCTt; d. GA. 1 Kings la, 
lib is obviously mnupt, and of doubtful authenticity. 

■ Cf., for example, Budde, Ktmtr Hand^CommaUof, on a Sam. S. 9; Guthe, ProUt- 
tantixlie RealencyUopsditf, VUI, p. 677; Buhl, GeopafkU du alien PaUtttina, p. 135; 
BttMngtr, Hdirdiieht ArckOoloti^ p. 33. 


n SAMUEL 6 47 

■m Tp.* The Chronicler too, though he may have known no more 
about the history of Hezekiah than the next man, apparently did 
know what the Millo was; for he is careful to tell us that Hez^iah 
built the broken wall, and erected the towers,* but strengthened the 
causeway at the City of David (yn Tjf tehon n« prm, 2 Chron. 
33, s). He doubtless had in mind its eastern retaining-wall. The 
etymology of m^, literally a filling, is in perfect accord with this 
interpretation. For the rest, the unfilled easterly end of the original 
gully was still a prominent feature of the dty in the days of the 
Chronicler, who calls it jntpixi, the Cut,* and leaves us in no un- 
certainty as to its location (Neh. 3, 24 f ; 2 Chron. 26, 9}. It lay 
in immetUate proximity to the dty walls, and just south of the angle 
(ruon) formed by the wall running north on the easterly side of the 
City of David, and the wall running southwest from the great pro- 
jecting tower (vnvn innin 'risan) on the Ophd. Since the situation 
of that tower and the direction of its adjacent wall are known,* the 
Old Testament data on the subject may be r^resented as in the 
diagram on the next page. 

In this connection it should be recalled that as long ago as 1S81, 
Guthe, conducting excavations on the southeastern promontory, 
found that immediatdy to the north of a line drawn due west from 
the Virgin's Fountain, the native rock lay some thirty feet lower than 
it did twoity yards further south, in spite of the downward slope of 
the present surface from north to south. He inferred that the south- 

■ ConiUue the preceding no'jV as appositive to ^^on, and the verbs as infinitive 
absolute. ' Note the absence of the coDJimction before ^]D : the two phrases are 

» Read niiniDn nn ^jn- 

* Cf . Aiatnc magta'. Evoi In Eiodus and Eiekiel )Rf pD is not comtr, but tdte. In 
HA. 3, 19 jncpsn , after the detertninate pmn , must be a gloss or else accusative of 
direction; and in either case mtpon \0 of 3, 30 is interpolated. 

* Both tower and wall were discovered by Warren in 1868; see Stcovery of Jem- 
saltm, ^. 300 ff (American edition, pp. 338 f); Smvey of Wetl<m Paletline, Jtnaaltaa 
volume, IV. 336 f, and plates III, VU, XI. It should be added that ^vn of the 
Chnmider was not the southeasten) piomontoiy, the andent (1^ TWHO (as G. A. 
Smith, Jenaaltm, I, pp. 151 f), but the shoulder of the temple hill immediatdy to the 
north of the JHYpQ. Josepbui attaches the Aramaidsed name 'OfXa(t} to the same 
locality; see eqiecially Jtinith War, v, 145. 



eastern ridge was originally separated from the temple hill by a 
ravine or gully, numing from the Tyropoeon to the valley of the 
Kidron; and pointed out that unless such a depression lay along its 

(ThcHiii)y^ Kvi'n imjn Srmn 

(The Gteat Projecting Tomt) 

northern boundary, the City of David could hardly have been much 
of a stronghold.* Thot^h Guthe has steadfastly adhered to his well- 
grounded opinion,' it has not been generally accepted by otha 
archaeobgists.* Nevertheless, if the Old Testament records are to 

* Zeitsdrifl det DaOickat PoUtitina-Veremi, V, iSSs, pp. 166, 317. 

* See Protatantitche StaitHcyikpadi^, Vm, pp. MS f, 675. 

* Cf. G. A. Smith, I.e., I, pp. 139, 154. Theevideuceof "only two ihAfti" m&y not 
be M> good u thftt of six or seven ahttfts; but it is infinitely better tbAn the a prieri 
opinioQ of any number of authorities. The view of Guthe is favored by Benziiigtf, 
l.(.,p.3i; nBdPztaa,JenuaUminBaikTima,p.47- I)aiiOKn,FaiaitiiiaJaMnuJi,XI, 
i9'5i PP- C' f> thinks Gutbe'i shafts may have descended into some old pit or stone- 
quany; or possibly the native rock contracts at liiat point into a naimw saddle oDO* 
necting the promontory and tbe tensile hill. 


n SAMUEL 6 49 

be believed, both " the Cut " of the Chronicler and " the Filling " 
of Solomon only await the spade of the excavator to prove their 

I may add that history actually tells us where Solomon got the 
notion of this bold enterprise, which cost his successors the greater 
part of the kingdom. Dius, a Greek writer on the histoiy of 
Tyre, says of Hiram, the contonporary and friend of Solomon: 
o&ros ri. irpAs dparoXds fU/ni r^ T&Xcfits Tpoaixtiivtv koX ixii^ov tA 
Hlotv tmliiffa' Kcd tov 'OXu^rlou Ai^ rd lepdv xaB' iavrd Ap ^i* 

This statement of Dius is quoted, quite innocently, by Josephus {Against 
Apion, i, 113; Antiquities, viii, 147), who had not the least idea of what the 
MiUo of SolomoQ really was, as may be seen from his paraphrase of i Kings 
9, 15, Antiquities, viii, 150. Josephus was well aware that the southeast prom- 
ontory was originaUy separated from the temple hill by a considerable ravine; 
but he was under the delusion that the latter remained entirely unbridged 
until the days of the Maccabees; see Jewish War, v, 138 f, where the word 
iyrucpvi, be it pointed out for the benefit of the multitude of di^nitants on 
the topography of Josephus, does uot mean opposite (KaravTucpO) , but straight 
in line with. The correct interpretation of this passage disposes also of the 
theory of G. A. Smith, I.e., I, pp. 154, 159 ff, that the southeast hill or City of 
David was originally higher than at present, and was shaved off under the 
Hasmoneans. The southeast hill was, according to Josephus, TawembrtptK 
^birtt; there was no need of lowering it. The shaving was done on that part 
of the temple hill called ^Bim, which thereby ceased to exhibit a noticeable 
" mound", though it retained the name; and the material was dumped into the 
ravine to the south of it, the Chronicler's jnvpD , which thoeby ceased to exist. 

5, 18. crKfii psir is not the modem Buqat'a, on the Bethlehem 
road, southwest of Jerusalem (as Buh], /. c, p. 91, and most writers), 
but the lofty plateau northwest of the city. 

The literary data to be reckoned with in determining the question 
are fewer than at first sight appears. Jerome's " vallis Allofylorum 
ad scpt^ntrionalem plagam lerusalem," Onomasticon, 147, merely 
reproduces the statement of Eusebius, mkXAs 'AXXo^frXup Kari. 
popfiav 'ItpovcaX^in, Onomasticon, 288; which latter in turn is 
without value, the reference to the Philistines showing that the 
definition is based entirely upon inference from the allusions in the 
Old Testament. Equally valueless, on the other side, is the supposed 



ideotificatioD of Josepbus, Antiquities, vS, 313; where, in paim- 
pluaaii^ the legend of 2 Sam. 23, 13-17, he hannonizes verses 13b 
and 14b as follows: t^ M ruf ijcfipoy rap€it^\^ iv r^ KotXiSt 
ixifiii^, 4 itijun BrfiXtdnip rSiuat Stardyci ereHovs 'Itpoao- 
>>ifiu» &inxoO<nit tlKooiv. The story of the three heroes, as Jo- 
sephus inteipreted its conflictiDg statements, demanded that the 
plain in which the Philistines wra« encamped, and which the heroes 
should break through, be located between Jerusalem {tv 'l«poao~ 
\bliMs SiTM Tov ^anyjat) and the well at Bethlehem; so perforce 
he identifies it with the plain southwest of Jerusalem. But it is 
noticeable that in this passage, when locating the plain, he avoids 
the name xotKit t&p Viy&yrwv, which he had given in vii, 71 (para- 
phrasing 2 Sam. s, 18), and bad described, in the absence of any 
guidance from the text, with beanair^ vagueness as t6tos oi ithppu 
r$t ir6Xc«». It is evident that he knew of no k)cality bearing such 
a name in his own day; and that tbe ideitification of vii, 313, was 
suggested to him for the first time when he reached tbe story of 
2 Sam. 23. 

In the Old Testament, besides s Sam. 5, t8 33, the Plain of 
Rephaim is mentioned in 2 Sam. 33, 13; i Cbron. 11, 15; 14, 9 13 
(pom); Isa. 17, s; Josh. £5, 8; 18, 16. But 2 Sam. 5, 22, we have 
already seen, was copied from veise 18. Tbe references in i Chron. 
II, 15; 14,9 13 are of course merely r^roductions of 2 Sam. 33, 13; 
5, 18 32 respectively. And 2 Sam. 33, i3b-i4a, which disturbs the 
context and confuses the otherwise perfectly coherent story of 
verses 13-17, is in turn unquestionably the interpolation of scMne 
muddled scribe drawing upon 2 Sam. 5, i7b-i8. On the other hand, 
Isa. 17, 5b, D'KBi pDW n-h^e vi^hca irm, though an independent 
allusion (whether authentic or not), yields no evidence either way; 
since ears of com were doubtless gathered in ancient times, as at 
present, both north and soutb of Jerusalem. The pass^es upon 
which we must rely are therefore Josh. 15, 8; 18, 16; and 2 Sam. 

The references in Joshua distinctly locate tbe plain northwest of 
the dty. In 15, 8 the author is dcscrilnng the nortbem boundary of 


n SAMUEL 6 51 

the teiritoiy cS Jndah. He has tnced the line &om the mouth of 
the Jordan westward, up to Debir and across to £n-shemesh, emog- 
ing at En-rogel, southeast of Jerusalem. Thence, he teHs us, the 
boundary ascoided up the Valley oS Tfinnnm to the southern shoul- 
der of the Jebusite (the southwest hill of Jerusalem) ; whence Uie 
border ascended to the head oj the ridge vhich faces the VaUey of 
HtMHom OH the vest, sUuated at the nortiient end ef the Plain of 
Rephaim: np3 imn no* tun *3 'xi bv "vm "vm rm bvt hsm n^ 
Tvnas ETRGn pon. The usual interpretation of the clause I have 
overscored, which understands it to mean that the southern end of 
the ridge bordoed upon the n<Hlhem edge of the Plain of R^haim, 
(i) misconceives the import of the word Em; which is not the lop 
of the ridge to one crossing it at right angles, but the upper end to 
one asnnding it longitudinally. (2) It misconstrues the final 
relative clause; which attaches, not to am — the first relative 
attaches to that — but to Pin (determined by the genitive "wi); 
to assume any other construction, is to attribute to the author a 
slovenliness of composition at this point for which his usual style 
affords no warrant. And (3) it overlooks the fact that the Valley 
of Hiimom is mentioned in order to identify the ridge — which is 
not the only ridge north of the plateau — and does identify it 
beyond the posability of questicai; irtiCTeas the mention of the 
Buqai'a could s^ve no such purpose, for a reader who was pre- 
sumably a reddent of Jerusalem. For the rest, the southern end 
of the ridge, where it merges with the Bnqai^a, falls well within the 
territory of Judah, and is therefore utterly irrelevant to the author's 
buaness; whereas the northern end is a pdnt on the boundary, 
from which he continues his descrqiticm in the following verse: -wm 
mmu *t3 rm bm inn nno Sui, And from the head of the ridge the 
border twned to the spring of M£-n^0h (the present Lifta, in the 
IF^s£d^afif»a, beyond the watershed). All of which is strikingly 
confirmed by the language of Josh. 18, 16; where the same author, 
describing the southern boundary of the tribe of Benjamin, and 
fdlowing the same line in the reverse direction, comes first to the 
northern end of the same ridge (not vm em this time, as in 15, 8, 



but actually "vin nvp), and then descends southward through the 
Valley of Huinom to the southwest hill of Jerusalem, and on down 
to En-rogel: '?n n Tn najj 'DU'n »ina ^ DWi 'i Tn.* The " head " 
or " end " of the ridge will be the point, about a mile and a 
half north of the present dty wall, where this section of the main 
watershed turns oS to the southwest, and lifts itself above the 
plateau stretching away to the southeast. 

The same location for the Plain of Rephaim is demanded by 
3 Sam. 5, i8. I do not press the use of the verb r/^s in verse 19, 
although it is most naturally understood as purporting the revise 
of TV in verse 17; since the Buqai'a, as well as the northwest 
plateau, is h^her than the southeast promontory. But (i) the 
pursuit of the Philistines after the battle /fwn G«6a' to the approach of 
Gezer, demands a location north of the dty for the Plain of Rephaim, 
where they had spread their camp and were attacked by David. 
And (2) Kirjath-jearim, where David stopped on his way back to 
secure the box of Yahwe, certamly lay northwest of Jerusalem. 

5, 25. ]ai , quasi proper name for the njrsi or eminence belonging 
to the town of Kirjath-jearim; cf. 6, 3 and i Sam. 7, t. So in 
I Sam. 14, 3 5 16, rD*33 nvx (proper name) = nysin (determinate 
appellative) = jrsj (quasi proper name). The npos of Kirjath- 
jearim was evidently a familiar feature of the highway leading from 
Jerusalem to the Philistine lowlands and the sea, so that there was 
no need of definii^ it more exactly in this context; just as, at the 
present day, a certain station on the carriage road to Jaffa is spoken 
of as B&b el WSd instead of Bdb Wddi 'AH. The Philistines, we may 
be sure, retreated the same way they came; and they of course came 
by the commonly travelled road. But at no time in history did a 
road from the maritime plain to Jerusalem lead up the Wd^ 
Isma'ln; * and not until after the Muhammedan conquest and the 
rise of Ramleh did such a road lead up the WSdi 'Alt} If only for 

' In vene i6», for Til of the Muorelic text ttad nitm , as in 15, 9 (d. HolzingK, 
Kuner BaHd-Commtntar am Allen Talament, ad lae.), and for &*KBn pQj)3 n*d 

iTMin pay mpa with g. 

* Cf. G. A. Smith, JtnuaUm, I, p. g f. 

* Sccbdow. 


n SAMUEL 6 53 

this reason, therefore, Kirjath-jearim was ndther Kkirbei 'Erma^ 
nor Qaryet d 'Enab.' 

On the site of Kirjath-jearim, and the related question of the 
identity of the road upon which it lay, there has been much darken- 
ing of counsel from the earliest times. The confusion began with 
the interpolation of 2 Sam. 6, 1; which caused the Chronicler — 
and our modem critics as well — to misinterpret mrr' -f^n of 
verse 2 as a local proper name synonymous with onr nnp (i 
Chion. 13, 6). The same misinterpretation of this important narra- 
tive led to a series of scribal interpolations in the Book of Joshua; 
where the Judahite town of iv3 nnp or rhtn has been systematically 
and erroneously identified with the Benjamite town of Dnv* mp . 
The true state of the case is best exhibited in tabular form.* 

Josh. 15, 9 (onr nnp ten) rhjn 

15, 10 n^ja 

15, 60 (onr nnp tvn) 'yjn nnp 

18, 14 rrnn' '33 tk (onjp nnp kvi) ^ nnp 

18, 15 [M substitutes Dnjr nnp] G correctly: ^a nnp 

The last passage, where the distinguishing ^3 has actually been 
struck out in the Masoretic text and onjr substituted, shows con- 
clusively — what indeed hardly needs showing, since the authw 
would have said onr nnp in the first place had he meant it — that 
the identification with onp* nnp is in every case the work of a 
glossator. Per contra, the glossator having identified Dntr nnp 
with h]>2 nnp or n^, which the text of Josh. 18, 14 explicitly, and 
that of 2 Sam. 6, 2 ostensibly, declared to belong to Judah, it 
became necessary to mutilate the text of Josh. 18, 28; where the 
author — consistently enough, as we shall see — had enumerated 
Dnjr nnp among the cities of Benjamin. The result was, that in this 
latter passage two construct nouns were left hanging in the air, and 

' Conder, Suney of Watem Palatine, in, h>. 43 B. 

■ RobmaoD, BibUcai Retearekei, II, pp. 334 S. 

' Tbe table includes eveiy mentioD of this town in the Old TestamenL In Joah. 
15, II, rpif3 is another place of the same name west of Ekron; and in Josh. 15, 39, 
BtiD anothei m the Negeb. 



the sum total of dties eaumerated was raised from thirteoi to four- 
teen. A comparison of the Septuagint shows that the text originaUy 
read, mrp i?^ onr : Dnr nnp njDJi. Nor, in view of all th^e 
facts, can we doubt that nnirrs of Judges i8, 12 b likewise a gloss, 
of a piece with the topogT^>hical information (?) which follows it. 

Both the Chronider and the glossator of Joshua 15 and 18 were of 
course perfectly familiar with the whereabouts of Eirjath-jearizn, 
though 2 Sam. 6, 2 may have upset them on the question of its 
supposed tribal affiliation in early times.* What they seem not to 
have known, was a town actually bearing the name 'no mp or 
nhjn in their own day. Possibly the '?jn had already been dropped 
and the name reduced to mpn or ttmp. However that may be, 
the Kirjath-baal of the author of Joshua 15 and 18 was a Judahite 
dty (18, 14), situated on the northern boundary of Judah (15, 9 {), 
and marking the southwest angle of the territory accredited to 
Benjamin (18, n 0- For all we know, therefore, it may well have 
been identical with the modem d Qaryeh or Qary^ d 'Enab, other- 
wise known as Abu GhSsh. 

Kirjath-jearim, on the other band, lay well within the territory 
assigned to Benjamin by the author of Joshua 15 and 18, and may 
be located with mathematical certitude some three miles northeast 
of Qaryet d 'Enab. For according to Eusebius it was still in existence 
under that name in the fourth century a.d., and was situated nine 
Roman miles from Aelia (Jerusalem) on the highway to Diospotis 

1 As ft matter of fact, Eirjftlh-jearim was uihabited ndther by Benjunites nor by 
Judabitn, but by Gibeonites, who bad been received into the leraelitish confedention 
and bod adopted the worship of Vahwe; Josh. 9, ij; i Sun. 6, 11; 7, t; i Sun. ii, 
1 6. The only one of the four dties mentioiied in Josh, q, 17 from iriiich the (Mbeonites 
bad been eq>eUed wu Beeroth {2 Sam. 4, ib-i), and that presumably by Saul (d. 
a Sam. 31, 1-5} in connection with the occupation of 71KB' DIQJ — a new name, 
like 1V1 fj>, Mrialmng the aeizuie of an old place. (Phikilogically, thete is no more 
reason for rendering yntV T\S23 Gibeah of Savt than there is for rendering; 1V1 ITl 
'It i4 Ootid.) For the rest, Beeroth was certainly not the present BIrek, east of Rom- 
aliak, but a settlement tX^vIw AIXlsi naTttrrur M ^ti-nihr [so, with Jerome] ixi 
ffntfuldip (Eusebius, Ofumuuficini, 133 1 83); that is, it must be sought on theJVdUw 
road, but some three or four miles louth of Btrek, and east of ti Jib. In the descrq)tion 
of Gibeon itself, Oncmaitieon, 143, 6 fF, we probably shouM read: rX^te Bw<V wpdi 
tvanii, Ai 6.ri avduM- >'. Similarly in that of Rama, 187, i f: irtram Bw<W. 


n SAMUEL 6 55 

(Lydda).* Beyotui the shadow of a doiibt, therefore, it must be 
identified frith the modem village of d Qub3>eh, which lies on the 
Roman road to Lydda, at the exact distance from Jerusalem indi- 
cated by Eusebius.* 

This identification would have been adopted tmiversaUy Iraig ago, 
but for the persistent and quite inexcusable mispladng of the Roman 
road leading from Aelia to Diospolis referred to by Eusebius.* The 
method which has been employed of late for the identification of 
this road, is exhibited with engaging nalvet£ by P. Thomsen, in his 
elaborate article on Paiitstina nock dem OnomasHcon des Eusebius.* 
" Nach Westen," he writes, " kommt vor allem die Strasse nach 
AiotnroXii in Betracht. Allein welche heute noch existierende 
Strasse Eusebius meint, Illsst sich schw^ feststellen. ZuoAchst 
[why ?] denkt man an die heutige jdf&Stxasst. DafOr spricht, dass 
nach Eusebius am Wege nach AiotrroXtt and zwar 9 oder 10 Meilen 
von Jerusalem entfemt KapiaBtapan lag, das man gewfihnKch in 
k<ajet el-Hneb gesucht hat." * That is, Kirjath-jearim having been 
located at Qaryet el 'Eneh because the presoit Jaffa road is assmned 
to be the road in question, the present Jaffa road is the road in 
question because Eirjath-jearim has been located at Qaryet el 'Enab. 
To be sure, Thomsen goes on to mention some of the difficulties in 
the way of that view; but he concludes, all the same, by inserting 
the present Jaffa road is his " map of Palestine according to the 

■ OnomMtiam, 271, 4off. Elsewhere (134, 9^) Eusebiiu gives the distance more 
mughlyu "about ten mfles." Htsmorepredsec^iesBionmiutof courubeprefeiTed. 
The veiy diveigencc, however, ibowa that he was speaking of his own knowledge, and 
not copying Irom a manuscript itinerary. A life-long resident of Caesarea, be bad 
doubtless often passed that way. 

■ That the site is andent, is univetMlly recognized. On the other hand, the name 
tl Qubtbtk, liteiaUy, " the little dome," is pure Arabic, and therefore not andent. It is 
very fair Arabic for nS2Jn, however. 

The Latin tradition which for some cmtuiics has identified this site with the Emmaus 
of Luke a4, 13 — it lies at abotU the if>ecified distance of 60 stadia from Jerusalem on 
the road once regulady travelled by the pUgrima — bids fair, as the result of the heated 
controvenies of the last twenty-five years, to become a dogma; but it will never be- 
crane a fact. If the Evangelist had not in mind the pTtsent 'Amteit, as Eusebius and 
Jerome imagined, be had in mind another place bearing the name 'Sit/iaabi; and d 
QMbtk was demonstrably not such a place, down to the days of Eusdiius at any rate. 

* The road is mentioned, OnomofiKOX, III, 1)3; 134,95; 371,42. 

* ZtilseMfi dn Dttttitkat PalattiMo-Vmriiu, XXVI, 1903, pp. 97'r88. 

* L.t.,pp. 180 f. 



Onomasticoii of Eusebius." ' Buhl, is bis article on " Roads and 
Travel " in Hastings' Dictumary of the Biide,* a£Snns fiatly, " Hie 
present road from Jerusalem to Jaffa or Lydda is first mentioned a 
few times by Eusebius." * It would be nearer the truth to say that 
the present road from Jerusalem to Jaffa is first mentioned unmis- 
takably by N&sir-i-Khusrau, who relates how in 1047 a.d., that is, 
some three centuries after the founding of Ramleh, he travelled 
from the latter dty to Jerusalem past L6triln and Qaryet el 'Enab* 
Not only does Eusetnus make no mention whatever of the present 
Jaffa road, but both he and Jerome furnish affirmative evidence 
that no such road existed in their day. For according to Jerome's 
Onomasticon (89, 29), to go from Nicopolis {'Arnw6s) to Jmisalem 
one travelled northeast past Ajalon {Ydlo).* And Eusebius would 
certainly not have contented himself with defining Beth-horon as 
" 12 miles from Jerusalan, toward the (cross) road to Nio^wlis " 
(233, 71), if Huxe had been a road nmnii^ straight from Jerusalem 
to a point on the south of that same Nicopolis and only one mile 
distant.* The fact is, the Jaffa road is not an ancient road.' Nor, 

' In a later publicatioii, Loca Saticta, 1907, p. 78, ThomsCD reniarkg biiefiy, " Die 
Angabe des Eusebius [caDceming Kirjath-jeoiim] fUhrt vielleidit auf bU 'ofuta." 

■ Extra volume, p. 371&. 

' Tbe uxoe error characterues the kboied and in laige part irrelevant aigument 
of Laufis, " Zur Lage und Geschichte des Ones Kirjath Jeaiim," Zatsckrijt 4tt Dmt- 
scktH PaUtitina-Veratu, XXXVIU, ipij, pp. 149-301. 

' PaUrtiii«PiIgrimTexti,IV,tlo. 9,p. a». The diatances given by IbaKhoididbeh 
in the ninth century aj>. — 18 miles between Ramleh and Jenualem, and 8 miles be- 
tween Ramleh and Jaffa (De Goeje, BibliMeca geo^aphontm arabiconim, VI, pp. 78 Q 
— are inoonduuvci though it ig probable that the new route had been established 
by that time. Kamkh was founded by the Omayyad Khalif Sultmin, while he waa still 
governor of the province of FilaiUtt, at the beginning of the dgbth century; and by 
the middle of the tenth century it had grown to be the largest dty in the province, not 
excepting Jerusalem; d. Le Strange, PalaHtie under Pit Uotleuu, pp. aS, 303 ff. 

* The testimony of Jerome's " Hebraei " as to tbe wheieabouta of Ajalon, aitd tbe 
way by which one travelled from Nict^lia to Jerusalem, is quite aa good ai that of 
Eusetnu*, pat4 llKimsen, I. c, p. iSi. 

■ Nor can the la miles which the Bordeaux Pilgrim gives as the distance between 
Jerusalem and fHcopolis (,Corpiu tcriplomm eutesiattiainim latincntm, XXXVmi, 
p. as) be Kiuecied into the Jaffa road; although his data ibould perhaps not be taken 
too seriously. 

* Cf. Surtty Iff Wttttm Palestine Memoirs, m, p. 56. The vfxy existence of the old 
Roman road which curves from Qarytt d 'BiuA to YSio is enough to show that no 


n SAMUEL 6 57 

frith Ramleh off the map, would any one think of reaching Lydda 
by the roundabout route of Qaryet el 'Enab and the WSdi 'AH. 

If now the reader vill take a map of Palestine and draw a straight 
line from Jerusalem to Lydda, he will find that line practically coin- 
ciding with an ancient road which runs with remarkable directness 
from the Damascus Gate to Lydda, past BSt Iksa, Biddu, el QidtSbeh, 
Bit 'Andn, BSt Ldqyek, BerjUyeh, and /tfftsu; and which bears dis- 
tinct evidence of Roman constructioQ. A Roman mile-stone has 
actually been found by the road side about half a mile east of 
ei QubSbek. All of which is plainly indicated on the Large Map of 
the Palestine Exploration Fund, sheets XIII, XIV, XVII. There 
can be no manner of doubt that this is the Aelia-Diospolis road to 
which Eusebius refers. And if so, not Qaryet el 'Enab but d QubSbeh 
is " the long- lost city Kirjath-jearim." ^ This location fits perfectly 
all the Old Testament references which must be reckoned with, 
namely. Josh. 9, 17; 18, 28; Judges 18, 12; i Sam. 6, ai; 7, i; 
2 Sam. 5, 25; 6, 3; Jer. 26, 20. 

Btt 'AnAn is obviously the pUce which Eusebius identified with the Atyif 
of the SeptuagiDt text of Gen. 38, 14 11. His words are worth quoting, for no 
better confirmation of our conclusion could be destied: tptiim vw t6wvs tarh 
4 A£f&f, vapoKtlfMvoi T^ Qofwi tis hwpo oUouittyji furftcrg k^MVi KCtM*? 
lUToii AlXiai Kal AtoffrAXtui. mfr^ Si tanv iv r^ MvAy Xerofitv^) T&rifi, 
np' Hv cUuXoc ^y rapi ruv tyx^P^" ti/i^iiuyoy {I. c, 311, gi S). With 
this compare the following description of B& 'Andn in the 5. W. P. Memoirs, 
m, p. 16: " A smaJl village on the top of a flat ridge; near a main road 
to the west aie remains of a Eh&n with water, and about a mJle to the east 
is a q>ring." In the middle of the last century Gufoin found BH M«te a 
village of 600 inhabitants; Jtidte, I, p. 348. With the question of Eusebius' 
identifications we are not here concerned; although D'J'Jf in Gen. 38, 14 — 
without the article and followed by "Vmt — is necessarily a proper name, 
and, if derived from fp spring, is necessarily dual; which in Aramaic, how- 
Roman road ran thence through the Widi 'AH to 'Am»is. On the Roman nule-ttone 
reported found near '&> td-DUbtk, southeast of Qaryd et 'Enab (Benzinger, Mit- 
OofiMfM mid NockridOm da D. P. V., igos, pp. 16 f] sec Vincent, Seme Bitli^iie, 
19OS, pp. 97 f ; who ihowB that the Btone had been moved a connderable distance at 
least onoe, and probably oftcnei. 

I Cf. Guthe, Zeitidlrift da DeuticlieH PalOiHna-VereiHt, XXXVI, 1913, pp. 81 ff. 
It may periiapi be of interest to note that the above diacuwion was written before 
Guthe's artide came to my notice. 



ever, beoomcs |rv - AMr. Nor yet ue we concerned with the bearing of 
this testimony on the location of the G&fiwa of JoMf)hus, Antiqitities, zrv, 
375; Jewish War, iii, 55; iv, 444i althou^ Eiuebiua dearly takes it for 
granted that his readers will be familiar with the hiatory of this impoitant site; 
while the Madaba Mosaic shows the ssme Qtiwa. between Jerusalem and Dia»- 
polis, and sotM of Beth-boron. It is enou^ for us that the name AIWv stiH 
dings to the locality he described, to render unmistakable his " road from Aclia 
to Diospolis." 

5, 25. nu i)U 19, until you approach Gtstr; a vague eipressioii, 
denoting little more than the final direction of a long puisuit beyond 
Kirjath-jearim; by no means the eqidvalent oi as far as Geur (as 
H. P. Smith and Nowack, ad loc.). Had he intended as far 4^ 
Geser (1 Chron. 14, 16) the author would have written iu iin, if 
not indeed ttl njmjn; cf. 1 Sam. 17, 52-' He does in^ly, how- 
ever, that David pursued the Philistines far into the Plain of 
AjaJoQ *; which we may reasonably assume was reached from Kir- 
jath-jearim (_d Qubebeh) by the same route that was followed in 
later times by the Roman road — by way of the ridge past BSt 'AnSit 
and Bil Ligyeh, and down the WUdi Selmdn, rather than by way of 
the WSdi d Qutneh, past BSt NUba and V6I0. The indefinite phrase 
in 1X3 ijr, it should be noted, cannot possibly furnish the ante- 
cedent for the definite Dpd of 6, 2. 

6, 2. rmn' "'n^, the fighting men of Judah; cf. irn' '^jn, Josh. 
24, 11; D3P *i>y3, Judges 9, sff; oxr 'nso -^i Judges 9, 46 f 
(contrast with the expression Dsp 'nx 'VM of verse 49, where 
women are included); n^jrp ^3, i Sam. 23, 11 f; avMin ^JH, 

' Needles* to «ay, I dte this story only for the Hebrew Idiom. Compare further 
Gen. 10, 19, iriiere 1K3 and the simple IS are actually used in contrasted senses: 
ntB'\V Jn'\l m»i, in Ikt direction of Cerar (msimtiiweshBard), at far tuGaaa. Hie 
language of this passage is misinterpreted by both Gunkel, Bandkommenlar mm AUm 
Teslamtnfi, p. 91, and Holanger, Kurur BanJ-Commenlar, p. 103. Skinner fails to 
realise the author's geognqihical and liteiaiy probtem, when he asserts, " The render- 
ing ' n Me UrteHon <^ Gerar, as far as Gaza ' would only be mtelligiUe If Gerar were a 
betterknDwnlocalitythanGaza"i Commtnt«ryol^Caltn^,p.i\^. [tisnotaquestko 
of which locality was better known. Botli were well enough known. Granted, bow- 
ever, that the author desiied to indicate the extennon of Canaanitish territory, first 
to the southwest, and then to the southeast, he could hardly begin by saying, " in the 
direction of Gaia, as far ss Gaza." And how dae was he to expicu himadf i 

■ Cf. G. A. Smith, Bitlorical Geograpky ^ Iho Holy Lanfi, i^. 109 B. 


n SAMUEL 6 59 

the cavalry-men,^ 3 Sam. i, 6. David apparently did not attempt to 
engage all the forces of the Philistines (vnt?^ ^3, 5, 17) with the 
snuUl number of men constituting the garrison of Jerusalem, or even 
with such an anny as he could muster from the tribe of Judah alone, 
but summoned to his assistance the North Israelites as well. Per- 
haps he owed his decisive victory to a well-laid plan, in accordance 
with which the Israelites fell upon the camp of the Philistines from 
the north, at the same time that he and the men of Judah attacked 
from the south. In any case, naturally only that part of the army 
made up of men of Judah (mvr -^lao vw lew agn) would be return- 
ing with him toward Jerusalem and the south country after the 

n^jnu, testified to by 6* Aya0iLaei of the Septuagint, must of 
course be pointed with the article; and in this context on the ascent 
is equivalent to on the return, the march from the Plain of Ajalon 
to the highlands of Judea at el Qubibeh involving a climb of some 
seventeen hundred feet. 

r^ reaaa nvr dp mp3 lew o^niotn piK . On the excision of the 
second dp and D'aian air of the Masoretic text, see p^es 37 ff 
and 41 above. After what has been said on the meaning of the 
compound appellative DVi^ pit , it is unnecessary to labor the point 
that the expression vrhi/tn pK in this pass^e is a consciously 
determined appellative, with the article pointing to the identifying 
relative clause which follows: thU particular sacred box which, etc. 
The construction is exactly the same as in <dp tnps ipk tron ^3 
orriv, Amos 9, 12; n^ 'OP inpj -ipk -I'ja, Jer. 25, 29; "iPK iraa 
rtjf TM? »opj, Jer. 7, 30; 32, 34; 34, 15, And whatever may be 
the precise meaning of this relative clause, its mere presence in this 
connection proves that the author thinks of the sacred box (niK 
Vn^it) as a plural institution. The point of the clause is of course 
the name nutn mn<: every IsracUtish sacred box was a box nnt 
r^ mrr dp ttipi; the peculiarity of this box, which serves to 
identify and distinguish it, is that it was the box mrr av tnpi itm 
Y^jr nwmr. 

> See Jownal ^ Biblie^ LUerainrt, XXXV, 1905, p. 5a. 



On the question of the intrinsic meaning of the relative clause the 
Old Testament usage is sufficiently clear — more so than Kautzsch's 
labored and much-quoted mystification, " obige Fonnel bedeutet, 
dass die nach einem bestimmten Namen benannte Person oder 
Sache zu dem Trager des Nameiis*in einem Verh^tniss der Unter- 
ordnung imd Zugehorigkeit steht " '; which with all its vagueness 
is not quite correct. If anybody in the world, a man's own son 
stands to him " in einem Verh&ltniss der Unterordnui^ und Zu~ 
gehdrigkeit"; yet a son was the one person in the world of whom 
this formula could never be employed. The fact is, Kautzsch's 
definition applies better to the formula t ova inpi (in which tnps 
is a partidple; Isa. 43, 7; 48, i; cf. Gen. 48, 16) than to -s or tnpj 
v^. For this last does not describe a state, as Kautzsch implies, 
but an occurrence; v'?}! mn* or mpjnrtt n-2n, for example, is not 
the house v/Mck is (habitually) called after Yakwe, but rather the 
house over which the name of Yakwe was (once upon a time) pro- 
daimed ~- that is, the house which was dedicated, consecrated, or 
devoted to Yahwe. So the formula is employed of a satuluary dedi- 
cated to the deity, i Kings 8, 43 (= 2 Chron. 6, 33); Jer. 7, 10 11 
14 30; 33. 34; 34. is; of a city, Jer. 25, 29; Dan. 9, 18 f; of a 
person, Jer. 15, 16; and of a peopU, Deut. 28, 10 (cf. the language 
of verse 9); Isa. 63, 19; Jer. 14, 9; Amos, 9, 12; 2 Chron. 7, 14; 
Dan. 9, r9.* Nor is the connotation essentially difFerent when the 
name is that of a human being, though our own idiom may require 
a difTerent rendering. In 2 Sam. 13, 38, txbs "cp mp:i refers per- 
hiq)s to a custom of crying the name of the commander when carry- 
ing a place by assault (cf. pjnjin Twh, Judges 7, 18 30); which, 
however, might entail the re-naming of the captured stronghold if 
it was permanently occupied, as in the case of hKE* nioj,* and 
■m Tji. Even Isa. 4, i, \r'f!i ler •05' p, has in view the act of 
taking in marriage rather than the married state. 

> Zeibekriflfilt dU oUUilameKllkke Wiiietischafl, VI, iS86, p. i8. 
■ In the cue of ft aanctuaiy oi a penou the aaae is literal; in the other cftses it will 

* See page 54, note. 


U SAMUEL 6 6l 

Accordingly, i^ rnttxt nvr dp inp: tmt in our passage is liter- 
ally, aver which the name of Yohwe Militant had been cried, and this 
is idiomatic Hebrew for which was dedicated to Yahwe MUHatU. 
Just what the ceremony of dedication consisted in, besides the cry- 
ing of the divine name in the presence of the object dedicated, we 
cannot say. But of this we may be sure: whatever fonn of name had 
been employed in dedicatii^ a sacred box, the same was subse- 
quently employed when invoking the divine oracles through the 
instrumentality of that box. In the case of this box, then, not nvr 
bunv* 'nine, as in i Sam. 14, 41 (G); 23, 10, but mnw mn* or nvr 
'?¥nv> 'n^K mwv; cf. verse 18 of our chapter. 

6, 3. ntnn n^». Not necessarily one that had never been used, 
as in I Sam. 6, 7; although even that m^t be had in so important 
a place as Kirjath-jearim. tnn may signify no more than in perfect 
condition, relatively new; cf. Josh. 9, 13; Judges 15, 13; 3 Sam. 
31, 16 {sc. nni? F); i Kings 11, 39 f. The cart was employed, not 
because of the waght or size of the sacred box,' but merely for pro- 
cessional purposes. Later on, when David comes to fetch the box 
from the house of Obed-edom, as well as in i Sam. 4, 4, there is no 
mention of a cart Perh^is the fate of Uzzah recommended a 
return to " the good old way." 

njoa ixm airait n'a . The sanctuary of Kir jath-jearim may have 
been an open-air high place, and the house of Abinadab the nearest 
dwelling. The family of Abinadab was presumably of Gibeonitish 
origin; cf. Josh. 9, 17. 

vnK . Wellhausen, following G, construes this word as an appel- 
lative, rriK , his brother; and we must admit that it hardly looks 
like an old Hebrew proper name.* But the context in both verses 

I Tbt dimensioiu of Vt inugmaiy box of Vahwe (Ex. 15, 10; 37, i) have no leU- 
dcm to the lubject; d. Bolzanger, Exodus, pp. 133 f. 

* In I Chron. 8, 31; 9, 37 it m&y be bonowed from our parage. S''tVf, ouinot be 
" uiothei form of irrnK " (as H. P. Smith, Nowsck, Budde, and Drivei^. irVnK 
auM yield n*nK and even ^RK, but not VHK; for at tbe end of a name the element 
yakit never became yd, and in the Otd TeoUment at least, it is never even qtelled 
V (= yaw); cf. Jastrow, Jaumct ^ Biblical Uttrame, Xm, 1894, p. loi; N&ldeke, 
EmcydopatHa Biblica, col. 3379. Tlie name f'tj'^M, cited as a panllel by Nowack, 
Budde, and Driver, does not exist. In i Sam. 14, 49 1«movX of G^, which repieKots 



3 and 4 demands a proper name. If, therefore, rnK is not a proper 
name, it has been substihtted for one. In which evoit it not improb- 
ably conceals the Gibeonitish origin of Zadok; who appears at the 
court of David for the first time after this episode, and whose an- 
cestry is never disclosed. Besides — since we are already speculat- 
ing — under what influence did the youthful Solomon make a 
pilgrimage to the chief sanctuary of the Gibeonites soon after his 
accession ? And what priest was re^xtosible for the oracle of 
3 Sam. 31, 1 ? Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had reason to re- 
member a far greater sacril^e than the slaughter of the Gibeo- 
nites. And just what is the author of Josh. 9, 22-27 concerned 
to refute ? 

6, 4. D'n^KH jntt D)f <= tn attendance upon, or in charge of, the 
sacred box. The clause relates to the sons of Abinadab, not to the 
cart; cf. verse 7 and i Sam. 4, 4. 

6, 6. paJ is of course not a proper name; which could serve no 
purpose here. Neither the author nor his readers would be familiar 
with the name of the owner of every threshing-floor between Eir- 
jath-jearim and Jerusalem. Obviously the adjective, like the sub- 
stantive pi itself, has some bearing on the misadventure about to 
be narrated. I have taken |U] to ^goify in this connection, /rm, 
hard, permanent, that is, a threshing-floor of bare rock, as dis- 
tinguished from one made of levelled and hardened earth.' It is 
possible, to be sure, that the author intends \oi in the alternative 
sense of prepared, that is, smoothed and swept, and made ready for 
the season's threshing. In the latter case, the descr^tion would fix 
the season of the year as late in June or early in July. For the rest, 
the phrase 1V 1K3^ seems to imply that the procession had not trav- 
elled very far when the accident happened. Nor was a threshing-floor 
likely to lie across the path when once the hi^iway had been gairLed. 

the Hebrew letten hlTf, pcunU to 'yjiZVtt u the original of the cornq>t "VT of the 
Uawretic text, but fuiniahes no evidence of an intennediaiy Vint (as WriUiamtn). 
It ahould be added, however, that a name VHK occurs sevenl times in the Ele- 

phKntiiw pryri 

' " Tbe thredilng-flooT ii usually a smooth plot of ground near the village, bcatn 
batd. Very often a natunl rock floor may be iitiliied." EJihu Gnat, Tie Faataiiiryrf 
PaUitiM, p. 136. 


U SAMUEL 6 63 

la mm D'ni>Kn piK i)K .iw (n)^. The reading rim of the 
Masoretic teit — and Uzzah sent to Pie sacred box — is impossible. 
On the other hand, the Chronicler's jnKn tm inn^ n' nn mp rhtn 
(1 Chron. 13, 9) is plainly not a transcription, but an interpreta- 
tion and paraphrase of the text of Samuel. If his manuscript really- 
exhibited rr riK , as is assumed by all modem critics, there was no 
reason in the world why he should not transcribe hm ntjr r/?tn 
13 tnm p^K^ i>K nv The paraphrase only indicates thai the text 
of his source seemed difficult; which of course cannot be affirmed 
of the Hebrew just quoted. Nor, if tr nn had ever stood in the 
text of Samuel, is it concdvable that it should have permanently 
dropped out. The testimony of the Septuagint points to the same 
conclusion. The repeated addition of Karcurxtiv aMpi betrays the 
fact that tha^ too we are dealing with the labored elucidation of an 
enigmatical text. For these reasons we must conclude that both 
the Chronicler and the Septuagint translator read our text as we 
have it — and misinterpreted accordingly. The clause ipsn lotsr o, 
however, leaves no doubt that, not n^ nx has been omitted from 
the authentic text, but n has been added to the author's '?tri. 
Moreover, whatever it was that Uzzah did in verse 6, that he was 
punished for in verse 7; and '?vn of verse 7 has no n. The reading 
^ (imperfect of '>Vi, to slip; cf. Deut. 19, 5 ') at once makes the 
whole passage intelligible. 

\DDV, literally dropped (transitive), euphemism for dunged, oov 
is never instransitive; and nowhere has it the meaning stumble, 
slip, fall, be mired, be refractory, run away, shake, tilt, knock over, 
or anything else that has been conjectured by interpreters ancient 
and modem to meet the supposed dconands of this passage. It in- 
variably means to drop something, either physically, as here (—1 
Chron. 13, 9); 2 Kings 9, 33; Ps. 141, 6*; or figuratively, in the 
sense of to relinquish a claim, as in Ex. 23, 11; Deut 15, 2 f; Jer. 

■ In Deut. ig, 5 }7n p ^DSn ^»J\ does not mean Ike axe-kead sHps from Ike 
k€he, but tkt axt glaacts from Ike Iree; 'yn^Tl and ^n have the same meaning as in 
the prcceduig dauie. 

> The text of this psalm is (Usordered; but jho n*3 ICDIPJ evidently chaiges that 
certain peisons kme bttn huritdfrpm a cliff; d. vene 7. 



6, 7. nrhmn o» man. The verdict of the bystandeis, accepted 
by the traditioD, and transmitted by the author in good faith. In 
point of historical i&ct, the unfortunate man doubtless cracked his 
skull (HI the bare rock of the threshing-floor in falling, im^n is 
not a " change of the divine name " (H. F. Smith), nor is there any 
reason for omitting it (as Nowack and Budde). It is a determinate 
^pellative referring to mrr. The style would be exactly paralleled 
by "iten Dv irui nwa in t|M nm; cf. 2 Sam. 9, 3; 30, 3. It is true 
that the renewed mention of the subject at this point strikes xa as 
superfluous; but it is thoroughly characteristic of the author's style, 
cf. 5, 17a i8a 19a 35a; 6, 3a lob iib 13b 14a 14b i8a 31a. 

W, slip, noun, apparently of the form qtal from the root 'jtn. 
Cf. the infinitive hv in Ruth 3, 16; where we perhaps should point 
^n W, and in any case must interpret, be sure lo let slip. There 
is no Hebrew verb 'p'?V to draw out (as Brown-Driver-Biiggs, follow- 
ing Gesenius, Thesaitms), nor if there were, would it give a satis- 
factory sense in that passage. At best we might assume a root Vjv 
cognate to, and not clearly differentiated from, '?V3; but the form 
'?v for the infinitive absolute would remain anomalous; cf. Gesenius- 
Kautzsch § 67 0. Of the meaning of the word W in our passage, 
whatever its proximate derivation, there can be no doubt whatever.* 

6, 10. rI)K Torh, ametter chez lui, rather than /aire ptaitrer che% 
Uti (Dhorme). 

6, 14. liDM . Compare p^^ 7 f above. 

6, 16. Kl nvr |nK TVm. We must not alter the initial n*m to 
the usual introductory 'm, with the Chronicler and all recait 
ccanmentators. The case b not the same as in i Sam. i, 13; 10, 9, 
etc (Driver). The subject here is not the following sentence, but 
the noun pK ; and what the author predicates of the box is not 
that it had arrived or used to arrive (k3 n<n), but that it was ahotU 
to arrive (k3 rvrx' = xn riTn). Nowack b mistaken when he affirms, 
" es handelt sich ura die-Erz&hlung einer eimnaligen Handlung." 

> Tbe judicious icsder will af^rdieiid that tbe above b written in the prevailin( 
jaigm. 'fV a not really " derived " fiom either '?tf3 oi 'Af, " nUted to " wonkt 
better answer to the fact, the bOiteial stem bdng antecedent to both the |"0 and 
the yy verb. 


U SAMUEL 6 65 

6, 17. vtn, deposited upon the ground; cf. Deut. 28, 56; Judges 
6,37'; used elsewhere of the sacred box: iSam.5,2; 2 Sam. 15, 34 
(where we must of course read inn for the senseless ^p^\ of the 
Masoretic text) ; as well as in the parallel to this passage, i Chroa. 
16, I. It is no accident that the same verb, which never means 
tc set up or to hang up, and is never employed of either an idol or a 
garment, is used of the " ephod " of Gideon, Judges 8, 27. 

6, 18. niiiyfTDTn !)3i. The last word is Hiphil infinitive, not 
determinate plural of the noun nhy ; cf. maanno hy^ , i Sara. 10, 13. 
Nor does the verb r6vn require an object; cf. 2 Kings 16, 12. 

nwnv m.T 0V2 ovn nK tu*^. He dismissed the assembly with 
the words imav mrr oajiy, instead of the customary mrr oanav 

6,19. iBtW. With the DTs!*!? of the Masoretic text of verses 17 
and 18 discarded, this strange word can hardly be anything but the 
name of some fruit, the imit of which would be an adequate indi- 
vidual portion — that is, provided the consonants have been cor- 
rectly transmitted. One thinks of the quince; cf. Cant. 2, 5, where 
nvtrvtn are coupled with [rrwn, apples. The quince is not men- 
tioned elsewhere in the Old Testament, althou^ there is reason to 
believe that it was extensively cultivated in Palestine in early 
times.* Several of the conmionest vegetables, it should be remem- 
bered, happen to be mentioned only once in the Old Testament 
(Numbers 11, 5).* On the other hand, the Septu^;int of this 

' In Ex. lo, 34 JV^ is used figuratively of something depetitei as a pledge. 

■ Cf. Hehn-Sdmder, K^dliafifiamai und HauiUiien'', pp. 345 S. In the tenth 
century A.D. a tiiyne of Al Muqaddan boasts that no grapes are 10 large and oa 
quinces so excellent as those of his native dty of Jeiusalem; and elsewhere he actually 
reckons the quince (which he calls al mit'anMoqa; cf. Dozy) among the seven kinds 
of produce unknown outside of Palestine (ed. De Goeje, m>. 166, 181; cf. Le Strange, 
I. c, pp. 16, 85). In Arabia the quince was foimeily veiy abundant, and was highly 
prised for ita supposed therapeutic and stimulating qualities (see Lane. s. t. safarjal). 
The statement of Kemiedy {Encydopaedia Biblica, col. 1573) that " it can scarcely 
have been eaten raw, but only when made into a preserve," b not justified. At the 
pretent day the quince is habitually eaten raw, after bdng stored a little while to mel- 
low, both in the East and among the peasaatiy of Italy. 

* The Hebrew of the Mishna has a fruit called vnb , Mtich the Jemsalem Talmud, 
Ma'ierolk 48d, defines with 7T1DD^)t, Aiamaic for qitince, Arabic safarjal; cf. L0w, 
AramUucki PfianMtnnamen, pp. 35, 144, 460. The Talmud goes on to e^lun that 



passage has ioxapiTriv, whicli is (tf course a makeshift based on 
isznn . And this, if authentic, would be a cup of wine (lar) ; not an 
improbable sense in Ez. 37, 15 and Ps. 73, 10 as well. 

nenpM, a small brick of pressed dried fruit. D*aj)r 'e^rK of Hosea 
3, 1 argues that the nvtm was not always made of D*3V. It may 
have consisted of figs, like the Arabic malban (p'fo), a sweetmeat 
" made of figs pressed into the form of small bricks." > . In that 
case it will have differed from the n^n in bdng more of a confection. 

6, 20. vunam , merely greeted kim. The " blessing " was nothing 
more than the conventional form of salutation; cf. i Sam. 13, to; 
95, 14; 3 Kings 4, 29; Ruth 2, 4. 

najf nintw is rhetoric; cf. 'riK najr 'i«jr) yrrh, i Sam. 25, 41. 

ml)U m^jn3. By means of the infinitive absolute the idea of 
the verb is intoisified from mere disclosure to wilful exkHritum. 
The grammatical form rvf?ii has occasioned needless perplexity. 
The traditional reading should be retained without change. The 
" infinitive absolute " (which is of course not the absolute form of 
the " infinitive construct," but a wholly independent verbal noun 
with distinctly abstract sense) could not in this case occupy any 
other position than immediately before the genitive nnit; which it 
accordingly introduces by means of a construct form of its own. 
For the rest, the statement of Kautzsch (Gesenius-Kautzsch % 113a, 
footnote), " Ganz ausgeschlossen ist die Verbindung des Inf. absol. 
mit einem Genetiv oder mit einem Pronominalsuffix," is justified 
only as regards a pronominal suffix, and that on logical grounds: a 
pronominal suffix ipso facia makes the act specific and concrete, and 
contradicts the very idea of the infinitive absolute or abstract. But 
no such reason exists why the infinitive absolute may not be joined 
to an indefinite genitive '; as it unmistakably is in t^' mnic', not 
a certain drinking of certain wine, but the act of wine-drinking in 
itself, Isa. 23, 13. That expression, employed in the same verse 
with the unqualified form Ine', shows that the construction of the 

the quince wm otlled Vnb became it is the only tree-fruit lefarated (enD) for the 
kettle (cooked). The identification may be no better than the etymology. 

' Quoted from Maimonida by Lc Strange, I. c, p- 10, d. p. S96. 

* Even of the object; against ESnig, Synbu, p. 1 19. 


I KINGS 2, 26 67 

formally ambiguous parallel phrases, ip3 nn killing of catlU, frx onr 
slaughtering of sheep, is that of noun with genitive, rather than verb 
with accusative (as Gesenius-Kautzsch § ii3e). 

o^n nrw . For the force of this formula when used in derogation 
cf . tihzyn imt , a common rake, 2 Sam. 13, 13 ; DiKn irw , on ordinary 
man. Judges 16, 7 11. On the other hand, in qjprobation: inM 
tfxtn, a veritable gazelle, a Sam. 2, 18. 

6,31. ^n^u. On the reading see page 43 above. 

6, 23. yrv. So we must necessarily read, with G, against the 
Masoretic *3<r. 

DPP. The author probably wrote pp. 


It has, I think, been shown that the ancient record of David's 
transfer of the box of Yahwe Militant from Kirjath-jearim to Jeru- 
salem testifies unequivocally to the existence of a plurality of sacred 
boxes among the Hebrews, both in the ^e of David and at the time 
when that narrative itself was composed. Equally emphatic and 
indisputable, for the same period and the same author, is the testi- 
mony of the next passage we have to consider, namely i Kings a, 26. 

Here we are told that Solomon, when banishing Abiathar from 
Jerusalem for his adherence to the cause of Adonijah, made use of 
the followii^ language: nm w» nnK nn e^K 's "pr ^v 1^ nruv 
ipK ^M n'jjmn '31 '3K in '»ii mn' ' ('jik) jtik dk jiKfj o nn'ow t6 
. *3K nijtnn. Gel thee to Anathoth to thine estate; for thou art under 
sentence of death; but for the present I ivttl not put thee to death, 
because thou didst bear the box of Yaktve before David my father and 
didst share aU the. sufferings which my father suffered. The natural 
sense of this statement is that there was a period in the life of David 
when Abiathar attended him as priest, carrying the box of Yahwe *; 

> 'TIK , lacking in G and in the PesUts, ii not " a miitaken rq>etition of friK " 
(Buine)', Note) on Ikt BOrew Text of tkt Books ofKingt, p. as; d. Kittd, Banilum- 
maitar turn Alttn TeOameiU, p. tg f), but merely a Qrt indicating the leading fDM 
Tin instead of mn' pX- 

• With tbe phraae '3R in ■•itf> mri' f"" HK imV3. coiflpare fntt IC^l Klfl 
btrVtT' *3B^ tnnn BPI DV^m , i Sam. 14, 18 (as lestoKd, p. 16). 



and that during; that period they had tt^ther suffered extraoFdinary 
and prolonged hardship. 

Now there was never such a period in the life of David after the 
box of Yahwe Militant (of Shiloh and Kirjath-jearim) came into his 
possession (3 Sam. 6). To be sure, David suffned great hardsh^ 
and humiliation when he fled from Jerusalem on the occasion <d 
Absalom's rebellion. But 2 Sam. 15, 29 explicitly tells us that no 
sacred box accompanied him on that occasion, and that Abiathar 
too was left behind, to act as his spy at the court of Absalom; ocx 
by any stretch of the imagination can the ensuing experiences of 
Abiathar in Jerusalem be held to justify the term Ji'innn . There 
was one period, and only one, in the life of David when he endured 
protracted hardship in the company of Abiathar; and that was 
before he came to the throne, when for many months he led the life 
of a hunted outlaw on the southern bordn, in such consant feai <rf 
death that he finally sought safety in the service of the arch-enony 
of his nation, the Philistine kii^ of Gath(i Sam. 23-30). Through- 
out that period and those trials, Abiathar, likewise a fugitive from 
the vengeful fury of Saul, was ever at David's side, ministering to 
him, in moments of perplexity or danger, the sacred oracles of Yahwe 
(i Sam. 32, 20 ff.; 23, 6 9; 30, 7). If Solomon and our autbcw 
knew what they were talking about — as presumably both of than 
did — the object which, in those troublous times, Abiathar carried 
with him, as at once the badge and the instrument of his sacred 
office, was the box of Yahwe. And that " box of Yahwe " was 
necessarily a different box from the " box of Yahwe Militant " 
which all through that period, and for years afterwards, was lodged 
in the house of Abioadab at Eirjath-jearim (i Sam. 7, i ; 2 Sam. 
6, 3). I Kings 3, 26, accordingly, offers independent and conclu^ve 
proof of the existence of more than one box of Yahwe in the age of 
David, and to the knowledge of the author of this unimpeachable 

On the theory of a single sacred box this pass^e raises difficulties 
which commentators have never succeeded in overcoming. Rashi 
understands mn* <nK jrm nm twopi o to r^er to the episode of 


I KINGS 2, 36 69 

2 Sam. 15, 24 ff (where David, Abiathar, and the sacred boz are met 
togetha by the ^e of the Brook Kidron for a few brief moments), 
and n'<vnn has in mind the hunger, weariness, and thirst (iwn 
13*103 nm Kj^jn 3)n, 2 Sam. 17, 29) subsequently endured by David 
and his followers (but not by Abiathar). Levi ben Gershon also 
sees in the mention of the box of Yahwe an allusion to the experience 
of 3 Sam. 15, 24 ff, though he aiq>arently realizes the strained 
character of that explanation; for he adds that Abiathar stayed 
with David on that occasion until the latto* de^red the box taken 
back to Jerusalem. The " sufferii:^ " was endured both during the 
early period of outlawry and during Absalom's rebellion. So already 
David Qimhi, who follows Rashi in quoting 2 Sam. 17, 29. The 
view that the entire statement relates to the episode of 2 Sam. 15, 
24 ff, is put forward by J. H. Michaelis,' BSttcher,* and Kitte!.* 
More sensible and straightforward was the attitude of Clericus: 
"Viz crediderim respid ad id quod habetur 2 Sam. 15, 34 29; 
tunc enim noluit David Arcam secum auferri; sed potius ad bella 
quae gessit David [after 2 Sam. 6], quamvis haec drcumstantia 
antea non sit memoiata." And on Tvijinn: "In exsilio semper 
fuerat cum Davide, ex quo ad cum confugerat, i Sam. 22, 20 21 
et seqq." * 

Bumey, who retains the reading mn^ pK, divorces the two 
halves of Solomon's declaration: Abiathar was one of the bearers 
when the box of Yahwe was ronoved from the house of Obed-edom 
to the City of David " with rejradng " (2 Sam. 6, 12); whaeas the 
affliction referred to is that which he had shared with David in thtax 
joint wanderings as outlaws some years earlier.* That is, Solomon 
recalls two experioices of diametrically oj^>osite character; in one 
of which, moreoever, we have (in spite of i Chron. 15, 11) no evi* 
dence that Abiathar shared. It does not help the matter that the 
paraphrase of Josephus, Qay&Tov iih> ithtrai at t&. n AXXa 6<ra 

> BiUto h^raica aim anHotatiimibas, ad lae. 

* Neiit txttttitck-jtrilisclie Aehrenlete, II, p. ii. 
' L. e., p. 19. 

* VtUrit TeOamenti libri kitlorid, p. 367. 



T$ TOTpl awtxaitus koX 4 iaff<aTbt, tip oif abr^ ittHtveyKos,^ may 
imply a similar interpretation. On the other hand, the compre- 
hensive ez^:esis of Keil sees in the utterance of Solomon a referena 
to all available occasions — the transfer of the box of Yahwe from 
the house of Obed-edom, as related in i Chron. 15, and also the 
episode of z Sam. 15, 24 ff; the sufferings of the days of out- 
lawry, as well as those caused by Absalom's rebellion.* 

Thenius was the first to seek relief in textual emendation. As 
an " Oberpriester," Abiathar had nothing to do with the portage of 
the sacred box, while the text obviously alludes to his exercise of the 
priestly function. In accordance, therefore, with i Sam. 2, 28; 
14, 3; 14, 18 (G), we should very probably read iWK in place of 
iriK . (" Very probably," in this case, doubtless because the Sqitua* 
gint does not support the proposed emendation.) The resulting 
combination mrr 'jik iibk he thinks sufficiently justified by the 
circumstance that the sacred oracles were attached to the ephod, as 
may be seen from i Sam. 14, 41.* Against this reading, which is 
apparently adopted by Benzinger,* it is sufficient to point out that 
the combination mn< 'ncM is an impossible one.* Even the unique 
ephod of the High Priest could no more be called mn* "nut than 
his robe could be called nvi* Wo . Much the same criticism applies 
to the doubly conjectural O'n'jtt nwK which Klostermann offers as 
the authentic text of this passage. According to that critic, an 
original O'n^M Ttut (which he curiously calls " ungewohnlich ") 
was first altered to O'n^K [nit, " da sonst der Ephod vor Jahve, 
nicht vor Menschen getragen wird "; then grossed with mm as a 
variant to irn^K, resulting in the conflate reading mrr a*r6tt jrm; 
and finally the latter was corrected to mn< ^nit p^K.* 

> AntiquUi«i, viii, 10. ■ Dit Backer der KOnigt', k>. 16 f. 

' Die Backer der KSnig^, 1849, p. 18. In the second edition, 1873, he reusoted 
bis opinioii agaiiut the critidims of Bdttdier uid Keil. 

* Ktmer BoHd^ommenSar turn Allot Teitameal, p. 1 1. 

* It is not quite ooTrect to say that the expressioD " never occurs " (as BurtKy, 
and before him BOttcber); for its Greek equivalent is found in the Septuof^t text 
of I Sam. 13, 9; which, however, metety constitutes additional evidence that lUK 
is not authentic in that passage. 

■ Die BfkMer Samudis mtd der Kenige, p. 371. 


I KEfGS 3, 26 71 

The obstacle of the possessive mv is avoided by Wellhausen > 
and Stade,* who substitute the determinate fttttn for the whole 
phrase mrr pK. In view of the present text of i Sam. 33, 6 9; 
30, 7, this is the most rational alternative to the retention of the 
Masoietic text with the interpretation I have given. But the 
objections to this drastic onendation are insurmountable. In the 
first place, the reading mn* pK of the Masoretic text is, in so far 
forth,* supported by all the manuscripts and editions of all the 
ancient versions; and, after what has been said in discussing the 
problem of i Sam. 14, iS, it is evident that this is more likely to be 
a case where the original tnK has been preserved unaltered, than 
one where an original "nut has been changed to tnK , of which the 
Old Testament offers no demonstrable instance. Secondly, there is 
the material objection urged against the emendation to nuKn in 
I Sam. 14, 18, namely, that nothing is achieved by the proposed 
alteration but the substitution of a major difficulty for a minor one. 
Instead of a second sacred box, which, though it conflicts with 
Jewish tradition, is perfectly intelligible, we are burdened with a 
cryptic vocable which cannot, in this context, have a meaning in 
the least resembling its well-attested sense elsewhere in the Old 
Testament.' And third, the displacement of an origiDal iiMtn by 
nw' inK (as distinguished from that of ■noK by jnn) cannot be 
the result of careless copying, but only of deliberate falsification — 
as indeed is contended by Wellhausen. And so we confront again 
the untenable hypothesis, that an editor or saibe who (if he lived 
in the Second Temple) thought of the ephod as an essential article 
of the High Priest's apparel, and whose historical books (in any 
event) showed him that a similar garment was worn by such divine 
favorites as Samuel and David, foimd the mere mention of it m 
connection with Abiathar so intolerable that he wilfully substituted 
for it " the box of Yahwe," which (by hypothesis) he knew was the 
imique object domiciled at Kirjath-jearim throughout the period 

• > Bleek-WeDhauMn, EiuUUung in dot AUe TttUmenfi, p. 643. 
■ Sacred Books eflie (M TtilameiU, pp. 3, 70. 

» G represenu fnrr (Tina) inx. 

* See pigee Q, t6. 



here in question. To be sure, it is assumed that the tinkering scribe 
knew or suspected that the cphod here mentioned, unlike that ot 
the High Priest, was an idol; but it still remains to be proved that 
the ephod was ever an idol, or that the Jewish scribe ever lived 
who thought it was. 

Far simpler is the contrary view, which acc^ts the univetsalty 
authenticated genitive nvi* as evid^ce that the construct whidi 
precedes it was never other than fiiK; and that here, as in the 
Masoretic text of i Sam. 14, 18, the authentic reading has been pre- 
served in spite of its incompatibility with the later Jewish theory 
of the single box of Yahwe. For it is one thing to leave unaltered 
an ancient text which does not accord with current doctrine — 
what were our Old Testament science today but for the abundance 
of such laxity ? — and quite another to make positive alterations 
which are repugnant to that doctrine. There can, of course, be no 
serious question that the object spoken of by Solomon in i Kings 
3, 36 was the same as that mentioned by the narrator of i Sam. 23, 
6 9; 3(^t 7- S"t sound critidsm is not governed by a count of 
verses. If jriK of our passage is emended to 'nut, the confusion 
is only inaeased; whereas if niBK of the other passages is replaced 
by pK, all is at once made plain. 


The last Old Testament passage we have to adduce as intrinsi- 
cally irreconcilable with the theory that the box of Yahwe was 
unique is Jer. 3, 16. This verse occurs in a prophecy of Jeremiah 
which is attributed, professedly by the prophet himself (3, 6), to the 
reign ot Josiah. Some three hundred years have elapsed since the 
author Kved from whose priceless history the last passages were 
drawn. The separate monarchy established by Jeroboam has been 
swqtt away; and in the surviving kingdom of Judah the time has 
long since pa^ed when the king sought supernatural guidance of the 
priest with his portable instrument of divination. Where Saul and 
David enquired of Yahwe through an Ahijah or an Abiathar, Heze- 
kiah and Josiah enquired only of an Isaiah or a Huldah, through 


JEREMIAH 3, 1 6 73 

whose living voice the spirit of the Deity made knomi his aiticulate 
and certain message. For king and counselor and royal priest, the 
naive institution of the early days is now little more than a blend 
of outworn superstitution and pious memory. Nevertheless the 
institution is not quite extinct; for superstitions die hard. In 
remoter circles, and among people less highly placed, the primitive 
oracle is still preserved. Particularly, it would seem, amoi^ the 
wretched remnant of North Israel, now for three generations subject 
to foreign rule, disint^ated, unshepherded, and fast falling away 
from the family of Yahwe — at the old high places and in the 
sacred groves of C&naan, side by side with images of baaiim and 
symbols of other strange divinities, the box of Yahwe continues to 
be chmshed and invoked. It is to these North Israelites that the 
prophet Jeremiah addresses his words: 

THK tuRK ^nnpin osa ^n^ *3}K *3 mn> dm D'aaw d'J3 i3ir (3, 14) 
Dsiw urn <3^3 D^jn ah '■nrui (.15) : prt oanK 'nKom nnavoD witn vvo 
vh mn' DKJ nonn Dira p»« onmn inn '3 n'm (16) : h'own njn 
•Tw ntnr vfn npo' kS la vtsr »6i 3^ hv nV itS tvov ima) init iip niw 

(3, 14) ROum, you wandering children, declares Yahwe, for I am 
your owner. And I will take you, one from a city, and two from a 
clan, and will bring you to Zion (for instruction); (15) and I will 
give you shepherds after my own heart, and they will feed you with 
knowledge and discretion. (16) And it shall come to pass, when you 
increase and multiply in ^ land in those days, declares Yahwe, that 
men will no longer speak of " the box of Yahwe," nor will it enter 
their minds, nor will they invoke it, nor will they resort to it; nather 
will it be manufactured any more. 

nv must of course be given the same meaning in the clause kS 
Tiy nw which it has in -ny iidm' k^; and in the latter it cannot 
possibly have the meaning again = a second time.^ Otherwise the 

> Giesebiecht is obliged to render, " duu wiid man nicht /firdcr sagen: ' die Lade 
des Bundcs Jahves ' "; but represents the last clause by " und sie wild (auch) nidit 
wUdtr gemitcht werdm " (f ondjkoaMUMlar iitm AUen TatamenP, p. lo). Similarijr 
Coraill: " und ketne neue anierdgen wollen " {Das BtuA Jertmia ertUrl, p. 41); and 
Etbt: " noch lie wieder anfertigen " (Jertmia und itiat Zeil, p. 130). Other critics 
fallow a sounder phildogical instinct, la qiite of the (act that the resultant readering 



text calls for few comments, nnn is the usual Deuteronomistic 
gloss, never more clearly out of place than here. T3) fisr K^ is 
quite meaningless if we adhere to the desperate p<nnting of the 
synagogue. Nowhere in the Old Testament is s 131 Hebrew for 
remanber, as is assumed, for this passage alone, by all the com- 
mentaries and lexicons.* We must point the verb as Hiphil, which, 
with 3 of the object, is idiomatic Hebrew for invoke. Only in this 
sense is nai used with the prq>osition 3, either with or without a 
complementary d^. So in the following: n'<3r 'fmrttr ^n^K3i, parallel 
to mn' Dpa mawn, Isa. 48, i; T3M -p -uh, Isa. 26, 13 (where T»r 
is a gloss); i*3u irn^ mrr Dea unitn d'did3 ni^tn 33h3 n^M, Ps. 20, 8; 
mn' DP3 T3Tn^ t6 o on, Amos 6, 10; n'3in Ki» un^rhvt nw, Josh. 
33,7- ComparefurtherEx.3, 15; 33, 13; sSam. 14, 11; Isa. 49, z; 
6a, 6 f ; Hos. 2, 19.* On npo' compare Judges 15, i. 

The testimony of the last three clauses in this utterance of Jere- 
miah could not be more plain. The box of Yahwe here referred to 
is not an individual object, but an institution. Neither the fictional 
Sinaltic box of Jewish dogma, not yet the supposedly unique histori- 
cal box of Solomon's temple, was resorted to and invoked in the 
days of Jeremiah by the people of North Israel. Evidently, too, the 
object which the prophet has in mind had been reproduced again 
and again in the past, and might conceivably be multipUed indefi- 
nitely in the future; so that he cannot be alluding to a box whose 
essential character consisted in its harboring an ancestral fetich of 
the age of Moses. Nor should we overlook the significant implica- 
tion of the context; it is as the cherished instrument of divine guid- 
ance that the sacred box is to be superseded by the ministrations of 

does oot accord with their own Bssumptioii that the refereDce is to the lestontiim of 
the lost box of the Solomomc temple. So Duhm: " ooch wild sie mehi uigefertigt 
weiden " (_Dai Buck Jenmia itbersdMt, p. lo; cf. Kuner Band^ommeitor, p. 40); and 
Driver: " neither shall it be made any more " (The Book of Ikt Prophet Jtremiai, 
p. 17; d. IntradticUom, new edition, p. 351). 

> The Septuagiiit odt initaailtvtrox comes very much closer to the cotrect io- 

■ "VZXrh in the title of Psalms 38 and 70 has nothing to do with the mant of tlw 
Levitical ritual; itmeitlyduuactaiiestbepsalinssad^>ted/i)rMt«0eafMM(indiitieia). 


JEREMIAH 3, 1 6 75 

prophecy. For the rest, it is apparent that Jeremiah had never 
heard of the fiction of i Kings 8, 9 regardii^ the Solomonic box, and 
that it would have been quite foreign to his temper to sympathize 
with it. To his mind, the box of Yahwe was a pagan excrescence 
which could not be too thoroughly eradicated. 

I am of course aware that the authenticity, and when not the 
authenticity the pre-exilic date, of the above-quoted words has been 
questioned by able and conscientious critics.' Quite generally, too, 
it has been denied that the words are addressed to the inhabitants 
of North Israel. It might be replied, that for the purposes of the 
present argument it makes httle difference by whom and just when 
they were uttered, if only they were uttered in good faith; that, in 
fact, granted the philological correctness of the above interpreta- 
tion, the later their date the better. Neverthdess, it must be pointed 
out that correct exegesis precedes literary criticism, and that the 
adverse judgments passed upon this pass^e are all based upon an 
exegesis now shown to be totally erroneous. If our interpretation 
of the words is correct, it is quite impossible to im^;ine their being 
penned after the publication of the Pentateuch at the end of the 
fifth century, and not easy to imagine their being uttered much 
later than the time of Jeremiah. Nor is there any positive reason 
left for holding them to be subsequent to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem (and the disappearance of the Solomonic box). 

As regards the question of the addressee, we cannot too energeti- 
cally resist the impression sought to be conv^ed by the patently 
polemical and malevolent statements of 2 Kings 17, 6 18 23 34-41.* 
We have the authority of Sargon himself for the fact that he de- 
ported from the kingdom of Samaria in the year 722 not more than 
27,390 persons; and that he left the rest in possession of their hold- 
ings, installed an Assyrian governor over them, and imposed upon 
them the same yearly tribute which he had formerly exacted from 

>■ Se« Stade, Zattckrijt fiir die atUtitamaiSlidic Witteiuckaff, TV, iaS4, p. 151; 
Kuenen, OtidenotV, II, pp. 171 f; Giesebrtcht, I. c, pp. zvf, 17; Smend, LtMuck 
der alUtslamenUiciem JUUponsgesckkil^, pp. 347 f; Duhm, Kuner Band-Cammtmar, 
m>. 36 ff; ConiiU, I. e., pp. 40 1. 

* Cf. Ttmey, Btra Studies, n>> 3^6 tt. 



the kings of Samaria.* The last fact alone is enough to show that 
the country was very far from being transformed into a howling 
wilderness, pending the arrival of the foreign settlers imported by 
Saigon. These settlers, moreover, cannot have been so very numer- 
ous proportionally, and will hardly have affected the character of the 
population more seriously than did the deported Isradites that of 
the r^ons into which they were removed — which, in the long nm, 
was not at all. Jeremiah must not be credited with the absurd 
notions of the post-exilic anti-Samaritans and exdusivists. He 
might very well suppose himself summoned to " see what apostate 
Israel was doing " (3, 6).* And we may be quite certain that in his 
day, and for a long time after, the majority of the people of central 
and northern Palestine still considered themselves and were gener- 
ally acknowledged to be of Israelitish blood and, in some sort, wor- 
shippers of Yahwe. They were not very faithful, to be stire, nor very 
exclusive — Jeremiah is perfectly aware of that; but, if the prophet 
Hosea is to be believed, they were just drifting along the path upon 
which their more prosperous ancestors had entered long before the 
termination of the monarchy. 

' See KeilmschriJUicke BiUioAei, tt,pp.5it; Rogen, Cuneiform ParaUdt Ic tkt 
Old Tvtamcnl, p. 331, d. p. 316. 

t " SeltMm ist Jahves Fnge in Jeremk, ob er geadten babe, was (Sord-)Isad 
that. Als ob Jeremia nicht bundeit Jabi nacb dem Unteigaiige Noidisnek gelebt 
bAtte! " — Dubm, I. e., p. 36. The text of Jet. 3, 6 ff is of course not devoid of edi- 
torial ezpansonB and inteipolatknu. But when once it b realized tbat the foundatiaa 
b just lAat it pretends to be, a genuine propliec)' of Jeremiab, sscribtd hy himsdf to 
the eariy yean of bis ministry, and addressed to North Israel, thete is little difficulty 
in detecting the qiurious material. The prophecy beginning with 3, 6 ^>paietitly 
makes reference (verse ^t) to an earlier utterance of the same tenor. This was doubt- 
lesB the lorig address contained in cb^ter t. My own judgment b that we have in 3, 4 
— 3, s aikd 3, 6-19 two successive prophecies of Jeremiah addressed to the Noith Israe- 
lites. 3,92b-35bunmistakBbty theruminatioDof apost-ezilicjew; and, beadea that, 
the following sections roust cleariy be discarded as spurious: a, ita^ is f 36b aSb; 
3, 3a 7b-ii pjn yV 'n nnn in 13b 17^19. it u possible that the original continu- 
ation of 3, 16 was destroyed when verses 17 ff were inserted. 




We turn now to the three additional passages which we said are 
thoroughly intelligible only upon the hypothesis of a manifold sacred 
box employed for puiposes of divination.' It hardly needs stating 
that if the sacred box was the ordinary instrument of priestly 
oracles, it was necessarily plural at a time when sanctuaries and 
priestly establishments were plmal. And since its plural character 
has, moreover, been amply demonstrated from other passages in the 
Old Testament, we are concerned only with the corroborative evi- 
dence which these three passages afford that the sacred box was in 
fact the oi^^ of divination. 

The first of these passages is 2 Sam. zi, 11. Here the sacred box 
is mentioned quite casually, in the course of a rhetorical question 
relating to a wholly different subject. The evidence yielded by the 
passage is therefore inferential. Nevertheless, it is not altogether 
ne^igible. Uriah the Hittite, explaining to David his reluctance to 
repair to his own house in Jerusalem during his enforced absence 
from the army besieging Rabbath Ammon, is represented as saying: 
'3m D'jn m(?n '3D hv 'jik najn aw tiki maoa crar' rmnn Wien p^itn 
*nrM as aatpS mritM '?2tt'? 'n^a '?k KiaK.* The box and Israel and 
Judak are (at this very moment) lodged m booths, and my lord Joab 
and the servants (retainers) of my lord (the kii^) are encamped *» 
the open field; and shall I go home, to eat and to drink and to lie 
with my wife ? 

The casual nature of this allusion to the sacred box is significant. 
Uriah is not informing David of its jvesence with the Israelitish 
aimy, ar^ more than he is infoimii^ David that the army is engaged 
in a military campaign. David is aware that the box is there. Not 

' See page 34. 

■ Budde (KuTEET Band-Commttttar), foUowing S. A. Cook (4merkan Jeumol t^ 

5M»iKAN(Maju,xvi,i9oa,p. 156), rejects die words maD3 D'atETmnn 'yvrvtr^ 

M editorial. But i Kings 30, 12 16 showi the officera of a besieging aimy oocapiati 
nUD in theenvinnisof Samuia; and the sacred box is more fittingly isaodated with 
the people of Yahwe iriio ue miutered in bis wrvice (d. 1DJ) \'nyfi Tim am< flK 
hvr/e" ^a nw in vene i) than with Joab and the mercenaiy wldien of the king. 



only so, but the reader also is supposed to be aware of it. The 
author himself, in his account of this and the preceding eipedition 
against Rabbath Amnion, has nowhere mentioned the transfer of 
the sacred box to the scene of operations fnmi Jerusalem or else- 
where.' In rehearsing the conversation between David and Uriali 
he obviously takes it for granted, therdore, that Jiis readers will 
know well enough that the box of Yahwe would be found at the 
headquarters of an Israelitish army. And although, as the symbol 
and organ of Yahwe, the box is given first place in the utterance of 
Uriah, it is atq)arently so customary a concomitant of every military 
e:q>edition, that the speaker does not even trouble to describe it as 
" the box of Yahwe " or " the sacred box." He refers to it merely 
as " the box " *; much as we might speak of " the staff." Our 
current English translation, " the Ark," lends an element of dis- 
tinction to the word which is quite foreign to the expression in the 
original. From all of which it is evident that this " box " so uiu- 
formly accompanied an Israelitish army on its campaigns, that we 
should never have learned of its presence before Rabbath Ammon on 
this occasion, but for David's adultery and the report of his chance 
conversation with the injured husband. 

The question then is. What was the function of the box which, 
atxording to the evidence of 2 Sam. 11, 11, habitually accompanied 
an Israelitish army ? In other words, must the casual reference to 
iht box of Yahwe in this ancient source he interpreted in the light of 
I Sam. 4, 3 ff, or in the light of the Masoretic text of i Sam. 14, 18 f? 
Was the box of Yahwe essentially a wonder-working palladium 

I Klostennann, followed by Budde, H. P. Smith, and Nowack, reads U^H^ jnvt 
for ISTliiK ny in > Sun. 10, it. This conjecture ii certainly wrong. Sojith obaerves 
that the dtiei of Iirael were in no danger. But that is taking the riietoric of Joab 
altogether too seriously. Was there ever a war of conquest in which the aggressor 
did not fight in defence of his territory, liberty, eiistence, or something of the sort? 
MOitaiy daptrqi is as old as warfare. Yet even if Klostemuum's emoidation be 
accqited, we should only have an cariier casual mention of the box of Yahwe in the 
mouth of one of the actors. On the other hand, the suggeatkm of the same critic that 
we wad rnnav T^K pK UIW 3K1'HK inio.risrighUy dismissed as fantastic. 

» The Ludanic reading ^ Eiparit roD fteS, followed by Jerome, b certainly un- 
authentic; as may be seen from the divergent expansion of the FcaUta. 



whicli the Israelites earned into battle ? or was it simply the instru- 
ment of the priestly oracles ? These are the alternatives; and they 
are sufficiently distinct. 

Scholars have hitherto adopted the former of these alternatives in 
explaining our passage. But the situation underlying 3 Sam. 11, 11 
has nothing at all in common with the events recorded in i Sam. 4. 
In the latter case we have to do with an apparently unprecedented, 
and certainly extraordinary, use of a particular sacred box. The 
Israehtes have been routed; and in their extremity and bewilder* 
ment they send to Shilofa for the box especially dedicated to Yakwe 
Militant, that by carrying it with them into the fight they may 
triumph over their terrible opponents. Here, on the contrary, the 
Israelites, far from being in extremity or danger, are themselves the 
aggressors and the victors. They have defeated the Ammonites and 
thdr Syrian allies in open battle; they have devastated the enemy's 
country up to the gates of his capital, and are engaged in reducing 
his last refuge; it is but a matter of time when the dty must stu*- 
render to them or be taken by assault. There has been no need and 
no thought of desperate ^>edients. The box accompanied the 
eqwdition as a matter of course when it first set out, and is safely 
lodged at headquarters at the time of spealdng. Clearly, not i Sam. 
4, 3 ff but I Sam. 14, 18 f supplies the parallel required. For in 
this latter passage likewise, the presence of the sacred box at army 
headquarters from the b^inning is taken for granted. The first 
mention of it is in the quoted command of Saul to Ahijah, " Bring 
hither the sacred box." > The author's parenthesis, " for he carried 
the sacred box before Israel that day," explains, not the presence 
of the box, but the mention of Ahijah. The box is consulted as a 
matter of course before the military operation is undertaken, and is 
presumably left in the rear when the army proceeds to the attack. 
lo fact, so perfectly does i Sam. 14, 18 f supply the background 
required for the allusion in a Sam. 11, 11, that one wonders how it 
happens that the emendation of jntt to -nCK in the latter passage 
has never been suggested. There can be no reasonable doubt that 
I On the mention o{. the "ephod" in 14, 3a, con^Mte pages 14!, ftbove. 



the object spoken of in the two narratives was the same. In t Sam. 
14, 18, however, the object is the instrument of divination and noth- 
ing else. In 2 Sam. 11, 11 likewise, therefore, the "box" can 
hardly be anything else. 

That this conclusion is correct becomes quite certain from a, 
criticat study of the next passage which mentions the sacred box in 
connection with military operations, namely 2 Sam. 15, 34 ff. 


I say, in connection with military operations. For it was as a. 
valued auxiliary in war that the sacred box was carried out by the 
priests of David when the latter fled from Jerusalem before Ab- 
salom; and for purely military reasons that both priests and box 
were finally left behind. 

The text of 2 Sam. 15, 24-29 is admittedly corrupt.* Ancient 
translators and early commentators wrestled unsuccessfully with 
the difficulties which it presents; while recent critics invariably 
emend the text at one or more points. It is not necessary, however, 
to review all the aplanations and emendations which have been 
adopted or proposed. I may state my own conclusions regarding the 
less important critical questions involved, and reserve a more de- 
tailed discussion for the single clause with which we are principally 
concerned, and which, though perfectly authentic, has proved 
most troublesome to interpreters and critics. 

In verse 24 the words v\Vi tn^n ^3i are reminiscent of the Penta- 
teuch (Num. I, 50; 3, 31; Deut. 10, 8), and certainly spurious; cf. 
I Chron. 15, 2. On the other hand, the verbs o^mtj and tpr {sic) 
require a plural subject; and both verse 27 (D3nK iD^u) and verse 39 
(in'sm pnx) leave no doubt that the authentic reading at the b^in- 
ning of verse 24 was vcatn pm tu nim. The original in<3in is 
preserved in the meaningless A.x6 Btutfop which follows the first 
clause of the verse in most manuscripts of the Septui^iint Doubt- 
less, the word was entered upon the margin of a Hebrew manu- 

I Cf., for instance, Budde, Kvrttr H/uid-Commtntar, p. tyy, "Den abaiditUdl 
vcAndeTtai und obendrein bcschldisten Text kOnnen wir nur annfthcrnd hentaUen." 


n SAMUEL 15, 24-29 81 

script horn which it had been omitted, and was then mi^laced at 
the next copying. The similarly dislocated in^SK ^jn of the Ma- 
soretic text of 24b, however, is probably of different origin (see 

rrii, absent in the sequel, is the usual Deuteronomistic gloss. 
Hiv Kiptordv StoA^n^ Kvplou of G^ and congeners represents a more 
logical alteration of D*ri!)Kn jntt to mrv nns piM, limited likewise to 
verse 24a. 

ipn, poured, must of course be corrected to wm, set down; cf. 
page 65, above. 

inoM '?jn. This phrase disturbs the unity of verse 24b and is 
obviously misplaced, as was recognized already by Rashi. But 
it is equally out of place anywhere else in the verse. On the other 
hand, some such phrase — that is, -WM preceded by a jussive — 
is imperatively demanded, and has certainly fallen out, after the 
words m^EO •van nsr in verse 27. in*3K W:\ is not impos^ble at 
that point, since the conversation takes place in the valley of the 
Kidron, with the dty of Jerusalem on the height above; but atfn 
"WW would be more natural in the context. Like in^3tn in the first 
half of verse 24, this clause will have been deliberately omitted 
from verse 27 in transcribing, and subsequently re-inserted from 
the margin at the wrong place and in erroneous form. Possibly 
it was this strayed and misconstrued TTi'Mt aen which, under the 
influence of Aramaic iDM, yielded the superfluous icai tcaSiffira 
ds rif T&Koy adrijs of the Lurianic text of verse 25a. On the other 
band, the phrase xal iv^ri 'A^aff&p, correqwnding to the Masoretic 
text of verse 24b in G^ and G^, but lacking in the Luctanic manu- 
scripts, is probably a Hexaplaric addition on the basis of the 
Hebrew. Verse 37, it should be observed, was not originally so 
far removed from verse 34; for 

Verses 35 and 36 are interpolated entire. The formula iDtn 
pun pmt ^K -[{>Dn of verse 27 is stylistically impossible after ictn 
pTn6 1^ of verse 25.1 Either 35 f or 27 f, therefore, is interpo- 

1 Tlw sotedsm was DoUced by Abravanel, who ezplaiiu ({. e., fol. 163, col. b) that 
the ksmnla is zept^ted in vcne 97 because the Sist statement related to the return 



lated. But 27 f is authenticated, not only by its pragmatic con- 
tent, as against the unctuous irrelevandes of 25 f, but also by the 
corroborative evidence of verses 35 f and the story related in 17, 
15-32. On the other hand, both the matter and the language erf 
25 f stamp it as furious. It is obviously written from the pdnt 
of view of a pious Jew, to whom the box, rather than the priests 
who bear it, must perforce be the object of David's chief conram; 
and in any case it furnishes no really adequate reason for David's 
extraordinary procedure. The sentiment expressed is more otn- 
genial to the bathos of 2 Sam. 7 than to the virile realism of our 
narrator. The style likewise betrays the diaskeuast. The writer 
seems not to have been quite clear in his own mind regarding the 
reference of the suffix in inu ; and the word itself is a euphuistic 
aflEectation — nw is properly sheep/old; elsewhere in Samuel only 
ii. 7, 8(!) — which, whether it relates to the dwelling of Yahwe or of 
the box, can hardly be ascribed to a classical writer of vernacular 
Hebrew prose. Nor is the incongruity of ia 'nmn ttb itnt' ns Dm 
lessened by Driver's citation^ of i Sam. 14, 9 and Gen. 31, 8, 
which are by no means in the same case. Finally, it may be observed 
that pm ^ l!>Dn notn of verse 27 is more in accord with our 
author's usage than pm6 nten "iDm of verse 25. If, therefore, 
we are compelled to choose between 25 £ and 27 f — and I think 
we are — there can be no question as to whidi must be retained. 

Verse 28. nnaj)- We must read Ti\2tv, with the QrS and the 
ancient versions, here as well as in 3 Sam. 17, 16. The Hebrew 
for both ford and pass is 'asm or msm. There b no word ntu in 
either sense. In 3 Sam. 19, 19 mayn may be the transport, denotiiig 
the instrument or the agents, but it certainly is not the ford. More- 
over, fords of the wUdemess, the prevalent rendering in our passage, 

of the box, while the second rel&tes to the retuin of Zadok and Abuthar. Kloster* 
mum, Dit Bilclur SamutiU taid der KSnige, p. 303, intimfttes that the first uttenuicc 
wu q»kcn aloud for the benefit of the bystandeis, and the Becood in the ear of Zadok. 
If so, OUT author's own powers of expression must have been singulariy impaired at 
this poinL Cook, Amtriean Jotmol ef Semitic Z,iM(Hafw, XVI, 1B99, p. 161, attii- 
buta verses ij f to another " Bowce." 

I Il0i43 M tit Text ofSamud^, pp. 107, 316. 


II SAMUEL 15, 24-Zg S3 

is vithout meaning; the fords would be those of Jordan, not of the 
wilderness. Nor had David any occasion to scatter his followers 
along several fords. Passes of ike wilderness would be intrinsically 
less objectionable, if mss were the word for pass. On the other 
hand, the Masoretic tradition has everything in Its favor. Compare 
especially a Kings 25, 4f, where Zedekiah in similar case flees 
fr<mi Jerusalem nnjm T" , and is overtaken inr mnya . The n-anv 
tjnan are those parts of the nrv, the modem Ghor, which adjoin 
I3*mn, the Wilderness xar' ^^oxi^i', stretching between the Judean 
and Ephraimite hill country and the Jordan valley; ' just as the 
3K1D n)3-»r are those parts of the Arabah which attach to the terri- 
tory of Moab CD the other side, the lotdands of Moab, and the 
mi* ni3njr are those parts of the Arabah which siuroimd the city of 
Jericho, the lowlands of Jericho. According to Num. 32, i, the mnp 
3ira3 lie immediately across the Jordan from Jericho; and per 
contra, when one has crossed the Jordan from then<x to the west- 
em bank, he finds himself in the vrv mnv, Josh. 4, 13 (cf. 4, 19; 
5, 10). David indicates only that he will stay on the westerly dde 
of the Jordan valley. The assumption that, on his outward jour- 
nal he finally crossed the Jordan near its mouth (Driver), is not 
justified. The commonly travelled road northward to Mahanaim 
ran up the Arabah west of the Jordan for a considerable distance; 
cf. 3 Sam. 2, 29; 4, 7. Even on bis return, as far as can be judged 
from the confused text of chapter 19, he aossed the Jordan north 
of Gilgal. 

The authentic text of the passage with which we are concerned 
is accordingly the following; 

trn^ien jnit t» um : vprhvm pK nit tcvwi waw prvt m nam (15, 24) 

nnn nienn pan pnx i)K ^yan nnm (27) : Tjn p ii3j6 Bjm i>3 on njr 

wa '«? -in'SK p inavn -yn jtd'"»«i "Vi'at* (?)3l^ m^ea Tjm nap 

: ■h Tan^ Dsojna -an vea. -w lanon nuijo nDnDno '33k im (28) ; oanit 

.DP UB"! n^mv o'n^Kn ihk iik -in'aKi pnit 3b*i (29) 

(15, 24) And behold also Zadok and Abiathar bearing the sacred 

box. And they set the sacred box down (on the groimd) until all the 

> Cf. Anurican Jowntd ofStmiiic l/mptata, XXVIH, 1913, p. aSo, note 18. 



people had finished passing over from the city, (ay) And the ktHg 
said unto Zadok the priest. Art thou a seer? Return to the city in peace, 
and let Abiathar (also) return, and AHmaas thy son and Jonathan the 
son of Abiathar, your two sons, vith you. (aS) See, I vM linger in 
the lowlands of the Wilderness until word came from you to inform me. 
(29) So Zadok and Abiathar took the sacred box back to Jerusalem and 
remained there. 

It is to be observed that the phrase nnK nttnn, which I have 
rendered Art thou a seerf contains the pith of David's utterance, 
and is indiq)en3able to the smse of the paragraph. We, who are 
acquainted with the sequel and the motive of Zadt^'s return to 
Jerusalem, are apt to overlook the fact, that to one who reads the 
narrative for the first time, the language of verse 98 is not of itsdf 
suffidratly informii^. What was it David desired the priests and 
thdr sons to tell him? That verse is palpably defective unless the 
reason for David's command was already pregnantly conveyed in 
the expression nnK nxrin of verse 27. Moreover, since this same 
expression has always proved a stumbling-block to interpreters 
and commentators, it is hardly conceivable that it should have been 
inserted as an explanatory gloss, or be the result of textual corrup- 
tion in the direction of a simpler and more familiar reading. 

If only for such reasons as these, there can be no thou^t of re- 
jecting the Masoretic text in favor of the sui^>osed original of G^ 
and congeners, IStrt irii inoTpiiptis (or inoTpt^us) «it Hip ir6Xu> = 
1^ ne* nrm itn, or of the Ludanic PKim oi> &t>iorp€4>t tU n^ 
xb\i» = Tjrn nse' nnx nvn. Neither tUn ob nor ^^c <ri contains 
the substance demanded by the context; and it is difficult to 
imagine \tri or ntn bdng altered to the troublesome nKnn either 
by design or accident Besides, TVn mv : hhk nm-in — whatev^ 
may be the point of it — is excellent Hebrew syntax, whereas im 
3IP nnK is no ^qitax at all. Nor is nv nnK nKt veiy much better; 
for the interjectional nKn must introduce a statement of fact,' 

> Actual or (as in Ex. 4, 31; Joth. 8, 4) co mt r u c tiv e. a Kings 6, 33, K39 Wl 
n'V^ "niO "^KTOn, ia hudly a caw in point; but, utyhow, one cannot im»gin> 
nTin I'UD 1K1< Tlie least objedioiiable teconstruction of our passage on theliaab 
(rf the Greek Uiits would be 2t> nnK nin. 


n SAMUEL 15, 34-29 85 

li^ch vm nxf does not supply. The presence of the pronoun vb 
is sufficient to show that Ucre does oot reproduce the original 
Hebrew of the preceding word, but is only a makeshift, suggested 
perh^is by the initial wn of verse 28, in the face of a text which 
baffled the understanding of the translator. The reading ff\iin vi 
will then be merely a stylistic revision of Ucrc ci; cf. the Ludanic 
ISoO for ZScTc in verse 28. As will presently appear, more than 
one desperate commentator in later times has been driven to the 
same far-fetched rendering of the existing Hebrew text. 

Similar considerations compel the rejection of the text of the 
Pesh!(a, which omits the word nvmn altogether, and transposes 
nnK to the end of the following clause: " Go back (h'/ukh aet) to 
the dty in peace, thou and Ahimaaz thy son." This too leaves us 
at a loss to account for the ^istence of the Masoretic text, and 
fails to meet the requirements of the narrative. It is clearly noth- 
ing but a translator's counsel of despair. 

On the other hand, both the Targum of Jonathan, 3in t\« ' itnin 
tfjvs Kmp^, and the I^tin of Jerome, O Videns, reoerten in civiiatem 
in pace, rqiroduce, though not very instructively, the Masoretic 
consonantal text. 

Accordingly, unless we are to give up the passage as hopelessly 
corrupt and incomprehensible, we must extract a satisfactory and 
fairly wdghty sense from the traditional Hebrew text. Yet this is 
precisely what exegetes, blinded by the age-long error regarding 
the nature of the sacred box and the function of the priests in rela- 
tion to it, have thus far wholly failed to do; while the mere number 
of mutually discordant proposals on the subject goes far to show 
that an essential element in the mtuation is being universatlyignoied. 

I So the Codez Reudtliniantu (ed. Lagaide) both here uid in i Sam. g, g 11 18 
ig, as well u fcx Hebrew Tm in 1 Sam. 34, 11. Jacob ben Chayyim md the Atnsttr- 
dam Rabtmiical Bible have M>ttn (pnperiy, vinoni) in i Sam. 9 md here, but trnTTI 
in 1 Sain. 14, 11. The Antwerp Polyglot haa tWtn in i Sam. g, but nmm in a Sam. 
15, 17, and nttrtn in 14, II. The correct speUing and vocaliution in all these paaiagea 
ia at conne K*iTn. Buztoif'a Rabbinical Bible and tlie London Polyglot em;doy 
throughout the paiticqual fonn irm, whidi is the (Sily penaianble alternative. Tbe 
variant doea not affect the questioii we have in hand. 


86 EPHOD AND ass: 

The rabbinical commentators abide by the Masoretic p(HQtiiiK 
vith interrogatory n, but construe men as a participial verb : nmvi 
mut = does thou seef So Rashi, who understands the verb nK^ in 
the rabbinical sense of to entertain or accept a view, and par^dirases 
accordin^y: i*im tip trn njuj rctsv nnn ntm dm, // tiou art of the 
opinion that it is a good plan, return to Ike city. This strained inte- 
pretation is no worse than most. 

David Qimhi follows Rashi, though with haltii^ step; nitn OK 
yvrg^ -o^s I'rjn nnK, // such is thy view; that is, thy judgment. 
He seems not entirely satisfied with the e]q)lanation, however; 
for he goes on to quote the roidering of the Targum, DK tnm, which 
he affirms is the equivalent of nnK k'3J, thou art a prophet. This 
will have been addressed to Zadok. because David saw that the 
Holy Spirit had descended upon him, and he was being answered 
by Urim and Thummim. The allusion is to the haggadah that it 
was oD this occasion Abiathar was dQ)osed from the Hig^ Priest- 
hood, because of his failure to obtain oracular reqwnses, and 
Zadok elevated to that office in his stead.^ Qimhi undoistands 
DM mtn as afiG^mative, and the noun as indeterminate; but the 
Aramaic is ambiguous in both req[>ects. 

The same construction, nnK mtrin = dost thou see? underlies the 
finespun exegesis of Levi ben Gershon: Q'rjjffi -hvt nmi nnm ^n 
raw nnp^ n6 nnK yyt -vera nt la^ Tan^ ijdjj •{frw B'jil n*^ m 'kS 
BibeaTun ywnv aiD n6i orajm rhyv no -ih onna. The purport 
of which appears to be: "The meaning is. Dost thou then see 
the outcome of these events, that thou shouldst go with us to in- 
form us ? For that purpose it decidedly behooves thee to take 
cotmsel in the circumstances, as they may be shi^ied by future 
developments; and therefore it is well that thou return to the dty in 
peace." No wonder Ralbag's loquacious but disconing student, 
Abravanel, is silent on this passage. 

Christian scholars have beoi equally unsuo^ssful in arriving at 
a plausible e:q>lanaUon, although they have not always been equally 

* See Seder ' Olam StMa, f 14; b. Yoma 73b; Ruhi, on a Sam. ij, 24; Abnvud, 
/. c, fed. 163, coL t. 


n SAMUEL 15, 24-29 87 

mindful of Hebrew linguistic usage. So Sebastian Mllnster inter- 
prets: " An non tu es Videns ? — h. e. summus Sacerdos, qui ez 
Urim et Thununim advertere poteris responsa Divina."* But the 
" non " which is essential to this sense is conspicuously absent in 
the Hebrew. Vatablus is guilty of the same error, as regards both 
Hebrew and Aramaic, in the first of his alternative interpretations: 
" Nonne Videns es? \. Propheta, ut quidam ezponunt; et etiam 
Chaldaeus paraph. Nonne Propheta es? q. d. Si Dominus respon- 
dent tibi redeundum in urbem, redito. Alii, Videsne tu? i. Valesne 
consilio ? q. d. Si valeas consilio, revertere, plus enim mihi pro> 
fueris redeundo quam manendo." * The second interpretation 
seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of Qimhi. Grotius, too, 
imagmes himself to be opposing the exact Hebrew text to the 
rendering of the Vulgate: "O Videns — Rectins, Nonne vides? 
quo loco sunt res scilicet." ■ 

Otherwise Sebastian Schmidt: " Num Videns tu? Chaldaeusin- 
terpres Videntem accepit pro Propheta. Et aliquando in scriptura 
sic usurpatur; cf. i Sam. 9. Sed non quadrat interrogatio; nee in 
scriptura didtur quod Zadok propheta fuerit. . . . Putamus nihil 
aliud velle quam quod alias didtur ntn , vide, quod admonentis et 
exdtantis est. Sed hie interrogative loquitur ad augendam em- 
phasin."* That is, nnM nicnn must be construed as an emphatic 
interjection, " Do you see? " or " Will you see ? " = " See! " It 
is to be noticed that this sense is being attributed to the «*Trigring 
Hebrew text, with no thought of any alteration on the basis of the 

Clericus is, as usual, more critical: " nilK nxrin , antues videns? 
— nitn didtur Propheta i Sam. 9, 9, verum hie ejusmodi significa- 
tioni locus non est. Itaque speculatorem vertimus, qui videt quid 
rerum agatur alicubi, idque ad suos perscribit, aut curat iis did. n, 
quod vod nmi praefigitur, ezistimavimus emphaticum esse, non 
interTogationis notam; quae hie minus convenit, quamvjs ita cen- 

> Critici Saeri, H, coL 1436. 

■ Ibid., od. 1418. Our own Revixd Version afTen the suiie two altenutivn. 

* Ibid., coL 3430. * In Libmm Posttriorem SamvtUt eommaitariuf, pp. 704 f. 



suerint Massorethae. . . . Vulgatua vertit, O videns, sed Tsadokm 
nusquam Fropheta fuisse dicttur." ' He renders according, 
Speculator tu (miki es), that is, " Thou art the (= my) spy." This 
rendering has at least the double merit of a)nfoniiiag to Hebrew 
syntax * and recognizing the demands of the context. Only, mm 
is not the Hebrew for spy; cf. in particular Gen. 43, 9. 

J. H.Midiaelis echoes the opinion of Sebastian Schmidt: " Aime 
videns esf viden'? admonentis et exdtantis est, ut v. 28, q. d. videsne 
statum rerum piaesentem et quid in illo factu opus sit? " ' And 
doubtless the same influence is to be recognized in the renderings 
of J. D. Michaelis * {Merkel) and Dathe ' (atietide) ; both of which 
are offered without comment Dathe smooths out the redundancy 
by adding inquam to the attendUe of verse 28. 

Among later scholars, BSttcher is one of the very few who retain 
the Masoretic pointing: " Sickest Dtt es tin (was ich eben gesagt 
babe) ? " * Another is Reuss, for whom the problem is minimized 
by the accident of French idiom: " Vols tu, retoume en poix d la 
viiie." ^ But the great majority alter either the pointing or the 
consonantal text itself. 

Ewald adopts the rendering of Jerome, which had been foUowed 
in Luther's German version : " FUr nitnn ist zu lesen ntn-in als Aus- 
ruf : du Seherl d. i. du Prophet, da ein Hobepriester allerdings diesen 
hdhem aber zugleich altertlimlichen Namen tragen konnte." ' 
Similarly Keil: " Du Seher, Kehre um in die Stadt in Frieden. — 
nntt mtrin mit n inlerr. gibt kdnen passend^ Sinn, da n hiw nicbt 
fUt tn^n stehen kana, well es sich sicht imi eine Sache handelt, 
die der Angeredete nicht leugnen kann. Daher ist ninri (mit dem 
Artikel) zu vocali^ren und aJs Vocativ zu fassen. nin Seher ist 

■ Libri kitloriei Vd. Tal., p. 335. 

1 ABSuming that he iatendi, " The qqr is what Uiou ut" nthet than, " It ii than 
who ut the ^y." 

' BiNia Hebraka, ad lee. 

* Deultche VderieOuHg des AUsh TettameHtt, V. t, p. 158. 

* Libri kiilorki Va. Teil., p. 361. 

■ Neue extgeUscMeriHtcht Adwtiitese, I, p. 189. 
' La BibU, M loc. 

* Gtiekickk its VtUu ItratP, H, p. 649; 3d ed., m, p. 244. 


n SAMUEL 15, 34-39 89 

so viel als Prophet. So nennt er Zadok als Hohcpriester, der mit- 
telst des Urim gOttliche OSenbamngen empf&ngt. Det Sinn ist: 
Du Zadok stehst emem Fropheten gleich, danim ist dein dgent- 
licher Platz in Jerusalem. Dort sollte Zadok mit Ebjathar und deD 
SShnen beider gldchsam auf der Warte stdien, um die Erognisse 
zu beobachten und dann durch die Sfihne ihm Nachricht in die 
Jordanaue senden." > But a mm, in spite of i Sam. 9, 9, was not 
the same as a prophet; and, in any case, Zadok was not a prophet; 
neither was Jerusalem the q>ecial abode of prophets; nor was a 
prophet e^>eciaUy competent for the business of spying. More- 
over, this construction really leaves nnK unaccounted for, the pro- 
noun being as difficult to connect with the preceding vocative as 
with the following imp>erative.* 

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that other com- 
mentators have been constrained to question the authenticity of 
the conscmantal text. The first to yield to this temptation was 
Thenius. Upon the basis of the expressions K3l pi (Ex. 7, 23), 
itn pDl (Ex. ro, 6), van 16 (Jer. 47. 3), coupled with the fact that 
in the Septuagint of Ez. 8, 3; 9, 2; 2 Chron. 4, 4 the participles 
njiB and nJDD are represented by 0Xixuv, while ffkixt appears as 
an alternative reading for Uerc in our passage, Thenius alters the 
text to 'Ji me- nntt ntn, Wendedich/ Du (antithetical to *3»t in 
verse 38) kehre zurUck, u. s. w.* 

WeUhausen's remedy is even more drastic. He first emends 
fntnn to pmn, which he combines with the preceding \rQn in appo- 
lition to prw: " Lies B»inn pan statt des unverstandlichen nttnn ." 
But the title " Chief Fiiest " of course cannot be authentic in this 
connection; hence " Der Ausdmck stammt von dem Bearbdter." * 

To this provocation Klostermann re^onds by separating \r\2n 

> DU BMektr Samud^, p. 305. 

* Tti« piDDonii would pmxde tlie vooitive, and in a case like the above, would 
foDow the Imperative. 

* Die BUfier Samuel^, p. »i. LOhi, in the third edition of thii book, omita 
llieniua and idieanes WelUuusen and Budde. 

' Dtr Ttxt d^r BUektr Samutiii, p. 198. I hardly need observe that the opinion 
of Wellhauaen is quoted a* matter ei history. There is no reason for supposing that 



itself from the preceding pmc and attaching it to the following 
clause, obtaining thus the (authentic) nominal sentence ntnn ]ran 
nnM , Du bist der Seherpriester; — a title whose novdty and incon- 
gruity are not lessened by pretending that it was the equivalent 
of " mantischer Friester " or " Orakelpriester." He points out 
that as " oracle-priest " Zadok would be immune from hann at 
the hands of Absalom, and would, moreover, be the first to dis- 
cover the tatter's mihtaiy deigns.' But every iru was an " orade- 
priest" (i Sam. a, 98; 22, 18); and if the Hebrew of the period 
had occasion for so tautological a compound, nttt T>u would be the 
last ezpres^on to serve the putpose. A slight variation of this om- 
fusion is advocated by Schldgl, upon the basis of the same Hebrew 
reading: "Der Friester und [!] Seher hist du, d. i. der Pricster, 
welcher durch die Uriin und Thummim den Willen Gottes 
wforscht." • 

Most recent critics, however, fall back, in one form or another, 
on the easy but empty text of the Septuagint. So Budde: " ntntn 
^ebt keinen Sinn. . . . Ftlr ntmn wird man im Anschluss an IXX 
UcTC ntn lesen dlirfen, wdter versuchsweise ^se* "Ui'am nnK, also: 
Merk auf, du und Eigatar kekret zuriick u. s. w. Das nnH verlangt 
geradezu eine Erg^nzung, die Einleitung mit nin ein vorhergegan- 
gwies GesprSch,"* Nowack: " Sehet, du u$td Eijatar, kehret 
turUck in die Stadt. — nimn ist unverstandlich. LXX hat !*«■«, 
las also \vr\, und diese Lesart verdient um so mehr Erw&gung, als 
das am Schluss des Verses sich findende unN U'jn *3e? beweist, dass 
hier zwd Personen angeredet sind. Offenbar ist auch hier Ebjatar 

the vcteian critic would in every case re-UBert U the present time the judgment! he 
expressed half s centuiy ago. 

Rhriirh, Riaidglotsen, III, p. 313, accqita Wellhauaen's initial emeodation, but not 
the coniequent ezdskm. He thinks the title may very well have been employed 
(rf Zadok by the original writer. " Captain " of a company of two would be something 
ti an oddity, however. 

> jDm Stieter Samidit und itr KOnitfi, p. loa. 

■ Die BiUher Samuets, n, pp. 86 f. In his Latin commentary, Libri Samiulis, 
p. zciii, he renders, with Klostermann, " Sactrdot fidmt (i.«. vatidnans) Ut u." 

* Ktmtr Bofid-CommailaT, p. 174; cf- Satred Bookt tftktOld Tafomtnl, pp. 43, 
9a. We have seen that the authentic text contained no antecedent oonvenatian. 


n SAMUEL 15, 24-29 91 

elimimrtidaherwirdmanwohlzuleseiiliabea: i3WinuinnnKiK*i."> 
Kittel: " Der MT. ist unverstandlich; lies nach G im wie in V. 38 
und setze dann Abjatbar dn: Merket: du und Abjathar kekrt ruhig 
nach der Stadt turilck." * Dliorme: " On voit que nmn ne donne 
pas de sens. . . . Xy'spths G U<t< on peut lire wi. Le pluriel n'a 
lien pour nous £tonner d'aprfe cuntt oru de la fin. Id encore 
Vi'sm a £t£ st^prim£ aprte nnM. On lira done ensuite ue'. Le 
verset est ainsi parfaitement &iuilibr6. — Voyatl lot et AbkUhar, 
retouma en paix d la vitte." * 

Driver is not quite so positive: "nn« nimn = Seest theut (Ez. 
8, 6)* i.e. dost thou see iiow mattes are? But the text exdtes 
su^idon. . . . LXX has Ucrc, whidi may dther represent wn, 
or be a misreading of ntn; and as the plural pronouns at the end 
of the verse and in verse 38 show that Abiathar and Zadoq are 
both present, dther tiKn or v/ry may have been used here, accordiog 
as David began by addressing Zadoq in particular, or both to- 
gether. With the text otherwise as it stands, nnit must go with 
what follows: retvm thou; but in view of the plural following and 
especially of verse 29a, it is highly probable that for nzv nntt we 
shoiUd read «^^^^^'^»n nnK." ' 

More critical than any of the foregoing, is the negative attitude 
of H. P. Smith, who tentatively combines nnM with the following 
word in the form of the partidple le', and, pending further light 
upon the subject, leaves n»«nn untranslated: "nicnn is obscure. 
It is taken by Ewald as an address to Zadok, as if he were a seer, 
which does not appear to be the fact. G^ reads Mfr\ , which is sus- 
pidous from its recurrence at the beginning of verse 28. Well- 

' Handkommailar, p. an. 

• Id KAUtzKh'a Heiiiti Schrifl dts A . T}, ad toe. 
■ Les Litres de Samnui, p. 3S4. 

' But in Ec. 8, 6 the partidple has an object. In 8, 15 17; 47,6,011 the other hand, 
the verb b perfect. 

* Holes on Ike Text e} SamueP, p. ji6. Id the fint editioD of thb book (p. 345) 
Driver had very potineDtly observed: " The objectioD to this it tlut \te\ used umi- 
larly occurs V. i8a; aod the iqietitioD of the saD)eeq>ie3U0D, in two contiguous veiBea, 
where no q)edal stress rests upon it, is an inel^ancy, of which the wiitei of tbcae 
diq>ten of Samuel is not likdy to have been guilty." 



hauaen sirpjposes as insertioD mnn px\ whicb has been cornqited 
into the present text. It is impossible to decide with certainty." * 

It is, I think, abundantly evident that no satisfactory interpre- 
tation of the text of this passage has yet been forthcoming, nor any 
suggestion for its emendation which is even moderately plausible. 
Yet we have only to assume that the sacred box was the organ oS 
divination, and that Zadok. and Abiathar carried it in the train <^ 
David on this occasion by virtue of their <^ce as custodians and 
interpreters of the oracles of deity, and the passage becomes per- 
fectly plain. 

Observe, to b^in with, that the dause nnn nvenn cannot be 
declarative: because (i) if it were declarative, nKnn would neces- 
sarily be a determinate participial noun, tiie seer. But there i» 
no evidence that all Israel had a single seer, or that the court of 
David harbored a premier seer, " the seer " par exceUence, or that an 
<^dai seer habitually accompanied an Israelitish military eq>edi- 
tion or band of emigrants. " Thou art the seer," without further 
qualification, would therefore be unintelligible. (3) Because such 
a declaration, addressed to Zadok, would be contrary to fact. Zadok 
was no sort of a seer, but occupied the distinct and well-defined 
<^ce of priest (3) Because a seer was the one person in the world 
who did claim the power to see and know whatever David mi^t 
require concerning the activities of Absalom, without recourse to 
residence in Jerusalem. An assertion that Zadok actually was a 
seer would therefore go counter to the whole tenor of the following 

Jastrow (" nKi and nth in the Old Testament," Jounwi ofBiMical Litera- 
ture, XXVm, 1909, pp. 43 fi) does not sufficiently differentiate the aevenl 
professions as they existed in eailiest times. In oui Old Testament texts they 
have been badly confused, and even in historical practice their activities msy 
sometimes have overlapped. Nevertheless, the original and '•■^r^'ti''' ch&ncter 
of each can still be disceined. The \TQ was the aalodian of a shrine, and maoi- 
pulator and interpreter of the oraciej of deity. The HKI was a dairtoyant, a 
private practitioner, who by occult means actually sou things at a distance, 
iriiethei of time or space. The TOn vas an observer of the stais or other omens, 

> Commtmary tut Samue l , p. 345. 


n SAMUEL 15, 24-29 93 

•n aslrohger or proptosticaior; Ids deliverance or propioslicaium was a pTll. 
The M^SJ was a person pouessed by the (physical) spirit of a deity, which 
might become articulate through the vocal organs of the patient. Ahimeledi 
was such a \n2, Samuel was such a nm, Gad was David's official ntn, and 
Elijah was such a )t*3] . Only the |ri3 and the Vf23 were religious function- 
aries in the strict sense, consecrated to the service of an individual deity. Hie 
Hebrew could say TT\tV ITD, iurr ITS]; but it could not say tntf nin, fT\IV HTn. 
Hie etymology of the identically fonned pa (diviner), ntn (seer), ntr\ (obsener), 
is transparent; that of tK*2i remains obscure. Not improbably the latter is 
a passive formation (Stade | 351} from plain Hebrew (that is, Canaanitish) 
MU, signifying one who has been entered. 

Consequently, we must accept the Masoretic vocalization of the 
initial n of nrut nttnn. The sentence is interrt^toiy: Art thou a 
seerf or Dosi thou seef — aca)Tding as nitn is construed as a parti- 
cipial noun or as a participial verb. And since David neither pauses 
for a reply nor receives one, the question must be purely rhetorical. 
As such, it implies a negative answer, and is logically equival^t 
to (me of the two assertions, Thou art (admittedly) not a seer, or 
Thou (admittedly) dost not see. But since the latter is not, in the 
in the actual context, a sensible alternative, we must at»de by the 
former; the obvious burden of which is, that though a seer could, 
without being himself present in the flesh, do the things for which 
Zad<^ is ordered back to the city, Zadok, being nothing but a priest, 
can not. 

Our author's narrative may accordingly be paraphrased as fol- 
lows: " And among the rest came also Zadok and Abiathar carry- 
ing the sacred box, which they deposited upon the grotmd while 
waiting for the whole company of David's followers to be assembled 
on the farther side of the valley. And David, sedng them with 
the box, said to Zadok, one of the two priests, ' Are you a clw- 
voyant? Can you come with me and by means of this instrument of 
yours discover, as well as if you remain on the spot, all I shaU 
want to know about Absalom's resources, his activities, and his 
designs against me? Return to the city, and let your colleague 
Abiathar go with you, and likewise the young men Ahimaaz and 
Jonathan. See, I will linger on this side the Jordan till I hear from 
you.' So Zadok and Abiathar took the sacred box back to Jeru- 
salem and remained there." 



That this intapretation is eminently plau^le mil not be ques- 
tioned. But it is more than plausible; it is strictly necessary. 
For, in the first place, the words " Art thou a seer? " undeniably 
in^ly some pretensions in the pronises on the part of the pasoa 
addressed. We cannot imagine them being spokra to any layman 
— Joab for example — who mi^t be chafed with a similar com- 
mission in Jerusalem. Only in view cd Zadok's office as di^>»isa' 
of the divine oracles has the expression any pertinence at all. In 
short, "Art thou a seer? " is obviously addressed to Zadok the 
divine; as, for that matter, the author Ipmsdf seems to enqiha- 
size by the express (and otherwise superfluous) characteiizatitHi of 
Zadok at this point as pan . 

But, in the seaind place, Zadok the diviner necessarily carried 
with him the instrument of priestly diwuttion. And we have no 
right whatever to dissociate from the matter in hand the one object 
which the author explicitly mentions in the context, namely the 
sacred box, and relegate it to the position of an irrelevant and purely 
symbolic fetich; while we draw from the depths of our imagina- 
tion, oi fnnn the treasure house of scholastic tradition, some wholly 
fictitious organ of divination — Levitical breastplate with Urim 
and Thummim, hypothetical oracle-pouch, misbe^tten " ephod," 
or what not — and proceed to bestow it, over the head of the author, 
in the re^>ective bosoms or upon the respective persons of Zad<dc 
and Abiathar, whose hands are already encumbered with the 
sacred box. On the contrary, it is manifest that for our author 
and his prospective readers, the sacred box was itself the instni- 
moit of priestly divination. 

Finally, there was no reason in the world why a purely symbolic 
fetidi, and still less why a wonder-working palladium, should be 
left behind, simply because David considered the priests who 
brought it best fitted to do his business in Jerusalem. In fact, the 
de^>erate state of his fortunes should have rendered the possessim 
of so precious an object espedally welcome, and its retention im- 
perative. An instrum^t of priestly divination, on the other hand, 
cranes, as a matter of course, when the priests ccnne; and must 


JUDGES 20, 27 95 

perforce return ^en the priests retum. Therefore Zadok and 
Abiathar, beiiig thonselves ordered back to the dty for duties 
which had no relation to the sacred box, " took the box back to 
Jerusalem and remained there." 

For the rest, from the circumstance that two men, instead of one, 
are here seen carrying the sacred box, we may infer that this partic- 
ular specimen was either of more than ordinary size, or else was 
provided with a ^ledal appliance — probably staves (i Kings 8, 
8) — for its more ceremonious conveyance. Presumably, then, 
this was not the regulation box which Abiathar carried alone during 
his wanderings with David in the days of outlawry. But it may 
well have been identical with the " box of Yahwe Militant " which 
David ronoved from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem early in his 
reign as king of all Israel. In that case, the fact that Zadok (al- 
thou^ not the senior priest; cf. i Kings 2, 35) is so prominently 
associated with this box, would favor the conjecture that he was in 
reality the mysterious rnK of 2 Sam. 6, 3 f, and consequently of 
Gibeonitish origin.* 


The last of the three passages which I adduce as special witnesses 
to the fact that the sacred box was the oi^an of priestly divination 
is Judges 20, 27. 

Verses 27 and 38 of that chapter now read: mn'3 ^tne'' *32 ihwcn 
o<D'3 vsti? -vsf pnH p n(j6« p onrtn : onn d'd'3 O'nhttn nnn pK dot 
"hv rnrr> nem InnK dk 'pk p'sa 'J3 dv norM> n«i6 iw "iDiKn idm^ onn 

Tl'3 13JnKinD'3. 

Here the connection of the sacred box with the oracles of Yahwe 
appears on the surface of the traditional text. Whether it be an 
integral part of a very early narrative, or an integral part of a very 
late narrative, or (as is generally maintained) a palpable interpola- 
tion in an antecedent narrative of whatever date, the parenthetical 
sentence onn Dtya crrhmn mz pnK dm — or whatever else may have 
been the original form of it — was obviously set down in this place 
' See above, p. 6j. 



by a person who connected the s&cied box in some way with the 
consultation of the oracles by the Israelitish people in the early 

Nevertheless, we cannot leave the matter there; with the facile 
observation that, some sort of connection between the box and the 
oracles being manifestly indicated, our contention is, in so far 
forth, sustained. The question remains, as to just what that con- 
nection was, in the mind of the writer. Did he think of the sacred 
box as an instrumoit invariably employed by priests in the process 
of obtaining the divine responses? Or did he think of it as a unique 
Yahwistic shrine, at whose domicile for the time being the consulta- 
tion of the oracles invariably took place? In other words, is the 
sacred box here mentioned an object such as Abiathar carried in 
the train of David ? Or may it be only the fictional Sinaitic box 
of Jewish dogma? 

Hitherto scholars have naturally interpreted the passage in the 
latter sense. And we must admit, that if it could be shown that 
the words in question were penned by a post-exilic Jew, living under 
the shadow of the Faitateuch, that interpretation would have 
something in its favor; in spite of the fact that nowhere in the 
Pentateuch is the im^inary box of the Sinaitic tables of the Iaw 
connected in any way with the supposed oracular function of the 
High Priest,* whereas in more than one passage of the historical 
books (with which such a Jew must have been more or less familiar) 
the oracles are consulted in places where there can be no thought 
of locating the Sinaitic box. On the other hand, if the words weie 
penned by a pre-exilic writer who was actually acquainted with 

■ It ia worth while lecalliiig that the only other place iu the traditiouJ text of 
the Old Testament where the sacred box ia explicitly mentioned in connection with 
the act of consulting the oracles ii i Sam. 14, 18; and there the box ii so evidently 
the immediate instrument of divination that, as we have seen, critics unanimoudy 
replace it with the " epbod." Perhaps one reason why they have never thought of 
doing the same thing in Judges ao, 37b is that it has never occurred to them that this 
statement could be anything but a bit of late Jewish theory, of a piece with the dia- 
skeuastic mention of Phindias which follows. Yet according to Jewish theory, the 
Snaitic box was at Sbiloh from the days of Joshua to the days of Elii Josh. 18, i; 
i9> 51; 3ii I f; 33, 13; Judges 18, 31. 


JUDGES 19-31 97 

the historical institution of priestly divination among the andent 
Israelites, the decision must be unhesitatingly in favor of the first 
alternative. For it is clear that the writer thinks of the presence 
of this sacred box as somehow ess^itial to the oonsultarion of the 
(Hades; and it cannot be pretended that either the priest 4^ Micah 
and the Danites, or Ahijah, or Ahimelech, Or Abiathax ccmsulted 
the orades in the presence of a unique symbolic fetich answering 
to the " box of the Testimony " of the Pentateuch. 

It is important, therefore, if the testimony of this passage is to 
be acc^ted in support of our contention, that the pre-exilic origin 
of its reference to the sacred box be established. 

Unfortunately, in the present state of Old Testament studies, 
httle would be gained by showing that verse 37b is not an interpo- 
lation, but a genuine parenthesis, and an authentic part of the para- 
graph (verses 36-28) in whidi it stands. For the pre-exilic date 
of that paragr^h itself is gen^Blly denied, evoi by those who find 
much pre-exilic matter in the rest of the chapter. On the other 
hand, no less a critic than Wellhausen has gone so far as to attribute 
the entire story of the war with the Benjamites, Judges 19-21, 
to a Jewish book-worm of the latest post-exilic period. And 
although that extreme view has not commanded the assent of other 
scholars, it cannot be said to have been definitdy di^roved. Marks 
of very late date those chapters certainly exhibit in abundance; 
and so l<Hig as no conviudng theory of their literary history is 
forthcoming, it is at least concdvable that the story as a whole 
may be no earlier than its demonstrably late parts. 

Meanwhile, there is no more vexed question in the domain of Old 
Testament criticism than that of the composition and date of 
Judges 19-21.' In 1887 Kuenen spoke of that section of the book 

I On the origin and date of Judges 19-ai, see: GUdemaiin, Uonatttdrifi fUr G»- 
tchichU vnd Wiiseiudufl des Judentktmt, i86g,pp. 357ff (inaccessible to me); Giutz, 
Gaekidat det Jvdett, I, pp. 351 B; WeHhauaen, in Bleck'i EiideUuH^, pp. 199 B 
(— CemfMilum dti BexaUueJi^, i^i. 133S); Bertheau, Dai Buck dtr Rkiter und 
Sutif, pp. 256 S; Bfihine, ZeUicirifl jat iU akiatamaiaiciie Wuteiudwft, V, 1885, 
VP- 30&; Kuenen, Ondtrtoel^, I, |^. 360S; Budde, Siekl» und Samud, pp. 146S; 
Kwrttr Eatid-ComiHetaar, pp. laj S; Moore, Ittitmatienal Critieal Commmiwy, pp. 



as " in ;djn geheel een nog niet volledig opgelost raadsd "; and 
twenty-two years later Boehmer could still write: " Die Kcsiqxv 
ation von Jdc 30 und 3i ist bekanntlich seit langem eine crux 
interpretum. Auch die gewiegtesten Kritiker und getlbtestai Quel- 
lenschdder pflegen hier auf eine endgUltige Ldsung zu vemchten." 
Indeed, it is not too much to say that at the present time there is 
scarcely a single aspect of the subject on which critics are agreed 
— except perhaps as to the fact that in thdr existing form cb^>- 
ters 3o and 21 constitute a hodgepodge such as no human intellect 
at once free and rational is likely to have engendered. Some writ- 
ers, following Kuenen, see in Judges 19-31, tak^ as a whole, a 
single original pre-exilic writing, edited with extensive extemporized 
elaborations (and perhaps some subtractions and substituticHis) in 
post-exilic times. Others, following Bertheau, find traces of two 
or more ind^>endent and mutually discordant sources, onubined 
by one or more redactors. But in neither case is there agreement as 
to the metes and bounds of the several elements; nor has either 
hypothesis resulted thus far in the recovery of a omtinuous, com- 
plete, and self-consistent narrative antecedent to the existing 

In the space at my disposal, I can do little more than present, 
in somewhat dogmatic fashion, the results of my own re-examinati(xi 
of this perplexing subject.* Scholars to whcnn the cardioal points 
in my analysis do not commend themselves, may simply disregard 
this part of the discussion entirely. The plurality of the sacred 
box and its intrinsic character as the instrument of priestly divina- 
tion have, I think, been sufficiently d^nonstrated already. And I 

403 ff; Sacred Books of the O. T., English editioti pp. 36 ff, 91 R; Hebrew editlaa 
pp. 18 ff; Nowock, Batidkotnmenlar, pp. if, zzviij, isGff; Lftgrange, Le Lnre da 
Juta, pp. 319 ff ; Boduner, Zeiitekrifi far die alUalamenlliche WiistHSckafl, XXDC, 
19OP, K>. 146 f; Btwa, American Jotmal of Semitic Langiiaies, XXX, 1914, pp. 81 ff, 
149 ff- 

I It goes irithout saying, tb&t I have obtained these results by standing on tbe 
shoulders of my predecessors, to seven] of whom, notably Kuenen and Lagrange, I 
am indebted for valuable observations and suggestions. Host of all, however, I om 
to Moore, whose tentative analyus and invaluable conunentaiy furnished the point 
of dt^utnre for my own investigation. 


JXJDGES 19-21 99 

Deed hardly add, that if Judges 20, 27b is, after all, not of pie- 
exilic but of Jewish origin, it follows only that the passage has no 
bearing on our subject one way or the other. The matter wiU 
have been left exactly where it was at the end of the last section. 

It is, in my judgmrat, quite certain that the present text of 
Judges 19-21 conosts of three elanents: 

(i) An andent nairative from the pen of the same author who 
OHnposed the story of Micah and the Danites in Judges 17-18, 
and also, demonstrably, the early source in the Book, of Samuel. 
His story of the wsi against the Benjamites has been preserved 
entire, in consecutive order, and (except at one point, where the 
figure 18,000 has been substituted for a smaller one) practically 
unaltered. Thore is no finer Hebrew anywh^e in the Old Testa- 
ment than that of this narrative. Its date may be fixed with cer- 
tainty as not later than the tenth century b.c. For the only 
le^timate inferoice to be drawn from the language of Judges 18, 
la, and 19, la in the mouth of so unmistakable a Jerusalemite as 
this author, is that the two narratives were writtoi, not only 
during the monarchy, but during the undivided monarchy — that 
is, before the dea^ of Solomon; and it cannot be questioned that 
the entire reign of Solomon fell within the tenth century. On the 
other hand, i Kings 1-3 shows the author engaged in writing after 
the accession of Solomon; and while it does not necessarily follow 
that the narratives of Judges 17-21 formed part of the same work 
with I Kings 1-2, we may reasonably assume that they did. In 
which case they will have been composed in the reign of Solomon, 
and consequently in the tenth century b.c.^ (i) was known to the 
author of Joshua 7-8, who based upon it his elaborate (and much 
later) romance of Joshua's war against the legoidary dty of " Ai." * 

Thee is not the slightest reason foi questioning tLe orig^ of Judges 18, la 
and 19, la. On the contrary, when mutually compared the two passages ex- 
hibit a perfection of style and a delicate control of the resources of Hebrew 

■ A priori we should expect the reign of Solomon to cc»utitute the Peiidean age of 
IsaeHtiih literatuie; and there is good came to believe that in fact it did. On i Sam. 
17, 6b BCe H. P. Smith's commentary, ad lee. 

* tjn = fAc Smn; and d. Jodi. S, iS. 



syntax such as no diaskeuast can be suq>ected of. In i8, la, vAusi about to 
describe tbe independent activities of the Danites, the author of (i) begins 
by saying, htntfi T^ pK Bnn trtr3. In those lima tktre was m kmt m 
Jsrad; nhereas in ig, la, when he passes on to the story of the war against the 
Benjamites, he writes, 'Si IJ *1^ VVt 'ni ^¥PXn T"* T^ Dm Diy3 <m, 
/■• those same times, when (as we have already said) there was no king in Israel, 
there mu a Lemte residing, etc. For the rest, he mentions the lack of central 
authority, not to explain the occurrence of the crimes nairated — iriiidi, 
after all, might have been committed at any time — but to account for tbe 
action of the Isradites by dans. On the other hand, the author of 17, 6 and 
31, 35, which are nothing but midrask, was deeply impressed with the law 
lessness of those bad pet^le, particularly that of Micah in establishing his own 
separate sanctuary and installing his own son as priest (17, s), in direct con- 
travention of the Mosaic Law. Accordingly, combining the language of 18, 
lawith a reminiscence of Deut. 11, 8 f, he appended to 17, 5 the observation, 
/« those days there was no ting in Israd; every man did that which was ri^ m 
kit own eyes, and in ai, 35 dismissed the whole godless period with the same 

The question of the historicity (tf (i) does not concern us, and must not be 
confused with that of literary date. It may, however, be pertinent to remark, 
that in tbe case of an author covering so wide a range of time and lacking 
antecedent Uterary sources, we have no right to expect uniform historicity, 
but only uniform good faith. The tradition which he incorporated necessarily 
grew less historical and more legendary as he travelled backward into tbe past; 
and in the story of the war against the Benjamites he is professedly writing of 
a by-gone age. The details of the narrative, such as the number of days the 
Levite made merry with his father-in-law, or the exact numbers of tbe sur- 
vivors and the slain, will of course be imaginative. He niunber 600, for 
example, is a favorite one (see bdow) . Nevertheless, we have no reason to doubt 
the historical character of the main facts. The theory of NSldeke' that tfae 
story may be only an echo of David's wais with Ishbaal (3 Sam. a f) and tbe re- 
bellion of Sfaeba the son of Bichri (3 Sam. 3o),i5untenabIe, if only because this 
very author has given us all we know of those affairs. Nor is it true that tbe 
episode is irreconcilable with tfae hegemony of Benjamin In the establishment 
erf the Israelitish monarchy. On the contrary, the Benjamites are shown to be 
a proud and warlike brood, impatient of outside dictation or control, and man 
for man vastly superior to tbe rest of the Israelites; just the race to bring 
forth in due season the majestic figure of Saul and the dauntless chivalry of 
Jonathan. Of animus against the Benjamites the story betrays not a particle; 
rather the prevailing note is one of smothered tenderness and genuine regret. 
The defence of a scapegrace fcin«tnnn to the last ditch is anything but a vice 
io nomad society — or in modem society either, for that matter. 

> See Budde, Ricikr nnd Samud, pp. 154 f ■ 


JUDGES 19-21 '■•'/■■•. 10* 

(2) A parqihrastic and epezegetical coimneiitaiy,';>origmaIly 
scribbled on the margi"!! and between the lines of a maHUMTipt <rf 
(1) by a Jewish scribe of no earlier date and far less literary, zbili^ 
than the Chionicler. This commentary, which shows acquaint- 
ance with both Geo. 19 and Josh. 7-^, never had any bidepeoAe^': 
existence. It was transferred into the body of (i), with httUi--- 
judgment and quite mechanically, at the next copying of the 
manuscript; thus produdng substantiaUy the present comply 
of Judges 19-31. The location of the several sectitms of (3) in the 
text of (i) was determined largely by the accident of theit endorse- 
ment between the lines or upon the right-hand, left-hand, upper, 
or lower margin of the original manuscrqit. Th^e is no more 
wretched Hebrew anywhere in the Old Testament than that of 
this mtdrash} 

(3) A few additional glosses; some of which may be indep^dent 
of (3), while others are clearly of a haimonistic nature, designed 
to smooth over incxmdnnities caused by the introduction of (3) 
into (1). 

To recover the authentic text of (i) the following furious matter 
belonging to (3) and (3) must be rejected: ' 

In 19, 6, the obvious j^osa van. 

In 19, 9, iffih atn nt r^ Drn nan run; midrash to the preceding 
'jn M 7\v\. Also 1^)6 rahm; midrash to tum^. 

19, i3b--i3; marginal midrash to verse 13a, based on verses 14- 
Z5a. Note njos without the article; which latter is indiq>ensable, 
since njos is intrinsically nothing but an appellative; cf. p. 53 
above. Moreover, p'yJp imt njnin of verse 14 is necessarily the 
first meQti<m of the city in the original narrative; cf. 20, 4 f. 

> If it be asked, wlut um then was In ftttacbing eztotsive parqriuases and exegeA 
to a ^mple and perfectly tnn^Mient text, I uuwer frankly that I cannot ■""■r'"* 
any ok. I only know that from time immemorial some commentators have always 
done that voy thing, and presumably until the end of time some commentators always 
wiU. It may be an unfortunate way they have t& ifaowing their M^>ect fbi the test 
and aMuring themselves that they understand it; like Victor Hugo's old woman, who 
lead to henelf with loud voice " pour se donner sa parole dliomieur qu'elle lisait." 

* CMiuptions of a purely textual chaiacter are disiegaided. 


102 - ;/-■ EPHOD AND ARK 

19, i6a47^; midrash to i6aa. 

(In,^-'j8, mm rra nm is a merely accidental corruption of ^ 
^'s; cf..-G and the cfunmrataries.) 

'tg, 34, entire; marginal midrash to verse 23, baaed on Ggx. 19, 
.■'^;-. 'Note the grammar and diction of inn^fi, nnw, as6, irjm 16, 

19, 3oa(M), entire. This verse must be studied in G^, which 
vith its congeners has preserved the full text of the expanded 
document (i) + (2), that is, of our Book of Judges: ical lyivero 
tSc 6 bp&v &C7CV* (Art kytvij^ ofirc Si^iOij olViM Lxh r^t ^fiipas 
ipoPiirtcat vlav IffpaijK i^ Alyinrrov Hut r^ ifiiipas ralmp. ical 
jycrdXaro tom ipipimp oXs JfaT^rccXcy X^up' r&fc ^m irp^ 
T&i^a fti^pa IffpaqX' cl fkyovtv xari rd A9f(a rt^tro iird r^ iJ/Upor 
iya^AirecDt vluv IffpaijX j{ At'yfTTOi' &« rqs ilfUpas raiintt' OtaBai 
[sic] &ii iaVTois jSouX^y rcpl abrijt xal XoX^cartu [stc].' 3oa(M) is 
seen to be a marginal midrash which was intended to apply a/iCer 
the authentic section of (i) preserved in G*, but which, never- 
theless, was mechanically copied in before that section when (i) 
and (3) were combined. 

In 20, I, ^J^3n pw inp nw ^)n pot + m»n ^npni; originally a 
continuous midrash to the rest of verse i. 
In 20, 3a, D'n^Hn ag ^pn + turn ^3 , together with 

20, 2b, entire; constituted originally a nominal sentence: AH the 
people in the assembly cf the people of God were ^00,000, etc.; this 
continued the midrash to verse i, as did also 

30, 3a, entire. 

In 30, 3b, ^jvciv '33; a harmonistic gloss, necessitated by the 
introduction of 3a. 

In 20, 6, the glosses n^3 and not (with the following 1). 

30, 9-11, entire; marginal midrash to verse 8. 

30, 15-17, entire; mai^inal midrash to verse 14. 

30, 18, entire; marginal midrash to verse 19, based on verse 36 
and Judges i, i f . 

30, 20-33, entire; Trmrginal midrash to verses 24-38. 
> From the photogiqiluc repnxiuctian of GA. 


JUDGES 19-21 103 

In 30, 24, *3tm Of 2; harmonistic gloss. 

In 30, 25a,, the harmonistic glosses Mtm on and iv. Also the 
numeral >|tlt -irjr niDP is cstainly spurious, and viU be derived 
from a supraliaear correction (suggested perhiq>s by veise 44a) of 
an original which has disappeared; compare i Sam. 6, 19, where 
both the original B"K D'jov and the supralinear substitute B^VDH 
trtu fffn have been preserved. The correction in this passage prob- 
ably antedated the marginal midrash, verses 20-23, which no 
doubt intended to r^roduce in verse 31 the figure it read in verse 
35. Somewhere there has beoi confusion of iPV ruor and tfiv 
Dnvjn. See further the commentaiy on the authentic text bdow. 

30, 35b; 0OSS. 

In 20, 26, the interlinear glosses opn ioi, innn wa nmn -l-«3l, 
and 0*0^. The first needs no discussion. On the second cf. 30, 
33 and 31, 2, and contrast wnn tec^ vnri of i Sam. 7, 6 with the 
author's anim ya ion in 3 Sam. i, 13. On o*d^ d. i Sam. 13, 9; 
3 Sam. 6, 17 f; 34, 25 (contr^t verses 33 and 34); even i Kings 
9, 25 is questionable, the usage elsewhere being d*d^ rax or nvf 

In 30, 27, the ^oss rca together with the article f<dlowing it; 
see the commratary bdow. 

30, 28, to Dnn 0*13^3; midrash to 37b; cf. the three contemporar 
neous generations of non-Aaronic Levites (which the situation 
seemed to call for) in 18, 30. The suffix in i*»^ must refer to the 
preceding irn^K (I). 

20, 30, from nr^tm Dvn; harmonistic. 

20, 31, from ipnjn (cf. Josh. 8, 16, 1'pn p ipnn, where our com- 
mentator ignorantly construed the verb as Hophal because the 
active wprin of verse 6 was plainly Hlphil; and observe the asyn- 
deton <^ the annotator), together with 

30, 33-35, oitire, and 

30, 43, entire (note the asyndetic style); maiginal midrash to 
verses 3iaa + 36b to 43 + 44a. In verse 3tb, tuna dubs is like 

30, 36a; harmonistic. 

3o, 44b; gloss. 



30, 45-46, entire; marginal midrash to verse 47. 

In 30, 47, the gloss D^tnn njoiK; borrowed from 19, 2. The 
language of 21, 9 and 12b is incompatible with a four nKmths' 

21, 2-4, entire; marginal midrash to v^^ i. 

21, 5, oitire; marginal midrash to verse 8a. 

In 21, 7, the gloss tmni:6; cf. verse 16. 

31, 8b, entire; marginal midrash to verse 9. 
31, 10, from mpn, together with 

31, II, entire; marginal mub-ash to avvhv^ of verse 10 + verse 
12. The worthy commentator forgot to supply the sequel to these 
sanguinary instructions. 

In 21, 13, the glosses fx sstd^ and QUs pia itntt r/?v; cf. verse 
II, and note the determinate runon. 

In 21, 13, the gloss mpn ^3. 

In 21, 14, the gloss irnn rv3. 

21, 15-18, entire; marginal midrash to verses 6-7! 

31, i9a/9-b; marginal midrash to i9aa. 

21, 34, entire; marginal midrash to verse 33. 

21, 25, entire; final comment on the whole document. 

That we have been dealing with epexegetical matter which nevm 
had independent existence is beyond question; for whereas what 
is left for (i) yields, without the slightest transposition or suppUHon, 
a complete, consecutive, organically articulated, and homogeneous 
narrative, the matter of (3) yields only a series of disjointed sec- 
tions, each clearly suggested by, and bearing i^mn, a certain pas- 
sage in the t6xt of (i). It is equally evident that the commentaiy 
was not composed and appended in the act of transcribing or 
" editing " (i); but, on the contrary, was first endorsed upon the 
blank g)aces of a manuscript of (i), and subsequently copied into 
the text. For, in the first place, it contains numerous paraphrases 
running paraUel to the text of (i), for which the latter has no logi- 
cal place. And secondly, instead of uniformly following the sec- 
tion of (i) to which it relates, the cmnmentary sometimes follows 
that section, sometimes precedes it, sometimes is dovetailed into 


JUDGES 19-21 105 

it, and more than once is, contrary to all rhyme and reason, en- 
tirely separated from it. In brief, the presoit text of Judges 19- 
31 is demonstrably not the product of a " amipiler " or of an 
" editor," but of a half-educated annotator followed by a clod- 
pated copyist. 

The story of Micah and the Danites has been subjected to much the same 
treatment, ippaieatly by the same hands. To recover the sinj^e antecedent 
document, the following inteipolations must be lejected: 17, 3-4, entire. 17, 
6, entire. In 17, 7, DB'^J (tim. In 17, 10, l^in nS. r8, 1. from t6 '3. 
Id 18, a, DnnOBtlD; Vn 'ja D'WK; pKn nn npn vA On^K nwn (replaces 
a dause of the original now missing); and QV irVl. In iS, 3, flDp nm. 
In 18, 7, O'lTir DDB'DS nL3^ TOtrt*; and ytB cni' pxa tTI. In 18, 9, 
pMn nit rxrh Vtsb. 18, 10, entire. 18, 13, from n*nn'3 (cf. page 54 above). 
In 18, 14, er'r; and nSDDI >Dfi1. In 18, 16, p^Jnoiirit. t8, r7, from 
TtDV wa (annoutor's asyndeton). In 18, 18, T\TD rc^ ^H2 n!)M1; i>Db; and 

nsDtsn ntn. in 18, 10, 'powi nm. in 18, 28, aim n*n^ iim pen irm. 
18, 39, from p Deo. 18, 30-31, entire. Also, of couise, as we are engaged in 
showing, throughout the narrative "nBM must be repla4^ by niM. In 18, 
27 the words D'mnn n«l pIMTi must be restored alter nx inp?. In i8, r6 
lead Vttn rntm rv, but omn (without the article). 

The displacements in 17, 3-4 are especially instructive. Let it be assumed 
that tOH IDKni , at the beginning of verse 3b, and veise 4a are haimonistic 
glosses. The remainder of verses 3-4 may be divided into six successive sec- 
tions, as follows: 

I. Verse a as far as '^TKn which we may call K 

3. rnnpi> *m 'nn rpsn nan 

3. Verses ab and 3a 

4. From tnpn to TOGO in verse 3 . . 

s. i> uTtPK nmn 

6. Verse 4b 

It is ^iparent, that whereas the annotator wrol 

.e these sections passing 

alternately from the right-hand to the left-hand margin of the colui 

the copyist entered first all the matter on the right, and then all that on the 

With the excision of the furious material I have indicated, and 
the correctioD of a few perfectly obvious textual errors which will 
be mentioned in the notes below, the original tenth-century nar- 



rative of the war against the Brajamites (begbning at the pant 
where the piesent confusioQ soiously sets in) reads as follows: 

Judges 19, 29 — 21, 23 
nvtj/f nnnai wJya ptm nioKon n»t npn vra hm ton (19, 29) . . . 
rhv TPK Oftntm m vn (30) 'ytntr Sm ^m nni«pn D'ruu ict cr»6 
^B^ '33 ni^ oroii nin tus nn'ru dm ^mr* e"k ^s^ noun to idiA 
11311 rroj rrtp tul) lo'w ntn orn ip Dira p«o 
ni3B lairni (2) noit&i m.T ^k inK vrta i^nr* 'a i>3 won (20, 1) 
trvn im (4) n»«in njnn rm'nj na'K nai nt»n (3) ^(nr* 'oae' ^a 
p^ 'wVw '3K 'nK3 pyaaii ib« nnjjnan lom .imrun npitn grvt i^n 
'wVb nm Jint wi 'hik nt'i> n'nn iik ••hv i3di wan 'bjo 'ii» wfn (5) 
n!>a3 lEV '3 '?trtv mv ^23 nninptti nnruw vi'rta mm (6) ironi w 
i>3 Din (8) D^n nnjn iai D3i> lan ijimf" '33 nab nsn (7) t»nir3 

in'3^ irn niD3 kH i^nnii irit i?: t6 iDKi> irw b^m d».i 
ipK nmn njnfi no nw^ pyja '03P ba d'cjk '?tntr 'Dae- in^ip'i (12) 
1JDJ1 Drroai njoja Twt ^a '33 vtpzttn hk un nnjn (13) D3a twnj 

^me" '33 DrrriK i>ipa jroe6 jcsa 13K kS tnpt) njnn 
imE" '33 DP narM> nmh nnmn Dijm p p'a ■■33 inotn (14) 
'33 ^ ^trur '33 uip'i (24) njoiri ^ i3ni ipaa iitne!" 'J3 iDipi (19) 

^tnr' '333 vrnxn njow p Dn»npi> p'j3 mn (25) p'33 

mn»t tnt 
Trhv 1!^ 3i]Jn IP mrr '3651 dp uen iiitn'3 ik3i i>inp' 'ja ^a i^jn (26) 
(28) Dnn DT3'3 D'n^K pK DPI nin'3 ^kidt '33 liiKtn (37) mn* '3Bt 
.1^ mn' 1DKI 'nnt dk tk p'33 '3a on rTDni>Di> nxs!) up (jdikh idk^ 

■p'a iJjnK ino 'a 
'» iiK i>inf '33 1^ (30) 3'3D njoin htt D'3i»< iiKnr oen (29) 

p'33i) DipD ^B" B"lt 13n'l (36b) Djm nKip!> p'33 '33 linn (31) p'33 

njn3n ^ idb^i iB^nn 3iKni (37) nja3n 'py \o» "wk 3iKn !>»« ino3 'a 
amn DD iiini?' vvA rcn unom (38) 3in *th Tpn ^3 hk 71 3iKn "ipdi 
p'33i nDni>D3 ^Kii?' B"K noni (39) Tpn p jpyn nteec omispn^ mrto 

W3D^ mn »li3 »1U3 ItC HDK '3 CK D'E^EO innP* P'»<3 D'Vpn nUili' ^M 

P'a iB'i ICT 11DP 1'pn p nii>v^ rhnn nntfom (40) n3i?inn ntDniasa 
P"33 DTK I)n3i non i'mp' trm (41) noiipn Tpn ^'i>a nhv rom mrm 
nonimni laiDn yn im i)inf fK '3Di> pn (42) njnn i*^ njM 'a nm 'a 


JUDGES 19-21 107 

niiK -ws nM» itrMD ii>m (44) iina rniit vrfntfo -mva nwn vrnp'rin 
\tcn jj^oa -ain vvt rows r» pm ji(>o ^ nTarron ion uei (47) v^ 
fa ijf nona ip nno tjid nn 'd^ do^ p'js 'J3 ^k lar ^if vik\ (48) 

nmt^ XiTsJj \Ta tn< te^ mo vm -01*^ nDvoa iqpj ^tne^ grm (21, 1} 

(7) ^ro irw tiar ni'n jnja nom Drrnte p'33 i)tc ^mc" 'ja «n3i ^6) 

(8) o'w^ wnuao arf? nn 'nfai> mrra ijpapj umw B'pjIj dh^ nrrJ rio 
Dpn npDni (9) niwon mrr ^ nfa nii nPK ^•nr* 'oaws init 'd noin 
'3BTD iifl»i (12) OP infan (10) ijhi pa* 'arnj e!"« dp pn nam 
nmon ^k jwik ittai tru njn* iti» iot( ni>ina mw nims win ijAs vt 
sen (14) Di^p onii wnpn ptn jAoa im( p'm 'sa bx nani in^m (13) 
noun (19) p DFit iiWD Kh nj^j w '(?» m tvtt win orh urn p'M 
Dimm lat -^Dtcii p'M 'a mt iivn (20) nev D'ons ntw mn' m run 
D*i3Tan to nntcn rrhnoi '?\rh rhv nua i»or ok nam on'tni (21) oiriaa 
1K3' 'a rrm (22) p'ja px ona^m n^p nuao intw vvt xdf onBem 
norfea inew trvt inpi) 1^ 'a oran un orriiK iron u'iiK 3ni> (n'nte im jmait 
troiDD^ □*)» MKtn |D>]3 ^u p iB'jn (23) wPKn njn on!) Dnn) otm i^ ^a 

pa lam onjm nn uai nniinj !>« lawn laiii ii>H lew m^non p 

Judges 19, ag — 21, 23 
. . . (19, 29) And when be came to kis house, he look a knife, and laid 
hold of his concubine, and cut her up, joint by joint, into twelve pieces, 
and sent them throughout all the borders of Israd. (30) And he com~ 
manded the men whom he sent out, saying, Thus shall ye say to ail the 
men of Israel, Did ever a thing like this happen, from the time that 
the Israelites came up from Uie land of Egypt to this day? Take 
counsd abotU it, and speak! 

(20, i) And all the Israelites came out as one man to Yakwe at 
Mizpah. (2) And the principal men of all the Israditish clans stood 
forth (3) and said, Relate, how did this crime happen? (4) And the 
Leviie, the husband of the murdered woman, answered and said, I 
came with my concubine to Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin, to pass 
thenight; {$) and the dtisms of GSteah assailed me, and gartered <^}out 
the house where I was, by night. Me they would have killed, and my 
concubine they ramshed so that she died. (6) So I took my concubine, 



and cut her m pieces, and sent the pieces timmghout all the ctnmtry of 
Israel; because they had wrought depravity in Israel. (7) Here all 
you Isradites are: give your vford and counsel in the matter! (8) And 
all the people stood up as one man, saying, We will not go to our seoeral 
habitations, nor will be disband to our several homes. 

(13) And the IsraeHUsh dans sent men throughout all the clans of 
Bet^amin, saying. What is titis crime which has been commiUed 
among you? (13) Now, therefore, give up those depraved fdlows 
who are in Gibeah, and let us put them to death, and extirpate the evil 
from Israd. But the Benjamites refused to listen to the words of their 
brethren the Israelites. 

(14) And the Bet^amites gartered from their cities to Gibeah, to go 
to war with the Isradites. (19) And the Isradites set out in the morn- 
ing and encamped against Gibeah. (34) And the Isradites drew near 
to attack the Benjamites. (25) But the Benjamites sallied from 
Gibeah to meet them, and struck down of the Israelites ... (so and 
so many) . . . men. 

(36) And all the Isradites went up and came to Bethd, and re- 
mained there before Yahwe until the evening, and offered biant- 
offerings before Yakwe. (37) And the Israelites enqwred of Yahwe 
— for there was a sacred box there in those days — (38) saying. Shall 
I agam go out to battle with my Benjamite brethren, or shaU I desist? 
And Yahwe answered, Go; for to-morrow I will give them into thine 

(39) And Israd put men in ambush against Gibeah, on all sides. 
(30) Then the Isradites marched against the Benjamites. (31) And 
the Ber^'amites sallied out to med the army. (36b) But the men of 
Israd gave groimd to Benjamin, rdying upon the ambush which they 
had set against Gibeah. (37) Meanwhile, the ambush made haste and 
rushed upon Gibeah. And the ambush set to and slew without mercy 
aU the inhabitants of Ute city. (38) Now it had been agreed between 
the men of Israd and the ambush, that immediaidy the latter sent 
up a signal-smoke from the city, (39) the men of Israd should turn 
about in the battle. And Benjamin had just begun to smite among the 
men of Israd, and had wounded about tinrty men — for tiiey said. 


JUDGES 19-21 109 

We have surely beaten them again, as in the former battte — (40) when 
the fire-signal began to rise from the city, a column of smoke. And 
the Benjamites looked back, and saw the whole city going up in flames 
heaoenward. (41) At the same time the mtn of Israel turned suddenly 
about. And the men of Benjamin viere in dismay, for they saw that 
disaster had overtaken them; (43) and they turned before the men of 
Israel in the direction of the Wilderness. But the battle drove hard 
upon them, wkile those who came from the city kept ^ughkring them 
in the midst. (44) And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand 
men; (47) but there turned and escaped to the Wilderness, to the CUff 
of Rimmon, six hundred men, who remained on the Cliff of Rimmon. 
(48) And the mm of Israd came back to the (non-cranbatant) Bettja- 
mites, and stew without mercy both man and beast, to the last thing; 
also every lawn in existence they destroyed with fire. 

(21, i) Now the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah, saying. No one 
of us shall give his daughter in marriage to a BenjamUe. (6) And 
the Israelites were sorry for their Betgamite brethren, and said, One 
branch is cutoff this day from Israd. (7) What shall we do for them 
in regard to wives; seeing that we have sworn by Yahwe not to give 
them any of our daughters as wives? (8) And they said. Is there any 
Israditish clan that did not come up to Yakwe at Mizpah? (9) So the 
army was mmtered, and U>, there was not a man there of the inhabitants 
of Jabesh Gilead. (10) And they sent thither, (13) and found among 
the inhalntants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred virgin guis, who had 
not known a man; and they brought them to the camp. (13) And 
they sent a message to the Benjamites who were at the Cliff of Rimmon, 
and proclaimed peace to them. (14) So the Benjamites returned, and 
they gave them the women that were of the women of Jabesh Gilead; 
but they had not enough for them. (19) And they bethought them of 
the festival of Yahwe held every year at Skiloh. (30) So they commanded 
the Benjamites, saying, Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, (31) and 
watch, and when the maidens ofShiloh come out to dance in the dances, 
come out from the vineyards, and snatch for yourselves every man a wife 
of ike maidens of ShUoh, and make off to the land of Benjamin. (2 3) 
And if their fathers or brothers come to us to complain of you, we will 



say to them, Forgave them; for what if they had each captured his wife 
in the war? only if ye yourselves had given (wives) to them, would ye 
now be guilty. (23) And the Bet^amites did so, and carried away 
wives according to their number, of the dancers whom they had seised. 
And they went back again to their possession, and rdmUl their towns, 
and dwelt in them.'' 

In connection with the few critical notes which follow, I dte from 
the older source of the Book of Samuel passages exhibiting notice- 
aUe affinity with our narrative in the matter of sfyle or diction. 
Some of these parallels are not intrinsically very cogent, nor would 
even one or two of the more striking resemblances be sufficient to 
prove identic of authorship. But in the aggregate, and supple- 
mented by such as mi^t be adduced for chapters 17-18 and the 
omitted portion of chapter 19, they are, in my judgment, quite 
ccmclusive on that point. 

By way of iUustntion as regards the omitted portion of chapter 19: With 
Vwnp5 nOBH of verse 3, d. 1 Sam. fi, 13; 11, 9; 19, 5. Wth 13 IWI of 
verae 7, cf. i Sam. a8, 33; a Sam. 13, a; 37 (where we mmt of couise read 
in). With n-nD» lU ru? ofvei8eii,cf.iSam.9,5io; 14,16; ao,ii. With 
'Jl Vt» PDPn onii tton of vene 14, cf. a Sam. a, 33. With ■« K3 tpt ITK fum 
of verse 16, cf. 1 Sam. 11, 5; 2 Sam. i, 3; 3, ii\ 16, 5; 18, 31; i Kings i, 43. 
With '31 unn ^ 'nn ?« of verse 33, d. 2 Sam. 13, i» as- With n3 -hvirm 
of verse 35, d. i Sam. 31, 4. These paialleb are just such as to aigue identity 
of literary origin and to piedude any suggesticm of slavish imitation on the 
pert of the author of Judges 19-31. 

19, 39. npn lira ^k von . Cf . 2 Sam. 20, 3. 
nrhvn . . . nnnn. Cf. 20, 6, and i Sam. 11, 7. 
D*nru -ws ^yih . Stylistically, these words cannot be rejected 
unless we reject the preceding rctftih as weU. But no Jewish inter- 
polator of the former would have thought of interpolating the 
latter. The number of pieces of the body of the murdered woman 
! dispatched " throughout all the borders of Israd " 
ined, not by the number of " tribes " — of which, as we 

the semblance of difFerence where none exists, I have puii)0sely adhacd, 
icsbk, to the language d Moore's English translation in the 5iimii ilMft* 



shall see, our author knows nothing, and which have no more to do 
with this matter than with the number of champions in 2 Sam. 
a, 15 — but, as we are expressly told, by the number of " her 
bones " ; evid^Uy reckoning three jdnts to each limb.' With no 
instrument but a household " eatmg-knife " (n^SKo), that was the 
obvious dissection. Portable pieces of the trunk would not serve 
the purpose; while the head would of course not be bandied about, 
in the absence of any desire to add to the indignities heaped upon 
the wretched woman. 

Viir ^aa ^aa. Cf. i Sam. 11,3 7; 27, i; 2 Sam. 21, 5; i Eing^ 

19, 30a. The text of this half-verse is restored after G^; see 
page I03, above. 

nm 13*13 nn'ns. Cf. so, 3 12, and i Kings i, 37. 
■n tvhs wch. Cf. I Sam. 29, 3 6; 2 Sam. 13, 33; 19, 35. 
19, 30b. For ixjr of the Masoretic text, read rm , with G; cf . 20, 7. 
30, I. imt v*va . . . imn. Cf. verse 8, and i Sam. 11, 7; 
3Sam. 19, 15. Seefurtherthenote(mnt3n!>D^nin6of verse 14, below. 

20, 3. lavm. Cf. 2 Sam. 18, 13 30; 21, 5. 

h«w "Vizv 1)3 nuD. Cf. I Sam. 14, 38; and see the note on -laio 
p'la of verse 12, below. 

20, 3. nxTn ninn . Cf. verse 13, and 2 Sam. 13, 16. 

20, 5. yixh yen. Cf. 3 Sam. 31, 5, and the conmientaries <m that 

20, 6. 'irj^*Ea inKi. Cf. 3 Sam. 4, 10; 6, 6; so, 9; i Kings i, 
51; and observe the synonymous q ptm in i Kings i, 50 as in 
Judges 19, 39. 

^Knr'3 n^33 irjr. Cf. 19, 33, and 2 Sam. 13, 13. The word 
n^3] , essentially roUenness, blight, is cognate to the construct notm 
in the compound hffh^; the genitive in the latter bdng without 
doubt the designation of scone sfaxit of evil (_= Arabic ghOl ?). 

30, 7. i>inB^ '33 Dab nan. The construction of this trouMesome 
sentence may be made plain by substituting onajm for ^mr* *». 
In the sentence onaim Dab nsn , the last word cannot be predicate, 

> Cf. Moore's commentaiy, p. 410, footnote; and 1 Sam. 4, 11. 



if only because it is detenninate; but it irill be appositive to the 
suffix in 03^ (cf. Gesenius-Eautzsch { 131 n) rathei than vocative. 

'Ji im aJ? on . Cf. a Sam. 16, 20. 

30, 8. 'n 'hnvh rw 1^3 16. Cf. the balanced exclamation in 

2 Sam. 20, I. The latter is copied in i Kings 12, 16. 

20, 13. p'U 'oni?. We must abide by the plural ^Dsr of the 
Masoretic text. The author does not employ the word Q2V in the 
technical sense in which we understand it, but as a simple appella- 
tive, meaning branch (notice the verb jnjj, chapped off, in 21, 6) 
and quantitatively equivalent to nrnm. The same body of people 
which as a clan or group of kinsfolk constitutes a nnum , as a branch 
or fraction of a larger whole constitutes a Qa». So the Danites are 
at once a onr and a nnnvD in Israel: Judges iS, 19. Judah is a 
nrmvo: 17,7; aswellasDan: 18,11. Benjamin is one of the small- 
est of the hvntr vaiv, but Saul's nnopD is in turn the smallest of the 
ptj3 'Qac: I Sam. 9, 31. In the latter passage the word nmtVD is 
(like nnBB>D in Num. 4, 18; cf. 36, 57) an explanatory gloss, and a 
correct cme. The ^ngle dty of Jabesh Gilead is htntr <Q3B>d inw: 
Judges 31, 8 f. And whra Absalom asks a visitor to the capital, 
" Of what city art thou ? ", the man replies, " Thy servant is of 
such and such a section of Israel " — hmntr *ozv iniw , 2 Sam. 15, 
2 ; cf . 19, 10. It is evident that for our author oz» is quite as vague 
a term as nnetm,- applicable not only to the major constituents of 
Israel, but to secondary fractions as well; and that he knows no 
more of a definite and fixed number of o*B3r than he does of a 
definite and fixed number of niruHW. 2 Sam. 19, 44a is patently 
qnirious; for verse 44b must originally have followed immediately 
upon vase 43. 

30, 13. We must tead njnn ipu instead of njn mjuji of the 
Masoretic text, nm requires the article; whereas the cohortative 
particle is rather out of place with the verb, since it is not prcqxaed 
that the Benjamites take part in the infliction of the penalty. For 
the language cf. 2 Sam. 4, 11. 

'^ ... UK 161. Cf. 19, 10 25; I Sam. 23, 17; 36, 23; 31, 4; 

3 Sam. 2, 21; 6, 10; 12, 17; 13, 14 16 25; and contrast i Sam. 


JUDGES 19-21 113 

p*u. It is not necessary to follow the Qri in prizing *J3. 
The latter is less likely to have been dropped by the tradition than 
omitted by the author; cf. Smr* itk un*l in verse 36, and nitn 
iDpoi irrm in verse 37. 

!)ine^ 'u orrrw . Cf. 18, 8 14; 19,33; 30,28; 3i, 6; 3 Sam. 2, 
26 f; 15, 20; 19, 13 43. 

20, 14. Dnjm. Cf. 20, 48; 21, 33; I Sam. 31, 7; and omtrast 
I Chron. 10, 7. The reading in the Samuel passage should not be 
altered to Drmjt, with Budde, H. P. Smith, and Dhorme. 

non^ mwi'. Cf. ao, i 28; 1 Sam. 4, ib; 11, 7; 13, 17 33; 
18, 30; 24, 15; 28, 1; 2 Sam. 2, 12 f; 11, i; 18, 2 f. 

3o, 25. in'nn. Cf. verse 43, and i Sam. 13, 17; 14, 15; 36, 9 
15; 2 Sam. II, i; 2c, 15 20. 

As already observed above, the numeral ^ -upjr niDV of the 
listing text is certainly spurious, and must be rejected in tola. 
We cannot attempt to secure a more acceptable figure by dropping 
dther nmc or im\ since neither tjiw nasr nor ({^k ivs would be 
Hebrew. On the other hand, it will not do to drop the ti^M and 
read vk -m rwac, as has been suggested.* For the logjc of the story 
— we are not concerned with the historical event — demands a 
figure not only con^derably lower than the number of the Benja- 
mltes finally slain, namely 18,000 (verse 44) ; but also (me very 
much higher than the insignificant number of IsraeUtes gladly 
sacrificed for strategic reasons at the beginning of the second day's 
battle, namely 30 (verse 39). Nor would our author have repre- 
sented the whole I^raelitish army as repairing to Bethel, crest- 
fallen and bewildered, to implore Yahwe's guidance and the restora- 
tion of his favor, on account of the loss of eighteen, or even of forty 
men. Unlike the theocratic theorist of Josh. 7, 5 f, he doubtless 
knew that " battles are not won without losing men." To meet 
all the demands of the context, a loss of at least two or three thou- 
sand men must be assumed. If, therefore, it were worth while 
to fill up the lacuna in this passage with a query, I should suggest 
the reading trvk wihut mhe^ (cf. i Sam. 13, 3; 34, 3; 25, 2; 36, 
' Bevet, ;, e., p. 157- 



a')- And that conjecture would be supported by the following 
considerati(Hi. Our narrative contained three different numerals, 
setting forth the number of men lost on one side or the other in 
the two days' fighting, namely those of verses 35, 39, and 44 re~ 
q)ectively. Now in the story of the war against Ai Qosh. 7-8), 
which is unmistakably based upon this narrative, there can be 
little doubt that f\^ iipjr trx' of chap. 8, 25 represents the figure 
which the author of that story read at Judges 20, 44, while D'e^eo 
TWtn of Josh. 7, 5 just as certainly represents the ^ure which he 
read at Judges 30, 39. It is not improbable, therefore, that nc^BO 
D*B^M of Josh. 7, 4, the number of the Israelites routed in the first 
day's battle with the mcai of Ai, repres^ts the figure which he 
read at Judges 20, 25. For the rest, it is clear that in the case of 
the second figure our Judges text has preserved the ori^nal read- 
ing; since the particle 3 is unnatural before the definite number 
nrtn O'e^c But as regards the first, it is quite pos^ble that D*jr 
tvs rather than irjr nmr was the auth^tic text of Judges 20, 44. 
We have no means of determining the question. Historically, 
the Benjamltes are as likely to have had eighteoi thousand men to 
lose as twelve thousand. 

20, 27b. The precise reading to be adopted for this haU-verse 
depends upon the origin which we are c(Hnpelled to assign to it. 
If it be, like the following clause concerning Phinehas in verse 38a, 
a post-exilic interpolation — whether originating with the author 
of the marginal commentary or with some other Jewish annotator 
— the expression □'rii'Kn nnn p-iK of the traditional text will be as 
much in place as it is in i Chion. 16, 6.* But if, on the other hand, 
we are obliged to accept the clause as a genuine parenthesis and 
an integral part of the early pre-exilic narrative, it will follow as 
a matter of course that the word nni is the Deuteronomistic ^oss 
which we have had repeated occasion to discard from early Old 

I I puiposely avoid mentioning Judges 15, ii^ 16, 37. 

■ It ii worth noting, howevei, that this would be the only other instance of an oti- 
^nal D*n^Mn Tina pttt in the Old Testament. Elsewhere the expression is distinctly 
the result of textual corruption. 


JUDGES 19-31 115 

Testameot texts relating to the sacred box. And since, moreov^, 
in that event the present text will have been shown to be corrupt, 
we shall not hesitate to reject also the article in D*n^Mn pint , as of 
a piece with the spurious rra , if the context, interpreted in the 
light of what we know regarding the historical institution of the 
sacred box, so requires. For it should be borne in mind that all we 
are seeking to prove independently by means of this passage is the 
fact that the sacred box was the organ of priestly divination; and, 
as has already been pointed out,* if the reference to it in this verse 
is authentic, the box will necessarily be the instrument of divina- 
tion, r^ardless of whether it happens to be called " the sacred box " 
or " a sacred box." 

Now the clause verse 37b must be an integral part of the original 
pre-ezihc record. For, to begin with, only on that assumption can 
we satisfacttaily explain its present position in the text. If it had 
originated with the marginal annotator, we should certainly find 
it in verse 18, where that annotator mentioned for the first time — 
and before he reached his own paraphrase of verses 36 f (verse 23) 
— the resort of the Israehtes to Bethel to amsult the oracle of 
Yahwe. The same would be true if the clause in question were a 
subsequent interpolation, inserted by the copyist who introduced 
the maigiiial a)mmeQtary into the body of the original narrative, 
or by any later diaskeuast; in that case too, we should find it after 
the word wrhn in verse 18. For the statement has absolutely no 
pertinence except at the very first mention of a journey to Bethel 
for the consultation of the oracle — whatever may have constituted 
such first mention at each stage in the history of the text. Similarly 
the insertion of the epexegetical note concerning Phinehas in verse 
38 rather than in verse 18, while natural enough if 37b was already 
a part of the existing text, is otherwise quite inexphcable. So that 
verse 27b was either part of the original record, or else — a far- 
fetched alternative at best — it was inserted by some independent 
glossator antecedent to the author of our margtoal midrash (who 



presumably cootributed both verse i8 and verse aSaa ')• But if 
that extremely hypothetical glossator was an ancient Israelite 
living in pre-ezilic times, he may, for the purposes of our argu- 
ment, be treated as identical with the original writer. If, on the 
contrary, he was, like the author of the midrash, a post-ezific Jew, 
thai we must imagine him not content with having the Israelites 
repair to Bethel to raiquire of Yahwe (as the text alleged, and as 
they mi^t concdvably have enquired at any other theoretically 
irr^ular sanctuary mentioned in the historical books — at Dan, 
for example), but actually going out of his way to create serious 
difficulty by gratmtously tranq»rting to that hotbed of apostasy 
and schism the unique Sinaitic shrine which he, in cxunmon with 
his contemporaries, believed to have been domiciled at Shiloh 
throughout that period of Israelitish history.* For it was one thing 
for a post-exilic Jew to be forced to interpret an existing verse 27b 
in the sense of 28aa notwithstanding Jewish doctrine; and quite 
another for such a Jew to interpret 27a gratuitously in the direction 
of 27b, of which there was no more need than in Judges i, i or 18, 
5. It is, I think, sufficientiy apparent that the difficulties in the 
way of assigning verse 27b to any source other than the original 
author are practically insuperable. 

On the other band, not only is this clause exactly where we 
shoiild expect to find it if it originated with the author of our nar- 
rative, and the coupling of the sacred box with the andent Israelitish 
sanctuary of Bethel* eminently appropriate in his case, but the 
clause actually cannot be discarded without leaving a noticeable 
hiatus in the record. For verse 27b does very much more than 
indicate the means whereby the consultation of the oracle took 
place. In fact, although it is for our purposes quite omduave on 
that point, its form rather implies that the author's readers will 
take for granted the orade was consulted by means of a sacred box. 
The question which verse 27b really answers, and which in the 

' Compare once more the parallel to ao, iSaa in 18, 30b, wbtie we of coaat lead 


* Cf. p. 96, note. ■ Cf. I Sam. 10, 3. 


JUDGES 19-21 117 

absence of that clause remains unanswered, has to do witli the 
reason why the Israelites journeyed to Bethel for the purpose of 
consultti^ the wade of Yahwe. For although they are represented 
as waiting reverently upon the deity until evening and propitiating 
him with burnt-offerings, it is clear that those proceedings were 
merely by way of ensuring a favorable response to their enquiry. 
It was not iiltimately to worship Yahwe — which they might have 
done as well at Mizpah or elsewhere — but to seek his guidance, 
that they repaired in a body to the sanctuary at Bethel. Yet why 
to Bethel, rather than back to Mizpah ? For that matter, why 
should they go anywhere at all; since ndther Saul ntn- David in 
later times marched his armies to any particular spot to squire 
of Yahwe ? Incidentally, no doubt, becatise of the pre-eminence 
of Bethel among the sanctuaries of Israel and its accessibiUty in 
the '^"Hng situation. But more eqwdally because neither in the 
camp of the army nor at Mizpah was there an oracle of Yahwe, 
whereas at Bethel there wis a sacred box in those days. The sanctuary 
at Bethel, that is, was not an open-air high place, like that of 
Mizpah, the " beacon-hill " at which they had originally assembled; 
but a hs'n, like that of Shiloh, with a resident priesthood guard- 
ing the cherished instrument of the oracles of Yahwe. The author 
was not obliged to tell his readers that Yahwe was hatntually con- 
sulted by me£ins of the sacred box; but there might well be some 
among them who would need to be reminded that a hastily-gathered 
volunteer force in those primitive times did not, like the well- 
organized royal armies of Saul and David (and doubtless also of 
Solomon), include an army chaplain; while probably most would 
need to be told that the famous sanctuary at Bethel was already 
in those early days in possession of a full-fledged priestly establish- 
ment. If there is one thing, however, which we may be sure the 
author had no intention of implying, it is that there had ceased to 
be a sacred box at Bethel at the time of writing. His readers presum- 
ably knew as well as he that such was not the case. 

We must accordingly hold verse 27b to be part of the original 
narrative of the war against the Benjamites. And if so, the setting 



demands that not merely the word nna , but Ukerise the artick 
which follows it, be discarded.' For this sacred box was obviously 
not an appurtenance of the Israelitish army; and our author knows 
nothing of any Sacred Box kut' ^Tdiv. The authentic text was 
therefore: onn a^-o w^hn imt Den . Compare rhra p»om,i Sam. 
6, 14; mm atn, i Sam. 34, 4; and especially '?\wp nam v*n om 
Kinn 01*3, I Sam. 31, 8. For the phrase Dnn D*tra, cf. Judges 18, 
i; 19, 1 ; I Sam. 38, i; 2 Sam. 16, 33. 

It remains to point out that nothing should give us less concern 
than the fact that this clause, if held to be authoitic, is obtrusively 
parenthetical.* For no modem writer could employ the real par- 
enthesis — as distinguished from the ordinary circumstantial or ex- 
planatory clause of Hebrew syntax — with more perfect ease and 
naturalness than does this ancient Israelite.' Note the parraithetical 
clause '31 11DM '3 , actually sqiarating prota^ and i^xkIo^ in the bal- 
anced sentence 01 rhm nuenim , . , '?nn p'331 in verses 39 f of this 
chapter.* Further compare i Sam. 14, i8b»; 2 Sam. 4, 2b-3*; 14, 26'; 

1 The eiutmg leadinga ue probably to be ejpUJned as foDovs. A lupralineat 
glcMB •* m2 (d. the error m 19, iS) over the authentic Q^n^M p-M produced |11M 
&*nt>Kil nna, preserved in M and in the text of Jerome. This.was corrupted, either 
m the Hebrew or in the Greek, into the moie natunl 4 c^Mrh li a g^it y avbo tA GA 
and congcnen. A timilAr ezptauktiun will apply to tbe leading of the Pealilta; 
vheieas QB, afiurrit ttaAtuqi aiplaii TnO tf«0, merely combines G and M. 

■ The tran^iosition advocated by Geddes (rfe Bely Bible trotalaltd from Cor- 
rtded Texts of tlie Origmalt, vol. 11, 1797, p. 41), namely, verse 36+ 17b + a8aa + 
a7a +, is already to be found in GB. We may be quite certain, howevei, that 
the reading of QB was as innocent of objective basis as that of Geddes. G* and eoa- 
geneiB support the Mssoretic tert. 

■ It is the misfortune of this great man that his writings have come down to us 
within the bounds of an eodesiastical canon of Holy Scrqituic; otherwise students of 
the humanities would hardly continue to ignote a prose which, for combined ■inq>lidty 
and distinction, has remained unmatched in the literature of the world, and which the 
progieiuve sophistication of mankind has long since rendered forever uni^iproachable. 

* Cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch f 164 b. 

* As restored; see p. 16. 

* The authentic text is continued in vene 5; verse 4, like 6 and 7 (to U3e'D)i ia 

' The authentic parenthesis is \T^y\ X^y 133 *3, separating the ^lodosis verse 
36b from the protasis ItCtn HK IT^iil- Only the clause -n f pO (I) n*m is mter^ 


JUDGES 19-21 119 

ai, 2b^; and especially (a case as striking as it is unquestionable) 
14, 13: And the woman said, Why then dost thou design this injury 
to the nation — whoeoer argues with the king on this subject is im- 
pertinent * — M0l to bring back thine exiled son f 

20, 38. innit . Cf . I Sam. 23, 13. 

n^ is of course the correct reading. The Maaoretic 1^ follows 
the midrash of verse 23. Both question and answer doubtless 
made use of stereotyped forms, which were couched in the singular 
number. Compare i Sam. 14, 37; 30, 8; 2 Sam. 2, i; 5, 19.* The 
response of Judges 18, 6 is not direct. 

20, 29. D<3iK. Cf. verses 36 ff, and i Sam. 32, 8 13. 

20, 37. vmn . Cf . I Sam. 20, 38. 

\otftn. Cf. I Sam. 23, 27; 27, 8 10; 30, i 14. 

levn. The essential meaning of iro is to take hold, as in Araluc. 
It then comes to signify to take hold for the purpose of pulling, and 
hence to puU; cf. Gen. 37, 28; Ex. 13, 21; Jer. 38, 13. In this 
passage it is used figuratively, in the sense of to take hold of a task 

poUted. *]^n pK,<^iia>id<>rJtM>(ib,lusiM>iiK>Te todowith thekiagof Babykm 
liiuiDhMtipon'yn, tkt piMicroad,ia'iium. 30, 17. Foitheiest,tevenotei^tpouiidi 
of bair (as mudi u would be coatuned in a good-uzcd cnahitxi) a, what it waa meant 
to be, a maiveloua quantity of hair; but it ii not enough to be (antaitic. On the whole 
paaaage, d. the prcMntwriter'aartide, "The Interpretation of 1^ TfD O'llp, Hab. 3, 
4," American Journal of Semitic Lanptata, XXI, 1905, j:^. 167 fF. 

t The resuming dsuae at the beginning of vene 3 ahowa that we are dealing with & 
gennine paientheaia; only the final num ia inteipolated. With the expieaaion 
nan ^P"S3D |6 D'Jjnim, rf. Judgea ig, laa. 

* That the dauae ia parenthetical and the above the general senae of it, ia beyond 
queation. The exact text ia not so certain. Probably we ahould read ^TSS ^^I^H; 
d. Num. la, i 8; 11, 57. As Budde pointa out (Ktmer Eand-Commentar, p. a66), 
tbe Maaoretic pointing intends, not the Hithpael particq>le, but the Piel infinitive 
with ]S. But the current inteipietation is, in any event, quite impmaible. No 
peasant woman would tell a king that he waa next tbiog to a crimlna], becauae he 
kept a murderei in exile; nor, il ihe did, would tliia be the Hebrew for it. In fact, 
the only connection with the woman's own case ia delicately supplied by tlie initial 1 
ol FTDtI — if the king so readily paidona her fratricide son, why not his own ? Tlie 
lentence beginning with agtn in venc 14 is a bit of scribal eaegeris, whidi hlta the 
nail on the wrong end. 

* The fonns were ctuiicd over into divination by means of prophecy; d. i Kings 



with energy and dispatch — to " piich in." "And the ambush 
[Htched in and killed all the inhabitants of the dty " rq>roduces 
^actly the force of the Hebrew. 

3in 'B^ . . oi- Cf. i8, 17; 20, 48; 1 Sam. as, 19; 3 Sam. 15, 

20, 38. "vmn. Cf. 1 Sam. 9, 24; 20, 35; 2 Sam. 30, 5. 

For the meaningless letters 3in of the Masoredc text, we must 
obviously read rnns; which modifies the following temporal clause, 
like the Greek t{Ms in ^milar case. The word occurs i Sam. 20, 
38; 3 Sam. 17, 16 18 21.' 

•n arrhvnb . Cf. 3 Sam. 18, 39. 

30, 39. Point *]bm , and interpret as jussive. Coiiq>are the use 
of this word in i Sam. 25, 13. 

Snn. Cf. I Sam. 33, 15. Hie word is correlated with r6nn in 
verse 40. On the parenthe^ 'H ddm *3 , separating protasb and 
apodoais, see the note on 30, 37b. 

r*M D*lpiito . Cf. I Sam. 9, 22. 

20, 41. ^13*1. Cf. I Sam. 28, 21; 2 Sam. 4, i. 

20, 42. Read {Dl , •vvTio , and Tjwa (cf. Josh. 8, 23), for the rar- 
rupt om , snsnQ , and u\n3 of the Masoretic text. For a similar 
use of nsc see verse 47 and chap. 18, 21 26. 

innp'nn. Cf. 18, 22; i Sam. 14, 23; 31, a; 2 Sam. i, 6.* 

20, 44. r^vt tvs rxjoff. See the note cm verse 35, above. 

20, 47. The author of course wrote uniformly either pD-i 160 or 
Jicnn ]lho , we cannot be quite sure which. I conform the reading 
in verse 47a to that of the authentic 47b and diap. 21, 13 rather 
than to that of the furious verse 45. |iq-i j6d is also intrinsicaQy 
more plausible, since jvcn in this connection is more likely to be 
a proper name than the appellative for " pomegranate." 

1 In A Kings i, 11 the vocalizatioa must not be altcied to rnW (as Biown-Diiver- 
Biiggs). I Sam. S3, 17 is not at all in the unie cue; one does not vty " at (wcel " 
to ft king, though oiie may urge bim to " hasten.'* 

* 3 Sun. I, 6 fl behnigs to the tame document with i Sam. 31, 4; d. t Sun. 4, 10. 
Having just f^ven the leadei his own account of the actual manner of Saul's death 
in I Sam. 31, the author did not think it necesBaiy, when leprodudng the luckleaa 
Amakkitft's biag^ng nairatioii in i Sam, i, to point out that the fellow was lying. 


JUDGES 19-21 121 

r*tt nwo W. Cf. 18, 11 16; i Sam. 13, 15; 14, a; 23, 13; 35, 
13; 27, 2; 30, 9; 2 Sam. 15, 18. For the style of verse 47a, cf. 
Judges 18, Ti. 

20, 48. UP '?trar trm = ol U 'lo-poijXiToi hrioTfie^ap. Cf. i 
Sam. 36, a$; 2 Sam. 3, 30; 20, 22. 

ono . We must of course vocalize and interpret as in Deut. 2, 
34; 3, 6. 
MVDin !)3, nimtMR. Cf. i Sam. 13, i$i\ 21, 4. 

21, 6. rrw of the Masoretic text is hardly possible here; read 

21, 7. nn 'n^3^. Cf. 2 Sam. 14, 7 13. 

21,9. ipom. Cf.'i Sam. 13, 15; 14,17; 2 Sam. 18, I. There 
was no commander-in-chief in this case; so the army rmtsters itsdf. 

31.12. ninnarrv]. Cf. i Kings i, 2. The expression itm njn^M^, 
it may be noted, is found elsewhere cmly Gen. 19, 8 and Judges 
". 39- 

DTOM of the Masoretic text is imgrammatical in a writing of this 
date; we must read |nri«t . 

31. 13. a{>» Dn^ itnp<i. Cf. i Kings 2, 13. 

21. 14. vn, literally kad been, has been corrupted to vn, had 
saved alive, under the influence of the midrask of verses 10 f . Cf . 
18, 27; 2 Sam. 8, 7. 

21, 19. nom , and they thoughi, is followed in verse 20 by van , 
and they commanded; just as riDtn , and they said to themselves, in 
verse 6, is followed by nom , and they said, in verse 8. In 2 Sam. 
S, 6 the order is reversed: •s\ to»6 . . . tok^ m'? TEsnn = and he 
said to David . . . thinking, David cannot come up here; cf. 
I Sam. 9, 24: •y\ lanh i> "hdp njno^ '3 = for it was purposdy sated 
for thee, thinking, etc. See further the footnote on i Sam. 4, 7, 
page 12. 

n'?v. The author certainly employed this ^>elling, both here and 
in verse 31, as in i Sam. 4. 

31, 30. van. Forthesakeof legibility I have added a ^; though 
vr was possibly the orig^ial for the third person plural. 

31, 21. Trf>nD2 , . . itnr dm. Cf. i Sam. t8, 6; 21, 12; 29, 5. 



21, 22. Read tnuK, p*nM, ijn, \njh i^, and onit "ff, for onuit, 
DrrnK, ymn, unpb t6, and onK k^, respectively, of the Masoretic 
text The readmgs Mn and \njh are suj^rted by some of the best 
manusct^ts of the Septuagint, as wdl as by the Peshl^a and 
Jerome. The clause ■l\ inp^ \'j must be int^preted in the tight of 
Gen. 50, 15: •i\ viw \3a0tr "h. What if Joseph were to twn hostile 
to us for all the injury we did him ? 

roD . For another instance of this word introducing an apodosis 
after a protasis with ii> , see Judges 13, 23. The reading njo can 
hardly be the result of corruption in both passages, as supposed 
by Moore. In 13, 23 ngs (analogous to ors) is not a minute ago, 
but at this time — "If Yahwe intended to slay us, he would not now 
be promising us a srai." 

•axnm . Cf. 2 Sam. 14, 13. 

31, 23. wm is here employed exactly as in i Sam. 4, 4 and 

2 Sam. 6, 3, in the sense of carried away, not married (wives). 
tnaae/j. Cf. i Sam. 6,4; 27, 7; 2 Sam. 2, it 15. 

jna \2tn. Cf. 18, 28; 20, 47; 1 Sam. 23, 25; 24, 1; 31, 7; 

3 Sam. 2, 3; 5, 9; 15, 29. The form ana , with referoice to a foni- 
niue antecedoit, is possible in Biblical Hebrew; but we may be 
sure our author wrote more correctly tns, as in i Sam. 31, 7; 
with which a>ntrast i Chron. 10, 7. 


We have completed our survey of the Old Testament passages 
which bear witness to the fact that the historical sacred box of the 
ancient Hebrews was a manifold object regularly employed as the 
instrument of priestly divination. And with that fact established, 
we may return to the passage from which our investigation set out, - 
namely i Sam. 14, 18. 

It has now been shown that the first of the two objections urged 
by modem critics against the authenticity of the Masoretic read- 
ing O'rhnn jntt in this passage, namely that the box of i Sam. 4 ff 
was at the time in question lodged in the house of Abinadab at 
Eirjath-jearim, and could not therefore have been in the camp of 



Saul near Gibeah of Benjamin, is entirely irrelevant; since the box 
of I Sam. 14, 18 was obviously another box. Siiailarly the seomd 
objection, that the instrument demanded by the context is not the 
sacred box but the " ephod," is seen to be without foundation; 
since, whether or not a problematical " ephod " was ever employed 
in divination, there can no longer be any question that the sacred 
box actually was so employed. There remains, therefore, no ground 
'whatever for refusing to accqit as the original and authentic text 
of I Sam. 14, 18 the reading which results from the application of 
soimd principles of textual criticism to the existing data, namely: 
'iu^ Kwn Dr3 D'nt*m init kW wn arhttn \nH ntnn n-nth Hmp nww 

But if wrhtm triK was part of the original text in r Sam. 14, iS, 
the reading ri i^iobS which replaces it in the Septuagint furnishes 
objective and conclusive evidence that iifiK was deliberately sub- 
stituted for an original fnK in at least one passage in one early 
Hebrew manuscript. I say deliberately, because, as has been 
pointed out, lUMn could never replace D^rhvtn jnti by accident. 
And since we cannot, by any amount of contortion, escape the con- 
clusion that the reading yiBn , wherever it stands for a solid object, 
has been methodically substituted for some more troublesome word,* 
we may reascmably infer that, as demonstrably in i Sam. 14, 18, 
so everywhere else in the Old Testament that troublesome word 
was tiiK . 

In point of fact, however, it is more than a reasonable inference 
that iiDK has displaced an ori^nal |nK in every passage in the 
Old Testament where it stands for the so-called solid " ephod." 
Leaving aside for the moment Hosea 3, 4, which demands separate 
treatment, the solid " ephod " is found in the story of Gidecm, 
Judges 8. 37; in the story of Micsih and the Danites, Judges 17-18; 
and in i Sam. 3, 38; 14, 3; 31, 10; 22, 18; 23, 6 9; 30, 7. Now, 
quite apart bom the fact that the " ephod " of these passages 
ostensibly represents the very instrument of priestly divination 
which our investigation has shown the sacred box to be, purely 

> See pages 13 fi. • Cf. (ages g f. 



literary coimderatioiis make it evident that if the geDuine reading 
in I Sam. 14, i8a is tyrhmn triM rvtnn , that of 30, 7a (where, in the 
same source, David addresses Abiathar under precisely the same 
circumstances as Saul does Ahijah in 14, iS) must be, not ntsrsi 
TTDKn '^ K3, but jnmn -^ mi ntnn^; and equally evident, conse- 
quently, that both in 30, 7b and in 23, 6 9 the original reading 
was likewise, not tick , but pK . All of which is demonstrated 
independently by the testimony of i Kings 2, 26 *; and confirmed, 
at least as to 33, 9, by the Septuagint reading presoitly to be mo- 
tioned. But if the original text of 33, 6 was not rra 1*1* *nbM, 
but rra tv O'ntR tnit (the instrument of the priestly offi<», which 
Abiathar carried with him in his flight from Nob, being not an 
" ephod " but a sacred box*), then there can be little doubt that 
the mysterious object belonging to the sanctuary at Nob which 
the Masoretic text of i Sam. 31, 10 calls nunin was originally p-iKn. 
Again, if the grauine text of i Sam. 14, i8b is vrhtin piK kpj , 
it is evident that the original expression in verse 3 of the same 
chapter (where the same person is being described in the same 
relation) was likewise, not -ncK HVi , but frm von . But if fnm mp3 
was the conventional description of the priestly office in 14, 3, we 
may be certain that the same conventional description was employed 
originally also in 23, 18; where pM m» vtt nrom vsov signified, 
of course, not that the sanctuary at Nob possessed eighty-five 
separate sacred boxes, but merely that the family of Ahimeledi 
DSmprised eighty-five persons consecrated to the ofBce of priest 
and competent to employ that instrument* — although there may 

I Unless it b to be maintained that IWM and |nK weie only different namea for 
Uw Mffle tiling. But the one thing no one has yet thought to make o[ the " «pbod " 

* See pages 67 B, above. 

* In the sentence \'V2 TV IIDK , the last woid is idiomatic Hebrew foe indt Mim. 
It no more folloin from this passage that the object in question was " easily earned 
in the hand " (Foote, I. c, p. 41] than it folbws from the statement CK Dpn ^3 Mfm 
rP3 VnV of I Sam. 14, 34 that an oz was easily cturied in the hand. Cf. also a Sam. 

* Foote's rendering of the i-Tiating text, " eighty-five men beaiing on ei^iod " (f. c, 
p. 10), is inoonect. The text says " eighty-five ephod-beaieis " — a very different 



wcH bave been more than one box at the di^Kisal <tf so great a 
Gompany.' And finally, if accofding to i Sam. 14, 3 and 22, 18 
the priest was cascntiaOy a jrm Mn w bo»-beanr, thai indubitabty 
the original text <rf i Sam. 3. 28 declared that the fondly of I3i 
was chosoi, not *x6 Tine rvK^, bnt *3i6 nv ntv^ — a &ct strik- 
m^ty ccnfim^ by the nivtipg text of Deat. 10, 8, according to 
v^uch the Levites were set apart 'job td!^ nsr (ma) inn nit ni«6 
a* mm; cf. Dent. 31, 9 25. 

Tbis actoaDy ^aspoets, by a process as objective as the nature of 
the case pcnnits, f>f every meotiao of the aoBd " qihod " in the 
B<x^ of Samud. And with this result achieved, we need itot hesi- 
tate to make the same diqxisiticH) of the two remaining instances 
of the solid " q>hod," which we find in Judges 8, 27 and chapters 
17 i- In Judges 8, 27 we will acxordin^ read \rn6 wm vwt tfjn, 
inddeataDy solving at erne stnAe all the difficulties which bave 
attended the intopretaticn of that passage; and similarly in chfq>- 
tera 17 f we will read trvmjnm, or a*trav\ ran irwn rac, as the case 
may require.' 

thJDg. The rliMTil Hebcnr foe " d^ty-6n men beaiing «ii ettiod " trould be 
TttH trttP] e^K netsm S'SOr; d., fw example, judges 18. 16, and omtnat the 
icdb«l jtigaa ci tok 17b. 

' Tlw iford 13 in I Sun. ai, 18 must be rejected u a saibal gloos (with Bndde, 
Nowuik, nbaaut, and Diivei^. It ma Uddng in the prototype of G. Bendea, its 
Rtentkn entub the inteiinetadaa <rf WSpi in tbe*a)ae(^lowMr,iriudi thatvobcan 
never have. The statancnt of Nowac^ ( fl oniJumm amtar , p. 115} that " MCJ wild 
■nut nnr nun Ttagen etnet Klddun^sttbles gdnandit, spec in Bezug auf TS 11DM 
pflegt man un m aagen," a an snwan^ bad aigummt in a good cause. Or on 
" mu " be a mi^rint foe " nidit " 7 

* Hie qncstioD whether the text of the diaikeuastic passage 18, i7Bflwaa ever (TIMn 
— that is, iriiether the annotator wrote prior to the alteiation of pK to miiK in 
Judges 17 f — ii appaiently to be answcied In the affiimative; mice the alteration 
wa* introduced systematically and no doubt mnultaneously into the canonical books 
of Judges and SamneL 

Just iriiy the word IVtlt ihould have been selected to cover the obnoxious piK, 
is a ^«culative question iriiich need not trouble us, since it has been demonstrated 
that that word was in fact so selected. Doubtless, however, two factors combined to 
indicate the dioice; one was the dmunstsnce that the ejdiod was a promineit Item 
in the ceremonial equqiment of the Hig^ Priest; the other, and probably the mote 
decisive, was the fact that the alteration of pitt to IWM involved a minhinim of 


126 E^D AND ARK 

Hosea 3, 4 presoits a differrat problem. The reading to be 
adopted there depends upcm the question whether verses 4 and 5 
of that chapter are part of the authentic prophecy of Hosea, or 
merely a late scribal amplification of the preceding puagraph. 
If the verses are genuine, we should certainly read in Hosea 3, 4, 
as in Judges 17, 5 and 18, 14, wsvn tnM; whereas if they are spuri- 
ous, the locution will be taken bodily from Judges 17-18, and may 
very well have been borrowed after the alteration of jrtH to tibm 
was carried out in the Book of Judges. My own judgment is that 
verses 4 f are utunistakably spurious, and the phrase in question 
reminiscent of Judges 17-18; the interpolator having concerned 
himself only with the fact that the two objects figured jointly and 
prominently in the history of the illegitimate cultus of North Israel. 
Hosea woiild hardly have delivered such a prophecy to the public 
prostitute > whom he is addressing in verse 3. If verses 4 f were 
genuine, we shotdd certainly find them immediately after verse i; 
cf. I, 2b^ 4b 6b 9b. Nor can we suppose the prophet to have 
occupied himself with the Jewish Tnillpnniiim and " David thdr 
king "; while it is impossible to detach the protam of verse 4 
from the apodosis of verse 5, assigning the one to Hosea and the 
other to an interpolator. 


Merely by way of confirming the conclusion at which we have 
arrived, we may recall at this point one or two phenomena whidi 
have already been mentioned incidentally in the forgoing pages. 

It was observed at the outset that whereas the real ephod is 
worn about the waist ("un : i Sam. 2,18; 2 Sam. 6, r4; cf . Lev. S, 
7), the spurious " ephod " is not worn but carried (jtwi: i Sam. a, 
28; 14,3; 14, iS [Gl; 22,18). Now He*] , it is hardly necessary to 
say, is just the word we should expect to find surviving in the con- 
text if the object originally referred to in those passages was the 

I Hut tbe abandoned woman of Hoa. 3 ii identical iritb the wife of ch^>ter 1, li 
a fiction aa baadeas as it appears to be dear to the heart of Biblical tbeologtuu. ^w 
ODly leaaon iriiy the wife of Hoaea and kef kpHmate ckUdnn are called D^JUt TWK 
O'JUt nri is explicitly set forth in i, a. 



sacred box; cf. Deut. 10, 8; 31, 9 25; Josh. 3, 3, etc.; i Sam. 4, 
4; a Sam. 6, 4; 15, 34; i Kings 2, 26; 8, 3. 

Similatly in Judges 8, 27 we are told that Gideon deposited the 
" q>hod " in his native dty of Ophra: meja n^n vnn m. And 
here again, rvn is precisely the word we should expect to find 
employed in that sentence if the object in question was in reality 
the sacred box; cf. i Sam. 5, 2: iKsn orbiKn frm nm □<n(!'{)D inp*i 
IU1 innt uiK inn jv\ n'a mn; 2 Sam. 6, 17 (= i Chron. 16, i): 
m ^nitn ym^ vnpon wk un nvi' p-iK hk iKi'n; a Sam. 15, 24: nM Mv\ 
"Vjrt |D luy^ Dim ^3 on np tfrfmn rnit.' In view of the fact that these 
citations actually embrace one-fourth of all the occurrences of Xf 
in the Old Testament, the phraseology of Judges 8, 27 is especially 

Finally in 1 Sam. 23, 9, for the clause TiBMn niran of the Masore- 
tic text, which is reflected in all the later versions, the Septuagint 
has xpoff&yayt rd i<l>oi>S xvpEov.* As the combination ^U Kvplov is 
meaningless, and occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, KvpUm 
can hardly be the result of a slip or of conjecture and interpolatitm 
in the Greek, but must represent the actual text of the Hebrew 
prototype of G. But neither could irvy in the underlying Hebrew be 
the result of accident or of conjecture and interpolation; since, as 
already observed, Judaism knows nothing of an mn< hdk , any more 
than it knows of a mrv 'rvn. The presence of an mrr iidk in this 
passage can be satisfactorily explained only upon the assumption 
that the genitive mn^ itself was authentic, whatever may have been 
the fact regarding the preceding nUK . But again, mn< is just the 
genitive we are least surprised to find in this soitence if the object 
designated by the preceding construct noun was originally the 

■ See page 6$. The word i'tn invukbly meaiu lo dtpont on lie ground, atbet 
Utetally or figuntively; uid is never employed in the aeiue ol to ttlitf — an idol 01 
anything else. 

* According to Holmes and Panona, this ii the reading of all the inaousciq>ti except 
■ few cunive*. I have been at pains to verify the reading in the photographs of A 
mnd B. Among recent anmnentators on the Book of Samuel, Budde and Dhomie 
alone aeem to have noticed this piegnant Sqituogint reading; and they baiely mention . 
It, ^q»arently ai a mere curio^ty. 



sacred box. Note the language in i Sam. 14, i8a and the alterna- 
tion of crhmn |nK and mTP iriK in 3 Sam. 6. It cannot be doubted 
that the authentic text of i Sam. 23, 9 was mn* )iik. This was 
replaced in the ancestor of M by 'ncKn , just as in 14, iS an ori^al 
D'r6Mii |nK was replaced in the ancestor of G by iwtn ; whereas 
in this instance the ancestor of G carelessly substituted TiCM for 
pK, and left the genitive mn* standing, a persistent witness to the 
true reading of the original text. 

It remains to notice the important fact that, with the ^gle 
exception of i Sam. 3, 38 (where the alteraticn apparently took 
place, as the grammarians say, by attraction, in the wake of 14, 3, 
etc.), the solid " ^hod " appears only in contexts where the Jewish 
doctrine of a single Sioaitic box of Yahwe could not tolerate the 
mentiim of the historical sacred box, for the reason that by no 
amount of sophistry could the coie be identified with the otha. 
So in Judges 8, 37 the reader was oqilidtly told that the box was 
made by Gideon out of the gold captured from the Midianites; and 
a good Deuteronomistic editor, who of course refrained from in- 
voking the favorite nna , had accordingly not hesitated to assert 
that " all Israel went a whoring after it," in spite of the fact that 
Gideon's avowed object was to substitute an oracle of Yahwe few 
his personal rule (verse 23). Obviously there was no way of identi- 
fying that sacred box with the one made under the direction of 
Moses at the foot of Mount Sin^. Againin Judges 17, 5 the reader 
was e^ressty told that the box (rf the ensuing narrative was made 
by Micah for his private sanctuary; and in 18, 27 that box was 
finally located at the notoriously ill^timate sanctuary of Ban, 
to constitute the forerunner and the occasion of full half the sin 
" wherewith Jeroboam the son of Nebat made Israel to sin." 
Manifestly it was impos^le to identify that sacred box with the 
Mosaic " box of the Covenant " which was supposed to have rested 
finally in the cella of Solomon's temple at Jerusalem. Similarly in 
I Sam. 14, 3 iS; 31, 10; s:, 18; 23, 6 9; 30, 7, it is evident that 
the sacred box could in no conceivable way be identified with the 
(supposedly Sinaitic) box of Yahwe Militant, which in i Sam. 7, i 



had been lo^:ed in the house of Abiiiadab at Kirjath-jearim, and 
which remained there until removed to Jerusalem by David in 
3 Sam. 6. All this in addition to the circumstance that, directly 
or indirectly, every one of these refractory passages betrayed the 
fact that it had to do with an ordinary and plural instrument of 
divination, rather than with a unique receptacle for the two tables 
of stone inscribed with the Sinaitic Law. 

Happily, in one manuscript (from which our Masoretic text of 
Samuel is descended) the tran^ormation of the sacred box into 
the "ephod" was n^Jected in i Sam. 14, 18; with the conse- 
quence that later on, when perhaps the recollection of what the 
" ephod " represented bad passed away, the difficulty was awk- 
-wardly met by the purposed mutilation of the second half of that 
verse. It was of course only the eventually mutilated half-verse 
i8b, /or he carried the sacred box before Israel that day, which clearly 
affirmed that the box was present in the camp of Saul, and which 
■was therefore utterly irreconcilable with Jewish doctrine. With 
i8b onrupted beyond recognition, i8a of itself could be q>eciou5ly 
interpreted as merely expressing Saul's desire that the box of Yahwe 
might be broi^ht to him from Kirjath-jearim. 

In other passages where we might expect it, the substitution of 
TtfiK for trw was never attempted in any manuscript, i Kings 
2, 36 could, at a pinch, be understood to refer to the box of 3 Sam. 
15, 24-29 and the Solomonic temple (cf. G) — as it has been since, 
by both Jewish and Christian scholars; while the sacred box of 
Judges 20, 37 had been identified with the " box of the CoveiLant " 
through the addition of the midrash concerning the High Priesthood 
of Phinehas in verse 28a, as well as by the insertion of the Deutero- 
nomistic nns .' 

> The renuunbg passages of the older litentuie, in whidi die (not too obtnisively 
oncnlai) sacred box has been retained, oSenA of course no difficulty. Not mere^ 
were they easQy reconciled with the theoiy of a sin^ Sinaitic box; they were laigdy 
reqionsible for it, their seveial boxes having been identified seriatim with the " box 
of the Covenant," by means of the Deuteimomistic gloss rn3; cf. Num. 10, 33; 14, 
44; Josh. 3, 3, etc.; i Sam. 4, 38; a Sam. 15, 14; i flings 3, 15; 6, 19; 8, i 6; 
Jer.3,16. Even Deut. 10, 8; 31,9 15 lOihouldpTobaUybeindudediQ thiscategory. 




It must not be supposed, however, that i Sam. 14, i8b furnishes 
the only instance of a device other than the substitution of nwK 
for ridding the text of an embarras^g tnK . In Judges 18, 27 the 
Masoretic text, which is reproduced in all the ancient versicms, 
now reads: '» px\ nm nsv nvo nmt hm mjf? nom. It is ^parent 
that the words o'cnnn nm p^ttn have been struck out bodily before 
lEW . Jerome's paraphrase expressed very well his sense of the ddib- 
erate avmdance involved: Sexcenti auiem viri tukrunt sacerdotem et 
quae supra diximus. In i Sam. 31, 10 the words TEwn nnK of the 
Masoretic text have no counterpart in G^, and were undoubtedly 
lacking in both the Alexandrian version and its Hebrew prototype. 
That is, instead of being replaced by -nCKn nnK , the troublesome 
phrase p-iKn nnK had been eliminated entirely in some earher 
manuscript. Similarly in i Sam. 30, 7 the clause nK nn'3K rn 
in ^ (hbkh), which is lacking in G^ (reminding one of the muti- 
lated second half of 14, 18 in M), had obviously been struck out 
of the ancestor of G. In all these cases the excision doubtless took 
place before the alteration of jnx to iiDM had been effected. 

More interesting than any of these cases of evident amputation 
is the corrupt, though universally attested, text of i Sam. 15, 33. 
Here Samuel is rebuking Said for his failure to " devote ' ' completely 
the Amalekites and all their substance, as commanded by Yahwe. 
In reply to Saul's plea that his pious followers had but saved out 
some of the sheep and oxen for a sacrifice to Yahwe in Gilgal, 
Samuel retorts, Does Yahwe delight in humt^^erings and sacrifices, 
as in listening to the voice of Yahwe T Behold, obedience is better 
than sacrifice, and hearkening than the fat of rams. Then follow the 
words: inn Cfinm |iki no DDp nmsn '3. This sentence has been 
cqiied, translated, and expounded; but from the days of the 
Alexandrian interpreters to the present moment, no one has suc- 

ny sense into it. The interpretation of our own 
is as good and as bad as any: For rebellion is 

tft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry — 


I SAUUEL 15, 33 131 

-vrliich puts the cart bdore tlie horse in both clauses, mistranslates 
more than cme word, and then yields only a nerveless and remote 
Ikanality. Yet the interpretation is very easy, if only we will read 
frw for pM , and will not insist <m making Samuel talk like a rabbi. 
V^t he is represented as saying is: For a sin against the oracle is 
veb^ion, and box and lerapkim are not to be gainsaid (literally, are 
otUgation) ! On Dop riKDn cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 h; and for 
a similar use of the infinitive absolute in the predicate, cf. Isa. 33, 
17; optm T\pTtn myo . . . n*m, and the product of righteousness 
shail be tranquilisation. Of course the original expression was the 
same here as in Judges 17 f ; and an 'ntut , we may be sure, would 
never have been altered to pK .' For the rest, whether the tradi- 
ticnal reading pit was derived from an original pM by the change 
of T to 1, or from an original jnx by the dropping of the i, is a 
pdnt we need not undertake to decide. Nor need we concern 
ourselves with the question whether the above apothegm originated 
with the author of the story of Saul's war against the Amalekites, 
or was an old and current saying which he quoted. It is enou^ 
for our purposes that neither text nor interpretation admits of any 
question whatsoever. 


For the reader whose patience has been equal to the inordinate 
demands made upon it, the results of our study may be summed up 
in few words. 

Our idea of the Israelitish ephod must be formed exclusively on 
the basis of the two passages i Sam. 2, 18 and 2 Sam. 6, 14 (= i 
ChnHi. 15, 37), supplemented by the descripti<ms of its more ornate 
but essentially identical successor, the ephod of the Jewish High 
Priest, contained in the Priest Code of the P^tateuch and in later 

' Wellhausen long ago suggested that tynini pM in this passage was equivalent 
to (not substituted for, u Foole reports, t. c, p. 40) the phrase □<E*im TIDK ol 
Judges 17 f and Hos. 3, 4; but he persisted in coostruiiig inri as subject instead of 
predicate, and made no attempt to acoouut for the continued use of D*tnn though 
(aa he supposed) -PDM was abandoned loi pK. See Bleek-Wellhaiuen, BMeUtM^, 
p. 316; Bilcher Samudit, p. 100. 



Jewish writings. The ephod, then, was nothing but the primitive 
loincloth, transfonned, like the Arabian u3r, into a cerenuHiial 
apron, and worn by all persons, old or young, priest or lay, when 
esigaged in solemn religious exercises in the immediate presoice of 
the deity. So in the rdgn of David; and so still when the story 
of Samuel was writtesi, some time in the seventh century. This 
ceremonial garment survived into the post-exilic period; but in 
the ritual of the Seomd Temple and the corresponding Priestly 
legislation of the Pentateuch its use was limited to the EKgh Priest, 
possibly because in the Jewish system the latter was the only per- 
son allowed to enter the divine presence. Neither in the practice 
of pre-exilic times nor in the Aartmic theory of Judaism had the 
^hod any direct relation to the oracles of Yahwe or to the oracular 
function of the priesthood; althou^ it is probable enough that 
the pre-eziUc priest — and perh^H ordinarily the lay enquirer — 
actually assumed the ephod during the consultation of the oracle. 
Judaism itself — as distinguished from its theoretical reconstruc- 
tion of the Mosaic age — never in fact had any such thing as an 
oracle of Yahwe. 

Our descripticm of the box of Yahwe, on the other hand, must 
take account not only of those passages in the older literature where 
the mention of it has been preserved intact, but also of all those 
more significant passages in which the box has been replaced by the 
solid " qihod," and likewise of i Sam. 15, 33, where an original 
(rut has been altered to |u<. 

The box of Yahwe was thus a plural object, onployed by the 
Israelitish priests as their professional organ of divination. It was of 
course a box — there can no longer be any question as to that. 
Nor, as an instrument of divination, was it peculiar to the religicm 
of Israel and the oracles of Yahwe.* On the contrary, the existence 
of the antecedoit appellative dt/m |nK , a sacred box, implies that 
it was a conmion Palestinian institution, as familiar to the non- 

I A pwalld, periupa more curious Uun idevsnt, ia the olive wood omde-bos U 
PneoMte, deaoibed by Ciceio, De iinmOioM, n, 41; cf. Boudi£ Lcdeicq, H i it oi n 
it la DiniuUtm, IV, p. 149. 



Israelidsh inhabitants of Canaan as was, for ezamfde, the func- 
tiraiaiy called trn^ rit, or the establishment called a-rfnt TVS. 
The expression D'niw jn» was pretty certainly of Palestinian origin. 
AVhether the thing itself was known to the Israelites under anoth^ 
name b^ore their settlement in Canaan, we have no means of 
saying. The earUest historical sacred boxes of which we have record 
date from the period of the Judges. 

Practically the box served as a repository for the sacred lots and 
as the recq>tacte from which those lots were drawn. In theory, it 
was of course much more; since a smaller and more pliable object 
would have served the purpose of a mere receptacle quite as well. 
There can in fact be little doubt that the sacred box was conceived 
of as a miniature temple, which actually housed the spirit of the 
divinity at the moment when the diq>osition of the sacred lots was 
being effected — a sort of shrine or refuge within which the numen 
could work its mysterious spell upon the lots while shielded Iiom 
the scrutiny of the human eye. And when once a box had been so 
tenanted, it was naturally sacred for ever after. 

Ordinarily the sacred box was not too large to be carried by a 
smgle person; cf. i Sam. 14, iS; 23, 9; 30, 7; i Kings 2, 26; and 
perhaps we should add Judges 18,20. Not merely when being con* 
veyed from cme place to another, but also, and more particularly, 
during the formal act of consultation, the box was carried by the 
I»iest; cf. Deut. 10, 8; i Sam. 2, 28; 14, 18; i Kings 2, a6. We 
may suf^wse that it was supported by means of a strap passing 
over the shoulders and around the neck, somewhat after the faahion 
of a modem barrel organ.* 

Before the sacred box thus borne by the priest, the lay enquirer 
took his stand and himself put the question, invoking the deity 
with full, sonorous title, bunf ^nhtt mn^; cf. i Sam. 14, 41*; 33, 
10. In the case of the box e^>edally dedicated to Yahiee Militant, 

t It !■ budy ponible tluit this may be the ultimate origm of the twin nDTO or 
dwulder iti^w which nqjported the jvn of the Jewish High Priest in later timet. 

■ hvt before ^ine" 'njitt mn* ii denriy impowible, legudleM of the teatinwiiy of 
the Sqttoa^t text. 



the invocation was of course '?vnv ^rhut remax nvr; cf. 2 Sam. 6, 
18; Isa. 37, 16. The questions were invariably such as couM be 
answered witii a simple yes or no, or else they called for the selec- 
tion of one of two equally distinct alternatives; cf. i Sam. 14, 37 
41; 33, loff; 30, 8; 2 Sam. s, 19. Even such a response as that of 
3 Sam. 3, lb will have been secured by the same method. Throu^ 
some sort of aperture (cf. i Sam. 6, 19) es^iecially provided for the 
purpose, the priest introduced his hand into the box, and, after an 
appreciable length of time (cf . i Sam. 14, ig) ^>ent either in mani- 
pulating its contents or in reciting some formula, drew out the 
lots; which he proceeded to interpret to the enquirer in a angle 
sentence, conforming the language of the answer to that of the 

From the fact that on occasion no categorical answer was forth- 
coming (cf. I Sam. 14, 37; 28, 6), it is evident that the lots cannot 
have consisted of two single objects of opposite value. Nor, ance 
the lots were not cast out of the box but drawn, is it likely that 
astralagi were employed. On the other hand, that the lots counted 
of a considerable number of small objects (perhaps pebbles of varie- 
gated aq}ect) is suggested by the technical phrase « f nK k^ = 
to incest with the priesthood; which, since the most important func- 
tion of the priest was divination, will probably refer to his induction 
into office by " filling his hand " with the sacred lots. However 
that may be, we can be sure that the manipulation and interpreta- 
tion of the sacred lots was not so simple a matter as to be learned 
by any bystander through casual observation of one or two per- 

The prevalent asnimptioo, that while ve do not know the exact nature or 
number of the sacred lots, we do know their names, will not bear eiamination. 
It is, to say the least, extremely problematical whether any such coirelative 
and antithetical terms as Vrim and Thummim existed in pre-exilic Hebrew 
usage. O'niK alone is evidenced by i Sam. a8, 6; where the context unmis- 
takably indicates the comprehensive meaning priestly orada, and precludes a 
reference to one of two complementary dements. F's own use of the wwd in 
the ostensibly ancient phrase DniKn DCBU (Num. 97, ai) also demands this 
inteipretatvm. And in this sense it was still employed by Ben Sira in a pas- 
sage whid), unfortunately, has not been preserved in the original Hebrew 



C33, 3b). Tbs good Hebrew w<ad DmK — fiboK traditional vocalization is 
nnezfxptionable — will then be in some way cognate to mm.' 

For the c(}rTelated and assonant but etymologically questionable Disn ,' on 
the other hand, there is do respectable pre-ezilic testimony whatever. In i Sam. 
14, 41 the simple idiomatic 0*DT1 nn ( ■■ xouchsafe a true atutetr) of the Ma- 
soretic text is — against all modem authorities — to be preferred to the 
patently inflated Greek reading; cf. a Sam. 30, 18; Judges g, 16 19; Amos 
5, 8. The plus of the Sqptuagjnt represents, not a better text, but a late in- 
terpolation baaed on the Pentateuchal law. The slovenly xal tiv riSt clirv -• 
-mr ra am (cf. the inteipolated 3 Sam. 15, 26) alone makes this certain.* 
Ezra 3, 63 ( — N^ 7, 65) is of course baaed upon our Pentateuch. So that it 
is more than hkely that the QHIK and D*Dn of Ex. a8, 30 and Lev. 8, 8 rest 
upon nothing but P's combination of i Sam. a8, 6 (and the otherwise current 
D^Ut) with I Sam. 14, 41. Nor is the mystifying passage Deut. 33, 8 by any 
means conclusive against this view. For Deut. 33 is, at least in its present form, 
dononstrably poet-ezilic; and the vorse in question (which is addressed, not 
to Yohwe, but to Levi) unmistakably limits the custody and manipulation of 
the tribal " Thummim " and " Urim " to a singlt person (Tl'Bn t"K — 
1*Dnn IITK) ; who, since Moses is the speaker, must be Aaronl — with con- 
fused reminiscence of Num. 16, Ex. 17, 7, and Num. 30, 1-13. 

In connection with this whole question the significant fact should not be 
overioc^ed, that although, as we have seen,* " Urim and Thummim " were 
entirely unknown after the Exile, and P could not assume the slightest familiar- 
ity with them on the part of his readers, he nevertheless made no attempt what- 
ever to describe them, not even indicating the material <A which they were 
made; and this in qute of his pedantic and meticulous circumstantiality re- 
garding all the other accoutrements of " Aaron." ' Apparently DniK and 

* Hardly, however, tiuough Babylonian Urtu and tirlu; as MuBs-AmoIt, Ameriam 
Jounml t^ Semitic LoMguages, XVI, 1900, pp. iiS, 313. 

' We should expect D'O'DFl for the plural of a concrete object. 

* The Ludanic koI d rii* dnu is much more likely to be an amelioration of the 
test of GB than is the latter to be a comption of the fomier. Compare also the 
manifest in£atiou of the parallel invocation of i Sam. 33, lof; idiere all of vene 10 
from JKV, besides the first four words al vene 11 and the secMid ^tne" *n^K ffliT, 
must be rejected. 


* The fact that while minute directions are given for the fabrication of every other 
pait of the High Priest's equipment, none whatever are given for the Urim and Thum- 
mim, and tliat it b nowhere stated that tlie latter were manufactured by the artificeTB 
of Mosei, was noticed by the rabbis of the Middle Agra; in particular by Moses ben 
Naif man, who buttressed with it the rabbinical theory that Urim and Tliununim were 
nothing but insoqitions or engravings of the ineffable Name. See the Taigum Yeiu- 
■hahni and the rabUnical commentaries on Ex. 18, 30, and Buxtc»f the younger'i 
Histona Urim et Tkummim, Basel, iSsg, pp. 183, 284. 



□*t3n were piuely fictitious labels which he concocted on the bass of putaget 
dealing with divin&tioD in the older literature, and which answered to nothing 
objective even in his own imagination. The vocalization D*ttn ia of couiie 
chargeable to the synagogue. 

The question naturally suggests itself whether the term D*B^, which is 
coupled with the priestly organ of divinatiou in Judges 17 f and 1 Sam. 15, aj, 
may not after all lepiesent collectively the lots emf^yed in connection with 
the sacred box. Such a view would find support in 3 Kings 33, 34; Ek. 3i, 
36; Zech. 10, 3; nor would it be contradicted by Gen. 31, ig 34 35. But it 
would involve the assumption that at least in i Sam. ig, 13 16 D'lnn has 
been substituted for some other word. Cf. in this connection Moore's Com- 
mentary m Judges, p. 383. Nothing is at times more difficult than to penetrate 
the fog in which Judaism has enveloped its heathen antecedents. 

At least during the so-called period of the Judges and well into 
the rdgn of Solomon, an oracidar box of Yahwe such as we have 
described existed wherever there was a sanctuary of Yahwe in 
the custody of a consecrated priesthood. In fact, it constituted 
the central and ntost venerated object in every such sanctuary 
(cf. Judges 8, 27; I Sam. 4, 13 18; i King 6, 19) and the indis- 
pensable concomitant of every such priesthood (cf. Judges 17, 5; 
I Sam. 23, 18). 

For the period of the Judges, there is credible record of the exis- 
tence of a sacred box of extraordinary magnificence > in a sanctuary 
at the Ephraimite town of Ophrah, whose establishment tradi- 
tion ascribed to Gideon (Judges 8, 27). And reaching back mto 
the same period there was a sacred box — as we should expect — 
at the important Israelitish sanctuary of Dan (Judges 18, 37^, 
and another at the equally important Israelitish sanctuary of 
Bethel (Judges 30, 27). At the andent sanctuary of Shilob (Judges 
21, 19 ff) there was a box, apparently more remarkable for its size 
than for its intrinsic value, especially dedicated to Yahwe MiUtant 

' At tbli point It b legidmste enough to queiy whether the 1700 ihekeli of gold 

repieaented as having gone into the msnufactuie of that box ihould not be taken 

with a grain of ult. But tlie ewentlal fact of the eziatence of thi* ezceptionaUy vahi- 

rated box 11 confirmed by the qipendcd comment of the Deuteronomistic 

Ditancei of gold or gold-plated delty-boxe* among neighboring peoples 

ice Blhr, SymicUk i«t motaiichw KnUtu, I, pp. 483 f, and the teferaces 



(i Sam. 4, 3 0> under which title the national deity was worshipped 
there (cf. i Sam. i, 3). And a little later, in the reign of Saul, we 
meet a casual reference to " the box " of the sanctuary at Nob 
(i Sam. 21, 10) which clearly implies that a like object was to be 
found at ttie time in every gimilar establishment. 

Not only at great public sanctuaries, such asOphrah, Dan, 
Bethel, Shiloh, and Nob, but even in the chapels of well-to-do 
private citizens who could afford the luxury of a domestic du^lain, 
the sacred box was apparently to be found. Such at least, accord- 
ing to tradition, had been the original home of the sacred box of 
Dan (Judges 17 f). 

The box of Yahwe was consulted by all sorts of people under all 
sorts of drcumstances (Judges 8, 33; 17, 5 13; i Sam. 23, 13; cf. 
Jer. 3, 16). But of course its counsels were most highly prized in 
connection with military enterprises (Judges 18, 5 f ; 20, 27; i 
Sam. 14, 18 36 f; 23, 10 ff; 30, 8; 2 Sam. 2, 1; 5, 19). Accord- 
ingly we find a sacred box with its attendant priest regularly ac- 
cmnpanying the royal forces on their military expeditions, both in 
the reign of Saul (t Sam. 14, tSb, as restored) and in the rdgn of 
David (2 Sam. 11, 11; 15, 34). And early in his career, while 
leading the life of an outlaw diief , David had eagerly welcomed the 
accession of a fugitive priest with a box of Yahwe (i Sam. 32, 23; 
33, 6), which he never thereafter omitted to comult.* 

The box which figures most prominently in the history of Israel 
is the above-moitioned Shilonite box of Yakwe Militant. Its story 
is too familiar to need rehearsal. The first mention of it occurs in 
connecticm with its removal from Shiloh to be carried into battle 
(i Sam. 4), at an early stage in the omtest between Israelites and 
Philistines for the control of Canaan; while the last — after its 
capture by the Philistines, return to Israelitish territory, long resid- 
aice at Elirjath-jearim, removal to Jerusalem, and lodgment in the 
sanctuary of David — relates to its final installation in the VTt 
or sanctum of Solomon's temple which had been e^>ecially prepared 
for its reception (i Kings 8). 

* The onuDltMionatrf i Stun. 33, 3-4 tat qnuious. 



From the point of view adopted in this essay the question of the 
ultimate fate of this individual sacred box loses much of its import- 
ance. It is not likely that the box was of suffident intrinsic value to 
tempt the cupidity of any one of the successive (direct or indirect) 
spoilers of the Solomonic temple, whether Sbishak (i Kings 14, 
26), Hazael (2 Kings 12, 18), Tiglathpileser (2 Kings 16, 8), Sen- 
nacherib (2 Kings 18, 15 f), or Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25, 13 S). 
Nor, since it was far from being the unique national fetich it has 
been supposed, would even Joash of Israel (2 Kings 14, 14) have 
had any interest in removing it. If it survived the ravages of four 
hundred years — which, for a plain wooden box at least fifty years 
old at the outset, housed in a damp sttme building not seldom 
out of repair, is rather doubtful — it will have perished in the 
flames when the temple of Solomon was finally destroyed.' But 
more probably it fell into decay before 586 B.C., and was not 

For long before the disappearance of the last vestige of Israelitish 
independaice in 586 B.C., the institution of priestly divinatiem by 
means of the box of Yahwe had given place, in official circles, to 
the more direct and comprehensive method of ascertaining the 
divine will through the instrumentality of inspired human speech — 
the institution of prophecy; which, though originating on the 
lowest plane of animistic superstition, and afitording great scope 
for quackery and pathological aberration, nevertheless held within 
itself the germs of umlimited religious progress and the highest 
moral elevation. In i Sam. 28, 6 consultation of Yahwe by means 
of prophecy is carried back to the reign of Saul, though only as an 
alternative to the priestly oracles; with what justification, how- 
ever, we have no means of determining. But there can be no ques- 
tion that by the middle of the ninth coitury the new institution 
[)planted piiestiy divination at the court of the kings 
ags 22, 5 fi), and ibat by the time of Isaiah it had 
iblished itself in the kingdom of Judah as well 

ICC a, 4 ff) would have been the list person in the worid to concen 
ntion; ci)nq»ue page 75, above. 



Nevertheless, the oM practice continued to be followed in out of 
the way places and among the lower ordeis of the pe(q>le down to 
the very end of the pre-exilic period (Jer. 3, 16) ; • while the language 
of sacerdotal circles never ceased to identify the priestly office and 
|U«rogative with the ancient ri^t to bear the box of Yahwe (i Sam. 
3, 2%; Deut. 10, 8; cf. Deut. 31, 9 2$ 36). Nor did the imagina^ 
tive writers of the period, whai treating of the early days of Israel's 
history, he^tate to project backwards into the days of Moses and 
Joshua just such an individual box oj Yakwe as had accompanied 
the armies of Saul and David in later times. For so we must inter- 
pret the rdle of the imaginary box oJ Yahwe in Num. 10, 33 35 36; 
14, 44, and in the pre-ezihc stratum of Joshua 3-8.* 

Not until some time after the tenq>le of Solomon had been swept 
away — hardly much before 500 b.c. — did it occur to anyone to 
question the original purpose of the Solomonic box. This transition 
from the box of historical fact and historical imagination to the 
box of Jewish dogma was effected by means of two correlated 
sets of interpolations, the one in Deut. 10, 1-5, the other in i 
Kings 8, 9 21.* The original stories of the Sinaitic tables of stone 
had nothing to say about a box — naturally enough, for public 
laws are not put under a bushel. And the original story of the box 
of the Solomonic temple had nothing to say about two Sinaitic 
tables of stone. By means of these two sets of interpolations, a 
box was wrapped about the Sinaitic tables of stone in Deut. 10, 
and the Sinaitic tables of stone were thrust into the box of the 
Solomonic temple in i Kings 8. It should be noticed, however, 

> Possibly we should infer fnnn the mendon of D*inn in a Kings 33, 94 that Jouah 
dntioycd a few sundving sacred boxes, which were still tued for divination, in the 
\mi„*A\ittr vidnity of Jenualem. 

Whether the two priests (cf. Jomwil trf BibUcal IMtratun, XXXI, 191a, p. at) of 
the Judean t«"pl* at Elqdumtine practiced divioation in the name of Yahwe, we 
cannot say- The p^iyri funusb no evidence of it. On the passage b the Tensile 
Psf^nis luppoaed by Sachau to contain the report of such an orade, see Ezcunus H, 

■ The formulae of Num. 10, 35 f, if historical, will reflect the usage of later times. 
Iliey make the impreaaion, however, of having been composed ad hoe, and by an 
■naotator at that. 

■ Cf. page s, V3*» I. 



that nothing was further from the mind of the DeutercKiomistic 
^ossatois than to efface the traces of the oracular institution of 
the early days. On the contrary, they were concerned merely 
with differetUiatmg the box of the legitimate Solomonic sanctuary 
at Jerusalem from the other boxes of Yahwe mentioned in the 
andoit Uterature. With that object in view, the above-mentioned 
interpolations were supplemented by the methodical insertion of 
the distinguishing genitive rra in a whole series of passages con- 
necting the box of I Kings 8, on the one hand, with that which 
accompanied the Israelites away from Sinai in Num. lo, 33, on 
the other. The box of Yahwe Militant was easily followed back to 
the days of Eli; beyond which it was identified, first with that of 
the sanctuary at Bethel, which had been vraerated by all Israel 
during the war against the Benjamites (Judges 3o, 27), and then 
with the box of Josh. 3-8, Deut. 31, and Num. 10 and 14. Simul- 
taiLeously with these emendations of the existing texts, certain 
more extaiave expansions of the story of Joshua anplc^ed for the 
first time the genuinely Deuteronomistic expresaon Tvan |ntt 
0osh. 3, 6, etc.). 

It was in this state of the text that the Priestly document of the 
Pentateuch was composed; in which the now thoroughly estab- 
lished unique Sinaitic " box of the Covenant " was made to figure 
as the " box of the Testimony." Unlike the Deuteronomists, P 
would not recognize that another kind of " box of Yahwe " had 
ever existed, but replaced the orade-box of the older days with the 
moffensive tm of the High Priest, to which were attached the in- 
coriwreal entities he called onw and D^on. What disposition P 
would have made of the pat^tly non-Mosaic sacred b<nes of the 
older historical writings if he had ccmtinued his narrative beyond 
the days of Joshua, we caimot say. The Chronicler simply ignores 
them, as he ignores everything else that is inconvoiient. And so 
long as the Pentateuch alone furnished the Scripture reading of the 
synagogue, they could continue to be ignored. But with the gen- 
eral drculattcm of the Prophetic Canon, those disconcerting wit- 
nesses to the plural and divinatory character of the historical box 



of Yahwe, and to the factitious character of the Hi^ Priestly |vn , 
had to be sileiiced. They vere very effectively silenced; in one pas- 
sage by the alteration of init to IM, in others by the mutiiatiw 
of the traditional text, but for the most part by the systematic 
substitution of *nui for jrm. 




In spite of all that has been written on the subject of the divine 
name Yahae $ebaolh, there continues to be much uncertainty and 
not a little positive misai^rehenaion both as regards the historical 
connotation of the phrase and as regards its original and essential 

On the subject of the purport of the qualifying word rmtav much 
cosmological nonsense has been uttered. But the customary re- 
jtnnder, that the plural of Kiv occurs otherwise in the Old Testa- 
ment only of armies of men, is too superficial and not quite to the 
point. The grammadcal number is not of itself conclusive; and 
those who hold that nwaa refers to the armies of Israel are only a 
little less misguided than those who hold that it refers to the armies 
of heaven. 

The fact is, the most serious obstacle in the way of the correct 
understanding of the expression has been the prevalent and mis- 
leading German rendmng, Jakoeh der Beerscharm. This is an 
equivalent, not of Hebrew ninny mrr, but of Hebrew rnttytn mrr, 
and naturally raises the question, " What hosts ? " — about which 
factitious question the discussions of the subject have hitherto 

The pertinent and decisive facts are, first, mnyt is indeterminate; 
and second, the word is an adjecHval genitive. To serve the purpose 
of an adjectival genitive, the noun must be employed in its generic 
form; which, in the case of a word not intrinsically goieric, is 

> For the litenturc of the subject, and a. comprehensive presentation of the CHd 
Testament data and the ccKite&duig opiniiHU of modem schokn, lee the article by' 
EMitzsch, PrcUtlanHidu StaUncyUcpadUf XXI, pp. 631 ff. A full tabular survey of 
the occurrences of the name — more ambitious than critical — is given by LShr, 
VtOaniehtmifin mm Buck Amw (Beihefte zur ZATW, IV), pp. 38 ff. 



necessarily the plural. So the Hebrew says onit rtt, kuman pith 

geny; but it must say Tfvvn mr, male progeny, because r"K is not 

intrinsically gaieric, but singular. K3it is a single army 01 military 

expedition *; Main le* is ^ commander oj the army, the commander- 

it^-ckief; aad a commander-in-chief is accordingly K3V "vp {2 Sam. 

3, 8; 19, 14; I Kings 16, 16). But o miliiary commander (one of 

a. number) is mtaxip; cf. nituif np, military commanders, Deut. 

ao, 9*; '>¥r\zr nwM nc 'Jt?, (the) two Israeliiish military com- 

tnanders, i Kings a, 5.' niiwx mn' is therefore, not Yahwe 0} the 

Armies, whether Israelitish or celestial, but the plainest sort of 

Hebrew for the military Yahwe = Yakwt on the War-Path, Yahwe 

Miatant. nmxt is seen to be no definition, but just such an epithet 

as would be Yahwe " the Victorious." 

A few citations may serve to demonstrate the fitness of this inter- 
pretation. Josh. 6, 16 f : " And Joshua said unto the people, 
Shout! for Yahwe hath given you the dty. And the dty shall be 
devoted (irin), it and all that is therein, unto Yahwe Militant [with 
Gj." I Sam. IS, 2 f; " Thus saith Yahwe Militant, I am mindful 
of what Amalek did to Israel, how he arrayed himself against him 
in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite 
Amalek, and devote him and all that is his. And thou shall not spare 
faim; but shalt slay man and woman, child and suckling, ox and 
sheep, camel and ass." Isa. 13, 4: " A soimd of a multitude in the 
mountains, like as a great people! a sound of a tumult of kingdoms, 
nations gathraed together I Yakwe Militant mustering an army for 

' It is possible that two oiigiiully diitiuct noims, saba' and >ab'a(fi, have coalesced 
intheHehrew K3V. 

* lliis is niuufestly Dot a case where GcseniuS'Eautzsch (1149 (cf. Kflnig, Lehrge- 
bttuie, n, pp. 43S f; ni, pp. aij can tpply. Horeovcr, the imtsDcea prc^ieriy ad- 
duced tmdei that luhric — where we have a clearcaseof the attraction of the genitive 
into the number of the construct — are synq>tomatk of degeneiate Hebrew, 

' So, in q)ite of i Kings 3, 33. The emphasis is cm the word " Israelitish "; whidi 
common natioiuLlity should have protected both Abnei the Ben jamite and Amasa the 
Judahite. Had David intended fit Am commanders-vt-diitf af the lirodiluh army, he 
would have said '?K1V tUY "^V ""iV. In i Kings i, 35 tatn ntC* must be coRccted 
to K3Sn tVi cf. the Ludanic Greek and verse ig. The usage of the Chronicler may 
be disregarded. 



battlel " Jer. 46, 10: " It shall be a day of vengeance for Yakwe 
Militant, that he may avenge him of his enemies. And the sword 
shall devour and be satiated, and be made drunk with their blood. 
For there is to be o sacrifice to Yahwe Mililant in the north country 
by the river Euphrates." Ps. 24, 8 10: " And who is the king of 
^ory ? Yahwe strong and mighty, Yahwe mighty in battle. . . . 
And who is the king of glory ? Yahwe Militant, he is the king of 
^ory." Of course, Yahwe Militant may turn against his own 
people on occasion; Isa. 6, 9 ff, etc. 

With this construction of the name, one must travel far to readi 
the stars. Doubtless its original connotation was not always present 
to the consciousness of the Jews of later times, and it came to be 
identified, in a vague way, with the conception of God as the Irre- 
sisiiHe (t(utokp&tup). But to maintain that, even in later times, 
the Deity was called nitUX mrr with conscious reference to his con- 
trol of the " armies " of the heavenly bodies, the angels, the world 
of demons, or the forces of the universe, is much the same as if one 
should assert that a modem industrial magnate, who happens to 
be named John Smith, is called so with refermce to the transconti- 
nental lines of railway which he " forges." 

On the other hand, the theory continues to be entertuned among 
Old Testament scholars, that the original form of the name was 
(i) mtfsm *iiVk mm, and that this was Subsequently shortoied, 
first to (2) mas *.-i^n mn*, and then to (3) rmsi mm. This theory 
turns the whole body of the Old Testament evidence upside down 
and inEdde out. 

The foim (3) is frequently employed by the prophet Isaiah; 
whereas neither (i) nor (3) occurs anywhere in the Book of Isaiah.* 
(3) is used constantly by the prq>het Jeremiah *; (i) never occurs 
in the Book of Jeremiah; and in the five passages where (3) occurs 
(5i M; 15. 16; 35, 17; 38, 17; 44, 7), the SeptLii^;int shows that 
the 'rfrw of the Masoretic text is interpolated in every case — as 

■ In the " Seotmd Iiatth " even (3) occnn only by intapoktian: 44, 6; 45, 13; 
47. 4i 48.3; 5i>i5i 54>5- 

■ On the teatimoiiy of the Septiugint, Me below. 



indeed is sufficiently attested by the absence (in classical Hebrew) 
of the article bdote rmuv, required to put the word ur/m into 
formal apposition with the determinate prc9>er name mrp. In good 
Hebrew, nuat '•rfnt nvf can only be Yakwe is a mililary deity. 
(3) occurs constantly in Haggai, Zechariah (including chapters 9- 
14), and Malacbi; as well as twice in Zephaniah, once in Habak- 
kuk, once in an anonymous prophecy in Micah, and twice (though 
only through the editorial insertion of mtax after nvr of the 
original prophecy) in Nahum. But in none of these do we ever 
find dther (i) or (2). 

The erroneous theory above-mentioned is based principally on 
what are assumed to be among the earliest occurrences of the name, 
in the writings of Amos and Hosea. But the fact is that neither 
(i), (2), nor (3) is to be found in the authentic utterances of either 
prophet, (i) occurs in Amos 3, 13; 6, 14; Hosea 12, 6; (2) in 
Amos 4, 13; 5, 14 15 16 27; 6, 8; (3), remarkably enough, occurs 
nowhere in Amos or Hosea,^ although Amos 9, 5 exhibits tlie im- 
jKJssible form niKnim mrr = tfu Yakwe 0} the armies (Yahwe not 
' charactoized, but defined !), where, however, the Septuagint has (i). 
But Amos 3, 13 f is interpolated entire. The same is true of Amos 
4, i2b-i3; 5, 13-15; and 5, 25-27. In Amos 5, 16 'nie muyt 'n^ 
(after nvi<) obviously represents successive interpolations, fii^t of 
*rTM, and tlien of rnmx ti^k. In Amos 6 it needs no argument or 
Septuagmt evidence to show that niM3y(n) -rh* nn> dm is inter- 
polated after ^tmxi nvi' jaxn in verse 8, and before the belated ^ 
in verse 14. That at least verses 5 and 6 of Amos 9 are inter- 
polated, is universally admitted. Finally, that Hosea 12, 6, mm 
rat mrr nwavn -rfm, and pretty much the whole chapter, was 
written by a pompous but muddled scribe, tolerably familiar with 
OUT Genesis-Kings, should require no demonstration. 

Besides the passages disposed of, there are only four occurrences 
of (2) and none at all of (i) in the Old Testament. In a Sam. 5, 10 

> It is pertuqw not without ugnificance, that in the authentic piophcdes which 
have come down to us, the title rtlMSY Hlil^ is finten^iloyed by Isaiah (d. chatter 61), 
■nd thereafter only by prophets who gerdaed their office noder the idisdow of the 
Jerusalem sanctuary. Cf. p. 38 above. 



^n^K is lacking in B and most manusciq)ts of the Septuagint, as well 
as in the parallel text ol i Chton. 11, 9; while in i Kii^ 19, 10, 
and again in the identical verse 14, ••rhtt is not in the S<ptu^:int. 
Finally, the line Ps. 89, 9a is obviously overweighted ; but, admittii^ 
that *niiK is original, the psafan itself can hardly be older than the 
scribal interpolations above-mentioned. 

The manifestly hybrid forma, nwcas B'n^K fn.T of Ps. 59, 6; 80, 
S so; 84, 9, where a supralinear aurrt^ate for mn' has been me- 
chanically dropped into the line, and mtux wn'jvt of Ps. 80, 8 15, 
where the same surrogate has replaced mn% need not detain us. 

It is apparent that there is no respectable evidence whatever for 
the historical and Intimate existence of any form of the name but 
nvtyt mn'. The rest, nnoxn tt^k mn*, mttyt 'nlw nvr, and mm 
l¥iK3:tn — which latter is really no worse than the other two — are 
the tardy product of slovenly scribes, with little concern for the 
exact purport or the original construction of the historic name. 

Nevertheless, it is not likely that the illegitimate forms were de- 
liberatdy coined. Rather they were blundered into. And there can 
be little doubt that they owe their origin to the use of rmyt ^rfm 
as an oral surrogate of Tmys mn\ For when *nM was used at all 
in this connecrion in the early synagogue, it mmt have r^laced the 
entire name,* since mnrt 'rite was not, as yet, a construable expres- 
sion. This subsritutionary 'nii« being occasionally written into the 
text, resulted in the conflate form m«x 'nixt mn», pronounced 
Ttmxt ^rh» <nK. And spontaneous grammatical adjustment — 
which, it should be noted, appears only in cases where the entire 
name is of scribal ccmtribution — produced in turn the form mm 
mK3»n >rhin* for which nmaxn mm 'tik of Amos 9, 5 was merdy a 
differmi spelling.* It is not too much to say that the very existence 

' Aa (nun necessarily did in lu. i, 14; 3, i; ». 16 (cf. G); 10, 33; 19,4 (d. G). 
So the •TIM of niKnX mrr ^riM in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Fs. 6g, 7 is doubtless to 
be cipkined; and likewise the ultimate diuppearance of niMlV (the surviviiis mm 
doing duty foi Adifiuii) in the Hebrew teitof Joah. 6, 17, where Tlieodotion apparently 
still found it, though Origeu did not. See further pages 31, 38, 147, and note 3 in 
the chart at the end of this treatise. ■ Amos 3, 13 (d. G); 6, 14; Eoiea la, 6. 

> So the Chromder reproduces mn< 'JIK of 1 Sam. 7, 18 f with D<n?K mn*, 
I Chron. 17, 16 f. Both alike were pronounced Ji{imiii£IaWm. 



of the text last quoted proves the correctness of our hypothesis. 
For only ^rhtt can have been uttered before the detominate miusn . 
But if *n!>M was read irhen mn^ was written, we need look no further 
for the origin of mK3V ^rbtt mrr. 

A few words in conclusion r^arding the Greek renderii^. In the 
great majority of instances where the Hebrew of Jeremiah has mrr 
nttyt, the Septu^int has only jcOpios. Neverthdess, we must not 
conclude that rmyt was lacking in the txanslator's Hebrew manu- 
scripL On the contrary, we may be certain that icbptos, like Adotuu, 
was employed to represent the composite ntait mrr as well as the 
simple mrr. Compare in this respect the Septuagint of i Sam. 4, 4, 
where the presence of rfmzx in the Hebrew text at all times does not 
admit of question. Moreover, the insistent use of the name mrr 
imyt in Haggai, Zechaiiah, and Malacbi can be ezpluned only as 
deliberate imitation of the two great pre-exilic prophets, Isaiah and 

The fact is, we have reason to believe that in the Book of Isaiah, 
too, the Septuagint translator rendered the combined rvMss mn* by 
icbptos alone; and that vafiauB, which generally, but not invariably, 
follows it in the present teit, has heea methodically introduced from 
the Hebrew at some later time. The same will be true in i Samuel. 
Kipu iKut aaffaui of i Sam. i, 11 is illuminating; and well-n^ con- 
clusive as to the secondary character of aafiauO wherever it occurs 
in the Scptua^t. For, as we have already seen, except when they 
made Adonai do duty for the entire name, the Palestinian Jews 
employed ElohS ^ehaoih as the oral surrogate of niMSV mn*. And 
xbfivt eXue aa^aaiB is manifestly not a Septuagint rendering of 
nwav 'n^K mn' (which never stood in the Hebrew text of i Sam. 
I, II, and would not have been so rendered into Gtedt if it had 
stood there), but a conflate text, containing the original Septuagint 
rendering of the composite name, namely xbfut, and a distinctive 
Hebrew QrS of the same introduced into the Greek text at a later 
time. Another suggestive passage is Isa. 44, 6, where the same 
Qri, this time rendered Btin vafiaaS, has been inserted by a later 
hand, obviously because the original Septuagint had not even icbpua 



at this prant; that is, it stih lacked the inteipolated mtat mrr* of 
the Masoretic text. 

For the rest, it seems certain that icOfitot rwnoKfikrwfi of tbe 
Minor Prophets — and some passages in the present toct of Jere- 
miah, 2 Samuel, and i Kings — is a genuine Septuagint renderins- 
But (K&ptot) T(av Swi^xtwv, to judge from the available evidence, 
origioated with Theodotion, and later found its way into a fevr 
passages of the S^tua^t which had retained the mmple icbpios. 
Aquila, we may be sure, rendered the name uniformly by kbptos 
itTfiarmv. Symmachus apparently followed Theodotion. The 
whole subject of the Greek renderings of mtux mrr will bear more 
systematic investigation along the line I have indicated. 




Owing to the damaged condition of the papyrus or the presence of 
-words iinfamiliAr to modem scholars, the Aramaic maDU3crq>ts dis- 
covered at Elphantine contain not a few passages which are difficult 
of interpretation and some that will always remain obscure. But 
th^e is one passage which has hitherto baffled all efforts to extract 
from it a satisfactory meaiung, although it occurs in the text which 
has commanded the most widespread interest and the most careful 
study, and notwithstanding the fact that it has been preserved in 
perfect condition and contains not a single word which is incom- 
prehensible to Aramaic scholars. I refer to lines i6 and 17 of the 
letter to Bagoas, Sachau P^yrus i, a fragmentary duplicate of 
which is contained in Papyrus 2, lines 15 f. 

Lines r to 3 of this document, it will be recalled, consist of the 
usual superscription and conventional greetings. These are fol- 
lowed by a straightforward account of the destruction of the temple 
of Yahwe at Elephantine by the Egyptian priests, in alliance with 
certain Persian officers, three years before the date of writing 
(lines 4 to la). Lines 13 and 14 add a retrospective statement, to 
the effect that the temple destroyed was in existence before the 
Persian conquest, and was especially spared by Cambyses when all 
the Egyptian sanctuaries were overthrown. The next line, 15, turns 
to the events following the outrage upon the temple, describing the 
distress of the Jewish colony; their mourning, fasting, and prayer; 
and their strenuous but unavuling efforts to obtain redress and 
permission to rebuild the temple. This section continues to the 

> Read at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Uttratvn attd Extttiis in New York, 
Decembei 37, iqis- 



middle of line 33, where the document passes on, naturally and 
logically, to the final paragraph, imploring the aid of Bagoas and 
promising such rewards as the petitioners are able to bestow. 

Now it is in the midst of the section describing the distress of the 
petitioners and their efforts to secure relief (lines 15 to 2a), after tlie 
account of the outrage, and before the statement of the present 
appeal, that the troublesome passage occurs. To give the connec- 
tion, I quote the preceding tine 15, about the interpretation of which 
there is no difficulty: pn TB*!^ ppv \'ia^ ^vi Qv niruK tov run nsi 
iTDr no \Tvh f^nai jw, And at the time this happened, we together 
with our wives and our children wore sackcloth and fasted and prayed 
to Yahu the Lord oj Heaven . . . The text of the papyrus then 
naK nap t ro33 ^^ 'm^n p »c!>33 ipwn vc^z i? anna pnn t (16) 

,cnn3 rim ii"Bp ^3 TT inni6 vva wo t (17) paa i>3i 
In his first edition of this text Sachau rendered lines 15-17 as 
follows: (15) I7«kI nocAdem s>e oJfA £«ten AoMtt [reading erroneously 
ras\, trugen wir samt unsem Frauen und Kindem Trauerkleider, 
/asteien und beteten m J&kU, dem Serm des Bimmds, (16) der uns 
(alsdann ? sifter 7) Kennhus geg^>en hat von jenem Waidrang 
ira^a (?). 5m haben (man hat) die Fusskette von seinen Fassen 
entfemi, und aUe SchiUie, die er eneorben haHe, sind s» Grunde gegan- 
gen. Und tMe Menschen (17) wdche jenem Tempd BSses geivUnscht 
hatten, aile sind getSlet, und wir haben es su unserer GenugiuiMg mit 
angesehen.^ He inclined to the opinion that there was a serious 
omission after line 15 in our pE4)yTUs; for lines 16 f, which tell of a 
judicial punishment, should have been preceded by at least some 
such statement as " and Yahu sent deliverance, and we gave him 
thanks " — that he had, etc. (line 16). And in any case, the vindi- 
cation seemed of strangely little consequence, in view of the severe 
punishment visited upon the culprits; since the temple remained 
in ruins.* 

The objections to this faltering interpretation were pointed out 
more strongly and convincingly by Sachau himself in his second 

■ Drei aramSiscke Papyna Urktmden mu EUphoMtint, igo8, p. lo. 

• tbid., pp. 31 i. 



pubHcatioa, vhere he discarded entirely the view that the passage 
describes an actual occurrence. " Eine solche Daistellung," he there 
assents, "ist absolut zusanunenhangslos." Between the words 
tnxf tno at the end of line 15 and pnn <l at the beginning of line 
16, we should have been told how the sudden change in the situation 
had been brought about; how it came to pass that so crushing a 
punishment fell upon the conspirators, concerning whose unchecked 
misdeeds the letter has been complainii^ up to this very point. 
The transition would be of unexampled abruptness; and would, 
moreover, involve a distinct change of style from the otherwise 
calm and orderly progress of the whole composition. Then too, as 
the rest of the document clearly shows, this supposed punishment 
was quite useless, bringing no relief whatever to the aMcted Jews. 
As a possible way out of the difficulty, he had thought the trouble- 
some passage might be construed as a quotation from some other 
letter or from some literary text familiar to both the writers and 
Bagoas. But a little reflection compelled him to abandon that tack. 
Only one possibility remained: to interpret the passage as setting 
forth the content of an oracle.* He accordingly adopted the follow- 
ing translation: (15) Nachdem man also verfakren haUe [still reading 
nay], trugen wir samt unso'en Frauen und unserm Kindem Trauer- 
kleider, fasteten und beteten zu Jaho, dem Eerm des Himmtis, (16) 
welcher uns mit Beatg auf den genannten hUndischen (?) Waidereng 
knnd tat (was folgt) : " Man wird die Kette von seinen FUssen ent- 
femt Aoim, und man wird alle Sckdise, die er erworben, vemichtet 
haien, und aile Manner, (17) wdche versuckl haben werden, dem ge- 
nannten Tempd Bases antuiun, werden insgesamt getdtet worden sein, 
und wir werden auf ihren Untergang herabgesckaut haben." ' 

The fact is, however, that all Sachau has said about the lack of 
proper transition and setting for the passage if interpreted as his- 
tory, holds in equal measure when it is interpreted as prophecy. 
The matter-of-fact recital of line 15 is calmly continued after line 17, 
without the slightest hint that the history has been interrupted to 

> AramSiulit Papynu tmd Ostraha mm emer jUditthtn MSilOr-Keltmie m ElephoH- 
tint, igii, p. 16. > Ibid., p. 31. 



cast a gjance into the future and rehearse the contoit of an oracle 
r^arding it. Nor is there any mention of the agency through which 
the oracle was secured, to say nothing of any move on the part of 
the colony to obtain it. Furthermore, an oracle promising vengeance 
and deliverance would be clearly out of place at this point in the 
letter. Far from hdghtening the impression of distress which the 
petitiotiers aim to produce, it would soiously counteract that im- 
pression. If it were intended for the encour^ement of Bagoas, it 
should have been inserted after the story was finished, in connection 
with the appeal beginning in line 32. With such assurance of divine 
aid, moreover, the colonists might be npected to await patiently 
the day of their vindication, without hastening to invoke the aid of 
the High Priest or of Bagoas. 

The desperate interpretation of Sacbau's definitive edition has 
beea quite sununarily and unanimously rejected by other scholars, 
who cling to the opinion that the words of our passage describe a 
past event. So Noldeke asks, " Warum sollen sie nicht geschehenes 
aussagen ? " and rejects unhesitatingly the hypothesis of an oracle.' 
Lidzbarski renders, Der Hen des Eimmtis gewdkrte uns ein Schau- 
spid der Lust anjenem Wtdamag, die Hvnde serrien ihm die Fessdn 
von den FUssen, und alle GiUer, die er envorben, hatte, gingen verloren. 
He thinks Widamag was executed, his body remained exposed, and 
dogs tore oS the chains wherewith he had been bound.' Similariy 
Eduard Meyer: DieHtmdekabendieFesselnvonseinenFiissengeris- 
sen [<m the corpse of Widam^, which had been thrown to them], 
itnd aUe SckUtie, die er erworben hatte, sind sugrunde gegangen, und 
atle Leule, die jenem Tempd BSses gewiinscht flatten, sind getStet 
worden, und wir haben unsere Lust an iknen geschaut. Meyer adds 
confidently, " An ein Orakel, wie Sachau vermutet, ist gewiss nicht 
zu denken." ' Lagrange stands by his own variation of the histori- 
cal interpretation: Widamag was presumably buried afive, bead 
downward, and the dogs allowed to gnaw at his protruding feet 

' LiltrariseMet ZeiUralNaU, igii, col. 1505. 

■ Epkemens, III, 191a, p. 140 (— Dtntstk* Liltratunrihmg, igii, coL 1967). 

■ Der Papynufvud mm Et«pliamh»e, 1913, p. 83. 



Be realizes that dogs are not accustomed to bite through iron, and 
so renders i6u muscle instead of chaiH; for which he confesses he 
has no warrant except that a wholly different word was used in 
Assyria to designate both ligature and tendon.^ That the passage is 
historical is maintained also in the most recmt discussion of the 
subject, by Van Hoonacker, who translates; Nous avons jedtU a 
addressl nos priires a Jah6, le dieu du del, qui nous a donnt en 
spectacle ce Widamag. Les cfdens ont arracht les cordons de ses pieds 
€t tous les homrnes qui avail tramt du mat contre ce temple, tous ont 
at tuts et nous les avans eus m spectacle. Van Hoonacker recognizes 
that no regularly constituted tribimal would have put to death a 
multitude of persons for merely " wishing evil to the temple "; he 
concludes that a Judeo-Aramaean mob massacred all such persona 
before Arsames could return to Egypt and restore peace in his 
turbulent satrapy.* 

In spite of this consensus of learned (pinion, Sachau's objections 
to the historical interpretation are well-founded; nor have they 
been disposed of by his opponents. The view that the letter re- 
counts the substance of an oracle is unsatisfactory, but it is not 
intrinacally absurd, as Eduard Meyer implies; whereas the inter- 
pretation to which the latter adheres is really absurd. A satrap 
- who had slain scores of persons for merely " wishing harm to the 
temple of Yahu," and had thrown the body of a Persian command- 
ant to the dogs for carrying out their evil designs, certainly required 
no pressure from Palestine to induce him to pamit the restoration 
of the violated sanctuary. The cruel punishment assumed might 
conceivably have been inflicted upon anybody in those days; but 
it is inconceivable that it should have overtaken Widamag and his 
accomplices and yet have left room for complaint on the part of 

' 8etiteBibiigue,V, 19^. pp- S'^i 335> 34^; IX, 191 > r P- ^'9- 
■ Um commmimiU JwHa-Aramlamt i SUfhai^itu, iQiJ, pp. At, 45 1. Since the 
desiie of tkeir hearts ccmld only be niq>ected, the victinu must have been aumerotu. 
ConqMie fuithei: Peten, DiejSdttdtt Gemdndt ven ElephoiUiiie Nwf Hr Ttmfd, igio, 
p. 551 Staerk, AUe ttnd nau aramJtitekt Text*, 1911, pp. 36 (; Steuenugel, ZtUsclw^ 
iv Dtulxken PaUtiino-Vtremi, XXXV, igia, p. 89; S. A. Cook, AmerioM Jonnut 
<4 Tktaloiy, XDC, igis, p. 361. 



the Judean colony, or that the story of so overwhelming a icvenge 
should have been recited by the petitioners in quite so casual a 
manner. The fact is, that Sachau's revised rendering, although 
actually incorrect, is nevertheless on the right scent grammatically. 
The verbs \'w\, ipun, nsK, ^'Qp, pn are not historical perfects, 
but perfects of imprecalicn.^ 

Both Sachau and his critics have made the mistake of construing 
v'?to at the end of line 15 absolutely, in the sense of offering prayer, 
instead of in the sense of beseeching, which the context actually 
demands. For that matter, even in line 36 of this papyrus r6v is 
employed only as in Ezra 6, 10, not as in Dan. 6, 11. Prayer as a 
formal and independent religious exercise must not be credited to 
the Judeans of Elephantine; who, we shall do well to bear con- 
stantly in mind, were not Jews in the strict sense of the term. Note 
the absence of r'^to after the words ro^ It»^ IPPe* in line 20. Nor, 
on the other band, can n at the beginning of line 16 be rend- 
ered as a relative pronoun without considerable straining of syn- 
tactical usage. It of course does not introduce an attributive clause 
identifying or describing Yahu: we prayed to (that same) Yahu 
who, or we prayed to Yahu, who is the one that; nor does it point 
forward to a following predicate: who showed us ... he did so 
and so. As a matter of fact, the current interpretations construe 
the word as a loosely annexed relative, introducing a new sentence, 
much as if it were the Greek & or At Koi of a Pauline epistle. But 
the piqiyrus would certainly have employed v\ or the ^mple verb 
with 1 for that purpose. M must therefore of necessity be construed 
as a conjunction, introducing the object of rlnio.* 

Our passage should accordingly be rendered: (15) And at the 
time this happened, we together with om wives and our cMdren wore 
sackcloth and fasted and prayed to Yahu the Lord of Heaven, (16) tiuit 

I Ct. Wrigfat-DcGoeje, Arabif Grammar, U, i i, (f); CaqMri-MOlkr, AroMsclu 
GrammaHk, i 367, 6; NOldeke, Syritche Grammatik, i 160. 

* Cf. Sachau Papynia $6, col. 3, line 8^ Dan. a, 16; Nftldeke i 358 A. In Dan. 
6, II f MTSD and nyi aie used as synonyms. 



ke show US that cur Widamag with his anklets wrenched from his feet 
(despoiled of his rank) and bereft of all Ids possessions, and that all 
the men (17) who sought evil against that temple be slain and we be 
privileged to look upon their dead bodies. The imprecatory psalms 
had ancient modeb. 

A few additional notes are called for. 

Line 15. i^np. Sachau, in both his editions, and Ungnad {Ara- 
miiische Papyrus aus Elephantine, 1911, pp. 3, 7) read nsjt in 
Papyrus i, and contrast the reading with f^s of Papyrus 3, line 
14. But Papyrus i also exhibits Tys quite distinctly, as has been 
observed by Lagrange. 

irr. On the correct pronunciation of this word, see the writer's 
remarks. Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXI, 1913, p. 33.* Van 
Hoonacker, I. c, pp. 67 f[, argues at great length that Yahfi (as he 
and others persist in pronouncing vi* of the p^yri) was the actual 
and original name of the divinity; and that Yahweh (-> nvr of 
the Old Testament and the Mesha Stone) was a secondary and 
purdy artificial form, developed under the influence of the dogmatic 
theory of Ex. 3, 14, and employed only for literary purposes. The 
discussion betrays a lack of familiarity with the ancient data, with 
the modem literature of the subject, and with the first principles 
of phonetics. We may therefore content ourselves with enquiring 
whether the Hebrew verb mnne^. is likewise a " purely artificial 
form" of innt^; whether the Masoretic tradition is wrong in 
accenting the latter on the penult; and what dogmatic theory was 
operative in the " development " in the case of this word. For 
the rest, Ex. 3, 14 has no theory of the divine name except that in 
its exact form it must not be pronounced; see Joumai of Biblical 

' I Mize this opportunity to coirect & culpable nusatatement in the utide above 
leteired to. In the note on the phrase pinK ^JT of Sodwu Papynia it, line 4, 1 wrote, 
" We hftve heie the phnae which has hitherto bnffled the tfforts and ingenui^ of the 
GommentktonoDtheAtunucteztof Dsu.4,5." Thewoid fnriK in the latter pusage 
had, however, been coirectly inteipreted by Toney, in his " Notes on the Aiamaic 
Put of Daniel," TtomiuImhs of tkt CimHecHaa Academy oj Arts and Somus, XV, 
i5W,p. 367. 



LUerat»e, XXIV, 1905, pp. 140 ff. And as f or tlie noi^ testimony 
of Assyriology, it is worth as much, when the question is one of 
exact vocalization rather than of general identity, as is that of 
mediaeval Latin on the Arabic name Ibn Ruskd. 

Line 16. urro pnn, <inn is not to tell, but to show - Hebrevr 
ninn. In Dan. a, 6 9, *irvi is used, as here, with the accnsati've 
suffix of the person to whom the object is exhibited. So also fre- 
quently in the Talmud^ The construction and idiomatic value of 
the expression a *ini is the same as that of Hebrew '3 nmn in 
nSn 'JKT D-n^K, God will let me exult (literal^ gloat) over mine 
enemies, Ps. 59, 11; "ttxf i>33 ':inn, he (Chemosh) caused me to exuU 
over all mine atemies, Mesha Stone, line 4. In Fs. 79, ro we have 
the same idea differently phrased: Tiay en nop3 u<rj^ D*un rir 
"pUBti , Let the avet^mg of the spilt jUiwd of thy servants be made 
manifest upon the heathen before our eyes. 

K'3^3. We must read tr^^s, a person of canine extraction, not 
103^3, the dogs. Tba.t the word is an adjective in apposition to 
irvv\, and not a plural substantive, subject of ipozn, is suffidentiy 
attested by the presence of *]l; which can hardly attach to the 
proper name, and must therefore attach to this q>ithet. And it is 
conclusively demonstrated by the parallel use of irn^ ^>assive 
participle, emphatic of Mn^, annihilaled, accursed) in Papyrus i, 
line 7: verb y irrn; the construction of which does not admit of 
question, if only because the phrase appears in the form )rn*i 
It terh in Papyrus 3, line 6. tpahu is the regular Aramaic form for 
an adjectival derivative, and supplies exactiy what is required after 
11 im^. The only question is as to its precise connotation. Those 
who construe the word as an adjective take it to mean dog-Hie, 
canine, " l^tdisch " (Sachau), equivalent to " contemptible dog." 
To this Lidzbarski, who interprets the word as a substantive subject 
of ipBVi, relies by asking whether one can imagine a modem 
Arab calling an offensive person ka^.' He means, of course, that 

< Epatan, Ztilseir^ far dit ^tttOaMaitUeie Wiismiflufft.'XXXn., igi2, p. 138. 
* Efiimeru, m, igia, p. 140, note 3. 



the Arab would say kalb, and be done with it. But tluit depends. 
Xhe Arab would haidly use the epithet ktdb in ssdi a omtext as 
tUs. He uses kalb as a tenu of c<nitempt — of aa alien or infidet, 
for example.* But when in his impotent rage he wishes to hnrd 
against a highly-placed malefactor, a govonor or other official — 
behind his bat^ of course — an epithet indicative of irremediable 
xBoral d^savity, he em^doys, not kalb, but As cf kali.* The dis- 
tinction between the two tenns is a very real one, and familiar to 
every Arabic-speaking person. It iuq^>ens that is the English of 
vulgar vituperation the same distinction obtains. A " dog " is a 
contemptible peison. But when it is desired to impute utter and 
incurable depravity, with a suggestion of congenital distemper, the 
enemy's canine ancestry is followed up one generation. Now the 
exact Aramaic equivalent of Arabic ibn d kalb is vn'72. Nor is 
there any other. The Aramaic ksIo *u , it need hardly be observed, 
is not available for this purpose; since luio na would merely be 
Aramaic for a dog (as such), just as Kicnt ni is Aramaic for a man 
(as such). The word " our " which I have employed in the trans- 
lation does not represent the original exactly. 

1633 , literally the band. The reading 'm^33 , his bands, of Pi4>yTus 
3 is perhaps preferable, but not strictly necessary. The reference is 
not to fetters used for constraint, but to ornamental anklets con- 
nected by a dangling chain, and indicative of exalted rank.* In 
Syriac the same word is used of " annuH seu omamenla crurum," 
the Arabic khalikMl (Brun, Dictionarium SyriacihLaHnum). The 
Mishna, Sabbath vi. 4, mentions 0^33 among the accoutrements 
which may not be worn abroad on the Sabbath; and the Gemara 
on the passage {b. Sabbath 63b) defines a^23 as anklets joined 
together by means 0/ a chain (n^B^tr).* The matter is made perfectly 
plain by a story which the Gemara goes on to relate, of a Jewish 
> Cf. I Sun. 17, 43; a Sun. 3, S. 
» Cf. the use of Hebrew ^3 p in t Sam. is. ^7' 

* Cf. W. Max MQller, " Die Fiusspange ah Adebtdchen bei den Semitcn," Oriem- 
hiUtlueke LUtraUm ei t w nt, XII, 1909, ooL 381 f. 

• Cf. Epstein, I. c, p. ijg. 


158 ExcuRsira n . 

family in Jerusalem, the membeis of which habitually took such 
long strides in walking that the girls ran the risk of spoiling their 
vii^nity. To guard against this, they were made to wear anklets 
(d*^33) fastened together with a diaiu.* 

Line 17. ^3. Papyrus 3 more correctly, 163 . 

DVia rm, and that we look upon Ihem; the active form ccore- 
qwnding to the causative 33-11*0 pnn ; d. nnui n:x mm , bul I exuUed 
over him and over Hs house, Mesha Stone, line 7. 

* KmuM, Ta l m uiii tit AreiMope, I, [^. 305, 665, niiiiiteipKti this lUtement 







l62 IN] 

I5.a( 63 

19.S 63 

20,9 143 

a8,9 60 

18, 10 60 

a8, S6 65 

31,995 i3S,ia7,n9 

31.9*5' 139.140 

31,96 5,C 

33. « 31 

33.8 135 


3-8 33.139.140 

3.3 197. 199, C 

3.6 140 

3." C 

3.13 C 

3.14 C 

3.17 C 

4,5 C 

4,13 83 

4.19 83 

S.10 83 

6,i6f 143 

6,17 146 

6.94 39 

7-8 \)9> loi 

7.4 "4 

7.5 "4 

7,Si "i 

8,4 84 

8,6 103 

8, 16 103 

8,99 t90 

8,95 114 

8, a8 99 

9.13 61 

9,17 54, 57, 61 

9, 99-97 69 

14,6 31 

15,8 50,51 

IS.9 Sa 

IS. 9* 53,54 

15." S3 

I5,»9 S3 

15,60 53 

18,1 96 

i8,Uf 53,54 

18, 16 50, 51, 53 

18.38 53,57 

19,51 96 

31,lf 96 

33, 13 96 

93,7 74 

94." 58 


1, 1 116 

I, if 101 

1.9 41 

6,37 6s 

7,1830 60 

8, 33 198, 137 

8, 93-97 9 

8, 97 10,11,37,65,193,135,137, 


9.aff 58 

9.1619 135 

9.46f 58 

9,49 58 

11,39 131 

13.5 99 

13, 5 7 39 

13.6 30 

13.8 30 

13,93 199 

15,1 74 

IS," "4 

15, 13 61 

16, 7 II 67 

16, 17 39 

16,37 114 

17-18. . . 11, 97, 99, 105, 133, laS, 196, 

131, 136, 137 
17-ai 99 

17, 3-4 10, 105 

17, 5 19, 99, 100, 136, 198, 136 

17,5 13 ■ 137 

17, 6 100, 105 

17, 7 loS. 119 

17, 10 105 

18 10 

18,1 99,100,105,118 

i8, 9 105 

18, 3 los 

18, 5 13, 116 

i8,Sf 41.137 



i8,Sa4 " 

18, « 119 

18,7 W5 

18,8 14 113 

18,9 105 

18, 10 los 

18,11 112, lii 

i8,ir r6 m 

18, 13 54.S7.ioS 

18,14 roS. '"6 

18, 16 los 

18,17 ios.i».iaS.C 

18, 18 105 

18,19 "" 



18, aa I30 

18, 34 II 

18, 27 los, lai, "8, 130 

18, 97 s 136 

i8,a8 105,123 

18, 39 los 

18, 30 103, 116 

i8,3of 105 

18, 31 96 

19-ai 97- 

19, 1 99.100, 





19. 3 - 

»9. 3 - 


19. 7 ■ . 

19. 9-. 


19, II. 

19, 12 

19, laf. 

19, 14. . 

19, I4f. 

19, 16. . 

19, 18. . 

19,33 loa, no, 111,1] 

19, 24 lOJ 

19. as " 

19, 29 110-11 

19, 39-21, 23 106-11 

19,30 102,11 

ao, 1 102,11 

90, 1 38 . 

>, 3 102,111 

>,3 12 Ill 

J, 4! lOI 

>.S "I 

5,6 10a, no, III 

), 7 Ill 

}, 8 102,111,113 

>,9-ii loa 

), la Ill, iia 

), 13 iia-113 

), 14 103,113 

>. 15-17 ^oa 

>, 18 10a, IIS, "6 

'.19 ^02 

J, 20-23 ^02, 103 

), ai 103 

»,a3 103,115,119 

>,34 103 

i, 34-38 10a 

s, as 103,113-114 

>, a6 103,103 

),36f "5 

>,a6-a8 97. "8 

), 37. . . 34. 95-97, 103, 114-119. ia9, 
i3«, "37, 140, C 

),a7£ 95 

>, aS 41, 103, 113, 114, IIS. iifi, 

119, 129 

>. 29 119 

>. 30 103 

>,3i 103 

>. 31 3* etc. 103 

),32-35 ^°3 

),36 103,113 

>,36ff "9 

>,37 113,119-130 

>,38 lao 

),39 ii3,ii4,iao 

>.39f "8 

), 40 120 

J,4I 120 

>,4a 113,120 

s,43 ^03 

5,44 103,113,114.130 

5,45 ^M 

),4Sf '04 

),47 104,120-121,123 

5,48 113,120,121 



II, 1.. 

. t03 

II, 6 113, 113, 131 

31, 6 f IQ4 

3i,6-S iti 

91.7 104,1*1 

«, 8 104 

3i,8f iia 

31,9 104,131 

ai, 9 la 104 

ai, 10 104 

3I,I0f 131 

31,11 104 

31, la 104, 131 

31, 13 104> lao, lai 

31,14 104,131 

31. »S 41 

31, 15-SS 104 

ai, 16 104 

31, 19 104, lai 

31, IQ & 136 

31, ao 131 

ai, 31 131 

31, 33 133 

31, 33 104, 113, 133 

31,34 104 

31, 35 100, 104 

1 Sahqbl 

I-* 3S 

1.3 137 

1.3" 38 

»,734 33 

1.9 33 

I. II 147 

i,ta 64 

1,17 35 

».3 35 

a, 18 8, aa, ia6, 131 

*.35 35 

3.37 30.35 

3.37-36 IS 

9,38 11,14,70,90,133,136,138, 

133. 139 

3.30 35 

3.3 34-36 

3.13 35.43 

3.i7 35 

4-6 38,40 

4-7 S.132 

4.1 113 

4.3 36 

4.3* 34,36^40,137 

4.3ff 78,79,139 

4,4 38,61,63,133,137,147,0 

4.4iietc. 33,35 

4.7 ia,3S 

4.8 13,35 

4,11 36 

4.1318 136 

4,17 36 

4,19-33 15 

S.I 3IO 33,35 

S.3 65, la? 

5.7 35 

5.78*0" 35 

5. " 3S 

6. 3 5 3S 

6,4 133 

6,5 35 

6,7 «i 

6, 13 110 

6, 14 118 

6,19 I<«.I34 

6,30 3S 

6. 31 54. S7 

7, 1 . . . ao, ai, 33, 33, 53, 54, 57, 68, laS 

7.3 15,30,31,33 

7-6 103 

9, 5 10 HO 

9>« 30 

9,78 10 30 

9.9 87,89 

9, 9 II 18 19 85 

9, ai 113 

9, aa lao 

9,34 190,131 

10,3 116 

10,9 64 

10,13 65 

11,3 7 "I 

11,5 "o 

11,7 110,111,113 

11,9 110 

I3.> "3 

13.9 103 

13, 10 66 


I3,i5f i>i 

«3,i7 33 113 

14, 1 6 no 

I4.« 14. 1" 

I4,»S»6 S' 

14, 3 . . . 11, t4-»S. 18, ao, 31, 70, 183, 
124, 195, 196, laS 

»4.!) 8a 

14,1s "3 

14.17 "I 

14,18... i3-a3.3S.a6. 
67, 70. Jt. 7a, 80, 96, «8, 

119-134, 136, 138, 139, 130, 

133. 137. c 

i4-i8f 78,79 

»4. 19 19, 30, 134 

14,33 130 

14. 34 "4 

14.36 13 

14.36* »37 

14.37 I3."9 

14,37 4off 41 

14.37 41 134 

14.37-43 19 

14.38 ni 

14.41 61. 70. 133. 13s 

14.49 61 

I5.a( "43 

15,9 iia 

15, 33 130-131, 139, 136, C 

17.43 IS7 

17. Sa S8 

18,6 131 

18,30 113 

19, 5 110 

19, 13 16 136 

90, II 110 

90,35 130 

90,38 ii9.iao 

91,4 131 

91,8 118 

91, 10. . . 9, 10, II, 19, 14, 17, 37, 133, 

31, 13 131 

39-30 68 

99, 8 13 119 

33,990 15 

33,13 »37 

93, 13 15... 13 

39, 15- - 


. I30 

33,18... 11,14,90,193,134,135,196, 

is8, 136 

39, 19 130 

33, 30ff 68,69 

33,33 137 

33,3-14 137 

93,6 3o,i34,i37,C 

93, 6 9. 14, 18, 37,68, 7I> 73, 133, 

134, 138 
93,9 19, 19, 30, 39, 70> 134. 

197-138, 133, c 

33,9ff 41 

33, 10 61, 133 

a3,iof 135 

33.ioff 134.137 

93,iif s8 

33,13 119,191 

33, 35 139 

33,37 II9|I90 

34, I , 133 

34.3 "3 

a4.4 "8 

34.1:5 "3 

aS.a 113 

95,19 130 

35,13 131 

95,14 66 

35.17 1S7 

as.4i M 

96,9 113 

96,915 H3 

36, 33 113 

96, 95 131 

37, 3 131 

37.6 99 

37,7 133 

37,810 119 

38, 1 113, 118 

38, 6 134, 135, 138 

38,31 ISO 

38,33 11° 

39,36 Ill 

99,5 131 

30,114 119 

30, 7 13, 14, 18, 19) ao, 33, 37, 68, 

71, 73, 133, 134, 198, 130, 




3«. 8 41, "9, I34> 137 

30,9 Ill 


I, 13... 

. 41. "9. 134, 137 



a, HIS-. 

2, 15 i: 

9,18 < 

», »i 1: 

3,»6f I 





4,4567 i: 

5-< 40 

5,6 lai 

5t 9 ■ 46, laa 

S. » 31 

5. i3-»<» 4a 

5. 17 41,46, 5». 59 

S.i7f 41. SO 

5,i7i8i9»S 64 

5,i7-«,a3 43-46 

5.18 49. SO. 5a 

5, 18 39 SO 

5. 19 Sa, »i9, 134. 137 

5.30 41 

S.»-a4 41 

S.aa so 

5, as 41,53,57,58 

6 5,33,33,38,40-67,69,138,139 

6,1 40,41,43,53 

6,iff 30 

6, a. .. 31, 34, 38, 40, 41-43, 43, S3, S4, 

58-61, C 

6,aff 31 

6,a3etc 33 

6, 3 10 etc 64 

6,3 33,41,53,57,61,68,133 

6,3 f ■ 63, 9S 

6,4 41,63,137 

6,5 41,4a 

6,6 41,63-63,111 

6, 7 63, 63, 64 

6,8 41,43 

6,9 41 

6, 10 64, ita 

6, 13 69 

6, 13 41 

6,14 8,91,64,136, i3t,C 

6,15 42 

6,16 64 

6, 17 41,65,137 

6, i7f IPS 

6,18 31,43,61,65,134 

6, 19 4a, 65 

6,30 43>66 

6,31 i4,4a,43 

6, aa 67 

6,33 43 

7 4a, 83 

7,a as 

7,4 31 

7,8 83 

7,8a6 31 

7,i8f 31,146 

8 43 

8,7 131 

8, to 134 

S.17 IS 

9.a 64 

10,7 78 

10, 13 78 

">i 77."3 

11, II.. .5,19, as. "6,37,34,77-80, 137 
ia,i4 39 




13, ao 31 

I a, 38 60 

13." "I 

15, 19 35 no 

I3,»3 67 

13, 14 16 35 iia 


14." 74 

I4ii3 119,131 

14,37 43 

IS, 14 lao 

IS, 34 65, 80-81, 137, 119, 137, C 

15, 34-39... 5,33,34, 69, 70,80-95,139 

15, isf 8i-8a 

IS, a6 

IS. »7 84-94 

I5,37f 81-8J 

15, a8 83-83,85 

15,39 68,133 

iS,3St 83 

', 16 18 31 I30 

I, 39 69 

18,1330 Ill 

19, 10 iia 

19,15 "1 

19, as "I 

3 64,110 

S lao 

9 "I 

IS ao 113 

18 13s 

33 131 

1 6a 

t-S 54 

3f "9 

a6 S4 

5 "I 

16 61 

. 13-17 50 

,11 8s 

., 33 34 103 

.as 103 

I Enras 

3 99 

a 131 

3 I" 

19 143 

3S 143 

37 "^ 

43 "o 

SO Ill 

51 Ill 

5 »43 

13 "I 

36... 5,30,37,34,67-73,134,137, 

139. 133. c 

37 IS 

38 33 

33 143 

3S 95 

IS "9.C 

19 139,136 

33ff 37 

49 35 


16 139 

3 "7 

6 37 

8 95 

9 75 

9 31 S»34.i39 


l68 INE 

8,ai C 

8.43 <w 

9.15 46.49 

9.S4 46 

9. as i«3 

11,37 46 

11,291 61 

la, 16 iia 

13, « 30,31 

13. 1 30 

I3-4SMC. 30 

14, a6 138 

I5,a 4* 

16, 16 143 

17,18 30 

17.^4 a9.3o 

18,30 32 

19. 10 33i '46 

19, U '46 

30, 13 16 77 

ao, 38 30 

23,5ft. 138 

33,6l3I5 119 

33, 19 38 

a Euros 

1.9" 13 30 

1, 10 30 

I, II I30 

I, 13 30 

4.7 30 

4. 9 30 

4.I640 30 

4, ai aaetc 30 

4.39 66 

5,8 ao 30 

s.ut 30 

6, 6 9 10 15 30 

6,3a 84 

7.ai7ff 30 

8,a4etc. 30 

9.33 63 

W, IS 43 

13, lof 6,C 

13,18 138 

13, 31 46 

13,19 30 

14,14 138 

16,8 138 

i6,i3 «S 

[7, 6 18 etc 7S 

i8,isf 138 

19,1s 38.39 

33,i6f 30 

33. 34 136. IJ9 

35,4! 83 

a5,i3ff 138 


1,34 M* 

3,1 146 

4,1 60 

6 US 

6,1 38 

6,35 38 

6,9fi 144 

10,16 146 

10,33 146 

13,4 *43 

I7,S SO 

19,4 "46 

aa, 13 66 

a6, 13 74 

38,6 38 

33.17 13' 

37.16 38,39,134 

40.3a 38 

43,7 60 

44,6 144.147 

45,13 >44 

47.4 144 

48, 1 60, 74 

48,3 144 

49, 1 74 

51.15 »44 

54.S »44 

63,6f 74 

63, 19 60 


3 , 76 

3.4-3-S 76 

3, II 15 etc 76 

3, 3 7 etc- ■ 76 

3.6 73,76 

3.6ff 76 

3,7 76 

3,*4-i6 73 



3. i6 34, 73-76, tag, 137. i39 

3.i7ff 76 

3, aa-as 7^ 

S.M-. 144 

J, 3 3 etc- 38 

7, 10 II etc 60 

7.30 59 

14.9 «o 

iS.»* 60.144 

17,4 63 

17.35 38 

as, 39 S9, 60 

a6, »o 57 

33.34 59.60 

J4,iS S9-60 

35.4 30 

35.17 144 

3«.i3 "9 

38.17 144 

44.7 144 

46.10 144 

47.3 89 

8,3 89 

8,6 91 

8.1SI7 91 

9.3 89 

ai, a6 136 


3i 4 133, ia6, 131 

3.4f 136 

i»,6 145,146 


3,13 145.146 

3,13* »45 

4,"f 145 

S,8 135 

5, 13-16 14s 

s, 19 39 

5,35-37 145 




6,14 143.146 

9,5 145,146 

9.5f I4S 

9.13 S9.60 


7,3 38 

10, a 136 


10.3 39 

».8 74 

34,810 144 

38,1 74 

S9.6 146 

59," 156 

69, 7 146 

70, 1 7* 

73, 10 66 

79,10 156 

80,3 39 

80,53a 146 

80,815 146 




133, 8. . . 
141, 6f.. 







9, l6 







■■■ 9.135 


. ■■4,C 

17. 7 M- 
17. l6f.. 
13. H. - . 





a. 63 

3 Cbsomkxbs 

. 31,146 

.... IS 
.... 31 

.... 89 





... c 

... 60 
... 31 


... 9,13s 





30, 39. . - 

... 31 

1 Chxomiclbs 

34, 8 10 f 

35.9. ■. 
30. 16. . . 


.... IS 

... 31 

... 61 


113, laa 
. 3X.146 
.... 50 

... 31 


II, IS.... 

la, aa — 



45. 8-10. . 




.... C 



14. 16 


.... 41 

.... s& 

.... 70 




IS. 37 



.... 69 

. 131. c 
■ 65.>»7 

... 138 

■ ■■ 55 





Reflecting the mixed state of contemporary texts and dominated 
by Uie fictional Jewish conception of the times 

(i) |nX a box (only H 24', of the contribution-box placed in 
the temple under Joash, 2 Kings 12"). 

(2) |nWn the box (s times of the above, and 16 times of the 
Box (tar' ^oxh*')- 

(3 is of course Bnpossible in the mouth of the Chronicler except 
as the equivalent of mn' pK , and in fact does not occ ur.)