“Sar alae τος
PRS epee
Grom fhe Library of
(Professor Wiffiam Benrp Breen
Bequeafhed fip Bim fo
tbe Zibrarp of
(princeton Theofogica? Seminarp
mo
ite,
re re Ψ ᾿
᾿ 4 ἣ HY eh
NOTES
ON
AGEL. ΕΝ ΕΑΝ PE
OF
GE ΒΟ ΚΘ OF SAMUEE
DRIVER
# ondow
HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PREsS WAREHOUSE
AMEN CORNER, ΕΟ.
fe SE BREW TEXT
OF THE
τις OF SAMUEL
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
ON
HEBREW PALAEOGRAPHY AND THE
ANCIENT VERSIONS
AND FACSIMILES OF INSCRIPTIONS
BY THE
REV. S: ky URIVER, D.D.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD
Orford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1890
[All righis reserved |
Orford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PREE AGE.
THE present volume is designed as a contribution to the
philology and textual criticism of the Old Testament. It
may, I hope, be found useful as a sequel to Mr. Spurrell’s
Notes on Genesis’. The Books of Samuel are not so
suitable as a reading book for a beginner in Hebrew as
some of the other historical books: for though they con-
tain classical examples of a chaste and beautiful Hebrew
prose style, they have suffered unusually from transcrip-
tional corruption, and hence raise frequently questions of
text, with which a beginner is evidently not in a position
to deal. But for one who has made further progress in the
language, they afford an admirable field for study: they
familiarize him with many of the most characteristic idioms
of the language, and at the same time introduce him to
the grounds and principles of the textual criticism of the
Old Testament. The idiomatic knowledge of Hebrew is
best acquired by an attentive and repeated study of the
Hebrew prose writers; and I have made it my aim through-
out not merely to explain (so far as this was possible 3) the
text of the Books of Samuel, but also to point out and
illustrate, as fully as seemed needful, the principal idiomatic
usages which they exemplify. In the Introduction I have
τ Clarendon Press, 1887.
3 For there are some passages which—from whatever cause—defy, or elude,
explanation.
b
ii Preface.
sought to bring within reach of the student materials—
especially relating to Inscriptions—often with difficulty
accessible, including matter which, at least to some readers,
will probably be new. More space could easily have been
devoted to the subject of the Ancient Versions ; but enough,
I hope, will have been said to illustrate their character and
value to the student of the Old Testament. The interest,
philological and historical, of the Inscription of Mesha’ (the
‘Moabite Stone’), and the want of a convenient English
edition, incorporating the best readings, induced me to add,
in an Appendix to the Introduction, a transcript of it, ac-
companied by a translation, and brief explanatory notes?.
Historical questions, and questions touching the structure
of the Books of Samuel, lying outside the plan of the work,
have been noticed only incidentally: I have, however,
articulated the two Books in a manner, the utility of which
will, I hope, appear to those readers who proceed to the
study of the sources of which they are composed. It has
not, as a rule, been deemed necessary to enumerate exhaus-
tively the authorities for the readings or interpretations
adopted: more complete lists may be found, by those who
desire them, in the ‘Variorum Bible, published by Eyre
and Spottiswoode.
A portion of the volume was already in type, when the
loan of some MS. notes of the late Prof. Duncan H. Weir,
extending as far as 2 Sam. 4, 137, was offered tome. Know-
ing, from the extracts in Prof. Cheyne’s /sazah, the value
of Dr. Weir’s suggestions, I thankfully availed myself of the
offer. The notes, I found, consisted chiefly of illustrative
1 Smend and Socin’s edition (p. xii) contains no explanatory commentary ; and
the expense of Dr. Ginsburg’s (London, 1871) is prohibitory for most readers.
? See the Academy, 1889, Aug. 24, p. 119.
Preface. iii
parallels, extracts from the Versions, etc., compiled with
some care for the author’s own use, but often unaccompanied
by any indication of the conclusion finally reached by him.
Hence, though I gladly incorporated what I could (of course,
under Dr. Weir’s name), I did not obtain from this quarter
so much assistance as I expected.
It remains to speak briefly of the history of the textual
criticism of the Books of Samuel. To Otto Thenius!
belongs the merit of having been the first to point out
systematically how the Septuagint frequently supplied
materials for the restoration of the Massoretic text. His
Commentary is eminently suggestive and stimulating; and
for the manner in which he has recovered, with the
help of the Septuagint, the true text and meaning of
numerous passages in the two Books, he has earned the
lasting gratitude of Hebrew scholars. Thenius’ results
were largely utilized by Ewald in the first edition of his
History of Tsrael (1843): Fr. Bottcher* followed on the
same lines, sometimes correcting Thenius, at other times,
not always happily, seeking to supplement him. It cannot,
however, be denied that Thenius shewed a disposition to
adopt readings from the Septuagint without sufficient
discrimination; and his restorations were sometimes de-
ficient in point of Hebrew scholarship. In 1871 appeared
an unpretending but epoch-making work on the textual
criticism of the Old Testament—the monograph of Julius
Wellhausen on ‘The Text of the Books of Samuel.’ The
importance of this book lies in particular in the strictness
1 Die Bricher Samuelis in the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
A.T., ed. 1, 1842; ed. 2, 1864.
2 Without suitable acknowledgement, as Thenius complains (Pref. ed. 2, p. vii).
3 Neue exegetisch-kritische Achrenlese zum A, T, (1863). Comp. 76., p. viii.
b2
iv Preface.
with which it emphasizes the discriminating use of the
Ancient Versions for purposes of textual criticism. With
rare acumen and sagacity, Wellhausen compares the
Massoretic text with the Ancient Versions (specially with
the Septuagint), and elicits from the comparison the prin-
ciples that must have operated, on the one hand in the
process of ¢vanslation, on the other in the transmission
both of the Hebrew text itself and of the corresponding
Ancient Version. He thus sets in its true light the crucial
distinction between renderings which presuppose a different
[Tebrew original, and those which do not do this, but are
due to other causes; and shews further that both texts, the
Massoretic text as well as that of the Septuagint, have
received modification (chiefly in the form of harmonistic or
other additions), though in unequal degrees, in the process
of transmission. Naturally he endorses a large number of
Thenius’ restorations; but others he subjects to a keen
criticism, shewing that they do not rest upon a substantial
basis. Wellhausen’s scholarship is fine: his judgement is
rarely at fault; and in the critical treatment of the text,
I have been strongly sensible of the value of his guidance.
I trust that I may not appear to have used his volume too
freely: my excuse, if I have done so, must be that I was
writing for English students, most of whom are un-
acquainted with German; and I could not withhold from
them some of the best and soundest results which have
been gained for the textual criticism of the Old Testament.
Least of all have I desired to supersede the study of his
monograph on the part of those who are in a position to
use it fruitfully themselves. But I have uniformly main-
tained an independent judgement, whether towards Well-
hausen or other scholars; and I have been careful to adopt
Preface. ν
nothing of importance, from whatever source, without ac-
knowledgement at the time.
The fact that valuable original readings are preserved by
the Septuagint or other Versions has been recognized also
by Gratz?, Stade’, and other scholars: in this country by
Mr. (now Professor) Kirkpatrick, in his Commentary on
the Books of Samuel in the Cambridge Bible for Schools
and Colleges, and the Rev. F. H. Woods, in an Essay on
the subject contributed by him to the Studia Biblica *.
A more recent work than any of these, also dealing
largely with the criticism of the text, is Klostermann’s
Commentary on the Books of Samuel and Kings, forming
part of the Kuwrzgefasster Commentar su den Heiligen
Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes, edited by Strack
and Zéckler (1887). Klostermann is a genuine scholar, an
acute and able critic; and his Commentary has evidently
had great pains bestowed upon it. But in his treatment
of the text, where he adopts an independent line, it is,
unhappily, very rarely possible to follow him. Kloster-
mann can make, and has made, clever and probable
emendations: but his originality is excessive; he is too
ready—as Hitzig was sometimes—with an ingenious but
recondite combination ; he is apt to assume that the text
has suffered more than is probable; and his restorations
themselves betray sometimes a defective appreciation of
Hebrew modes of expression. But it remains his merit
to have been the first to perceive distinctly the critical
importance of Lucian’s recension of the Septuagint, and
to have utilized it consistently in his Commentary *.
1 Gesch. der Juden, i. (1874). 2 Gesch. des V. Israels, i. (1887).
3 Oxford, 1885, p. 21 ff, * Comp. the quotation below, p. lif.
vi Preface.
The reader, before using the volume, is requested to
notice the ‘ Additions and Corrections’ at the end. A list
of the principal abbreviations employed will be found on
p. xcvf. As idioms and constructions occurring in other
parts of the Old Testament have been not unfrequently
explained or illustrated in the notes, an Index comprising
the chief of these has also been added.
S: RD:
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD,
November, 1889.
CONTENT S:
INTRODUCTION :—
§ 1. Zhe Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet . ix
§ 2. Early Hebrew Orthography . : : ἜΧΕ Κ
§ 3. Lhe Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament . χχχνὶ
'§ 4. Characteristics of the Chief Ancient Versions of
Samuel . : ; lvi
Appendix :—The Inscription of Misha 8 ῊΝ ἘΠῚ
as the ‘Moabite Stone’ . : : ᾿ πῆ ττεν
List of Abbreviations . : ᾿ : : : τι κῶν
ΝΌΤΕΒ ΟΝ I SAMUEL : : ; : ἢ : : I
ΝΌΤΕΒ ΟΝ 2 SAMUEL ; : : TG
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS . : ‘ : . Sir
INDEX . : : : : ; : : ; - ΠΕΖΌΣ
FAcsIMILEs.
I. The Siloam Inscription . : : : : To face p. xv
11. The Carpentras Stele. : : : . 70 face p. xviii
III. Egyptian Aramaic Papyrus. : : - To face p. xxi
IV. Inscription of Tabnith, King of Zidon_. . To face p. xxvi
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. The Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Tue Old Testament—except, possibly, the latest portions—was
not written originally in the characters with which we are familiar ;
and a recollection of the change through which the Hebrew
alphabet passed is preserved both in the Talmud and by the
Fathers. In the Talmud, Sanh. 21, we read: ‘ Originally the law
was given to Israel in the AHedrew character and in the sacred
tongue: it was given again to them, in the days of Ezra, in the
“ Assyrian” character (“WX 2,53), and in the Aramaic tongue.
Israel chose for themselves the “ Assyrian” character and the sacred
tongue, and left to the ἰδιῶται the Hebrew character and the
Aramaic tongue. Who are the ἰδιῶται δὶ R. Hasda?* said, The
Cuthites [i.e. the Samaritans: 2 Ki. 17, 24]. What is the Hebrew
character? R. Hasda said, ὃ ΠΝ 2553 The original cha-
racter is here termed Hebrew (02 33), the new character "WN *.
In the Jerus. Talmud, Megzd/ah 1, 71», two explanations are offered
of the latter term: ‘And why is it called "Ww? Because it is
straight (8S) in form. R. Levi says, Because the Jews brought
1 A teacher of the school of Sura, d. 309.
2om 3. ond FAM) ΤΠ wpa pwd ay anda ΝΎ} ΠῚ Π TAM? ASTIN.
WIP PDI MWR ANd. Ὁ PTD 199d IN FW) NIV ANIA ΝΙΝ
ΝΣ NID 9 WON NOVI ND MDW FW ay and ΠῚ.) WIM
M1295 and ΝΊΟΠ “Ὃ WON MAY and OND.
3. An expression of uncertain meaning; comp. Hoffmann in the 74 7W. i. 337;
Levy NHWB. s. v.
* The same term is used elsewhere: thus in the Mishnah, AZegz//ah 1, 8
DVN) PION Pwd 252 7232 DMIPOAW NOW 17157 PHN DDD 72 PN
MWR NON 72ND) 20}, i.e. the sacred books might be written in any
language, but the Zef//in and Mezuzoth only in the ‘ Assyrian’ character.
x Introduction.
it home with them from Assyrza}’ The explanation Assyrian is
the more probable, whether it be supposed to be used loosely for
‘Babylonian, or whether—as others have thought—it have the
sense of Syrzan or Aramaic (as occasionally in later times appears
to have been the case’), and so embody a true tradition as to the
origin of the new character. The "WN 3n3 is that which in later
times acquired the name of YA!) 23 or sguare character. Origen,
speaking of the sacred name, says that in accurate MSS. it was
written in archaic characters, unlike those in use in his own day®:
ἔστι δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ ἀνεκφώνητον τετραγράμματον ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ χρυσοῦ
πετάλου τοῦ ἀρχιέρεως ἐγέγραπτο" κύριος δὲ καὶ τοῦτο παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι ἐκφω-
νεῖται. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβέσι τῶν ἀντιγράφων Ἑ βραικοῖς ἀρχαίοις γράμμασι
γέγραπται ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τοῖς νῦν. Φασὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἔσδραν ἑτέροις χρήσασθαι
μετὰ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν. In his Commentary on Ez. 9, 4 he adds that
a converted Jew, in answer to an enquiry, told him that ra ἀρχαῖα
στοιχεῖα ἐμφερὲς ἔχειν TO Oad τῷ τοῦ σταυροῦ χαρακτῆρι. Jerome, at the
beginning of the “ Ῥτοϊοριιβ Galeatus‘,’ after observing that the
Hebrews, Syrians, and Chaldaeans had all an alphabet of twenty-
two characters, continues, ‘Samaritani etiam Pentateuchum Moysi
totidem litteris scriptitant, figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes.
Certumque est Esdram scribam legisque doctorem, post capta
Hierosolyma et instaurationem templi sub Zorobabel, alas lifteras
repperisse quibus nunc ulimur, cum ad illud usque tempus iidem
Samaritanorum et Hebraeorum characteres fuerint.. On Ez. 9, 4
he makes a remark to the same effect as Origen. In his letter to
Marcella, De decem nominibus Dei*, he writes, ‘Nomen rerpaypap-
ματον quod ἀνεκφώνητον id est ineffabile putaverunt quod his litteris
1 pa ΠΟ ow dy 19 “Ἢ OR NANDA IWIND NITW NWR TOW NPI TN
ἸΌΝ.
5. Cf. Jer. 35 (42), 11. Ez. 32, 29 (Ἀσσύριοι for Ὁ ἼΝ, i.e. DN) in the LXX.
3. On Ψ. 2, 2 (quoted by Montfaucon, Hexag/a, i. 86: in a slightly different
form, from other MSS., in ed. Bened. ii. 539 =Lommatzsch xi. 396 f.).
* Or Preface to the Four Books of Kings (which were the first translated by .
Jerome from the Hebrew), designed as a defence (galea) against detractors,—
printed at the beginning of ordinary editions of the Vulgate.
5 Ep. 25 (ed. Bened. i. 705; Vallarsi i. 129).
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. 25a
scribitur min’: quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum
similitudinem cum in Graecis litteris repererent NIM! legere con-
sueverunt’.’ Epiphanius? (d. 403) makes a statement similar to
that contained in the extract from Sanhedrin, that a change of
character was introduced by Ezra, and that the old form was only
retained by the Samaritans.
The fact of a change of character, to which these passages bear
witness, is correct: the only error is that it is represented as
having been introduced by one man. Tradition, as is its wont,
has attributed to a single age, and*to a single name, what was in
reality only accomplished gradually, and certainly was not com-
pleted at the time of Ezra (who came to Palestine B.c. 458).
What, then, was that older character of which the Talmud and
the Fathers speak, and which they describe as being still retained
by the Samaritans? It was the character which, with slight
modifications of form, is found upon the Inscription of Mesha‘
(commonly known as the ‘ Moabite Stone’), upon early Aramaic
and Hebrew gems, upon Phoenician Inscriptions, and upon the
one early Hebrew Inscription which we at present possess, viz. that |
found in the tunnel of the pool of Siloam. It was the common
Semitic character, used alike, in ancient times, by the Moabites,
Hebrews, Aramaeans, and Phoenicians, and transmitted by the
Phoenicians to the Greeks. This character remained longest
without substantial alteration in Hebrew proper and Phoenician :
in Greek it changed gradually to the character with which we are
now familiar: the transition to what is termed above the "Ws 2.5
was effected first in Aramaic ; it was only accomplished at a later
period in Hebrew, in consequence, no doubt, of the growing
influence of the Aramaic language in Palestine, in the period
immediately preceding the Christian era.
Tables of the chief ancient Semitic alphabets are to be found in
1 Comp. the Hexapla on y. 26 (25), 1; Is. 1, 2 (with Dr. Field’s note) ;
Nestle in the ZD(/G. xxxii. 466-9, 507.
* De xiz gemmis, § 63 (ed. Dindorf, 1863, IV. 213; cited by Hoffmann,
#. ον DP. 334).
xii Introduction.
most Hebrew grammars of modern times’, and they need not be
here repeated. It will be more instructive to place before the
reader specimens of Inscriptions themselves in facsimile. The
earliest Inscription of all, that of Mesha‘ (c. B.c. 900), has not been
included, as a facsimile of it with a transcription in modern Hebrew
characters has been published independently in an inexpensive
form, and is readily obtainable*. The characters used on this
Inscription are the most ancient of the West-Semitic type that are
known *, though they differ but slightly from the earliest of those
that are figured below: the differences may be studied in detail
with the aid of the Table in the grammar of Gesenius-Kautzsch
or of Stade.
Here are examples of seals with Aramaic (Figs. 1 and 2) and
Hebrew (Figs. 3 and 4) Inscriptions, the first three of which are
5yataiy ΝΘ ἢ ὙΠ Ὁ Ὁ ἢ 5 m1D5
(Levy, Taf. I, 1) (Levy, Taf. I, 3) wWPawy 13 ὙΌΣ]
(Levy, Taf. III,1) (Levy, Taf. III, 3)
1 E.g. at the beginning of Gesenius-Kautzsch, or at the end of Stade’s
Lehrbuch (vol. i). More elaborate Tables may be seen in Madden’s Coczs of
the Jews (ed. 2, 1881), p. 42; in the Volume Facsimiles of Manuscripts and
Znscriptions (Oriental Series), published by the Palaeographical Society (attached
to the Siloam Inscription, Plate LXXXVII); and especially in Chwolson’s
Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum enthaltend Grabinschriften aus der Krim,
εἰς, (a Table constructed by the eminent German palaeographer Euting, con-
taining specimens of not less than 139 alphabets).
2 Die Inschrift des Konigs Mesa von Moab fiir akademische Vorlesungen
herausgegeben von Rudolf Smend und Albert Socin (Freiburg i. B., 1886).
3. The Inscription on fragments of a bowl dedicated to 7215 253, found in
Cyprus in 1872 (CZS. Tab. IV), is, however, of nearly equal, if not of greater
antiquity. The characters are very similar.
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. xiii
assigned by M. A. Levy’ to the eighth cent. B.c., while the fourth
is somewhat later.
No. 1 was found under the pedestal of a colossal bull at Khorsa-
bad: Nos. 3 and 4 were obtained by M. Waddington, the former
in Aleppo, the latter in Damascus. The resemblance of some
of the characters to those of the Greek alphabet will be evident :
the Ἵ and D are closely similar to A* and =, while the forms of 7
and Ἢ become, when turned round so as to face the right, E and P
respectively. The 5 and y exhibit quite the forms which they still
have in modern European alphabets, L and O, but from which in
the later Hebrew alphabet they both diverged considerably. The
characters on old Phoenician seals and gems are so similar that
it has not been deemed necessary to add illustrations*. The fol-
lowing specimens of ancient Inscriptions from Thera will illustrate
the derivation of the Greek alphabet from the Phoenician: the letters,
as is often the case in the most ancient Greek Inscriptions, are read
from right to left :—
Fig. 5.
MoTATA4
127099
᾿Ἐπάγατος
ἐποίε(ι)
Fig. 6.
momo δ 44%
Kepdvvopos
(From Roehl’s Jmagines Inscriptionum Graecarum Antiquissimae,
Berolini, 1883, Nos. 1 and 4.)
The E does not differ materially from the m in Fig. 3; the n
Siegel und Gemmen mit aramdischen, phinizischen, althebriischen etc.
Luschriften (Breslau, 1869), pp. 6, 8, 34, 37.
* In the Inscription of Mesha’, as in that to 1225 bya, the 7 isa simple triangle,
with no elongation of the right side downwards ; it thus exactly resembles the
Greek A, and is also distinct from the >.
* Examples may be seen in Levy, /.c. Taf. ΤΙ.
xiv Introduction.
differs but slightly from the 5 of Mesha‘’s Inscription, and indeed
agrees substantially with the ἢ of modern printed texts: the Γ and
K are quite the ἃ and 3 of Mesha‘: the 1, which has not yet become
a straight line, retains evident traces of its origin (cf. Fig. 3): the
M as compared with the N has a double turn at the top, exactly as
in Fig. 3, the P and the A are more differentiated, but do not differ
in principle from the forms in Figs. 1 and 2. By turning the letters
round so as to face the right, the later and usual form of the Greek
character is (in most cases) immediately produced. The evidence
of Inscriptions thus confirms the testimony of Herodotus, respect-
ing the origin of the Greek alphabet from Phoenicia’.
The most ancient Inscription, however, which is at present
1 Hat. 5. 58 Οἱ δὲ Φοίνικες οὗτοι of σὺν Κάδμῳ ἀπικόμενοι... ἄλλα TE πολλά,
οἰκήσαντες ταύτην τὴν χώρην, ἐσήγαγον διδασκάλια ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, καὶ δὴ καὶ
γράμματα, οὐκ ἐόντα πρὶν τοῖς Ἕλλησι, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκέειν: πρῶτα μέν, τοῖσι καὶ
ἅπαντες χρέωνται Φοίνικες" μετὰ δέ, χρόνου προβαίνοντος, ἅμα τῇ φωνῇ μετέβαλον
καὶ τὸν ῥυθμὸν (the shape) τῶν γραμμάτων. Περιοίκεον δέ σφεας τὰ πολλὰ τῶν
χώρων τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἑλλήνων Ἴωνες, οἱ παραλαβόντες διδαχῇ παρὰ τῶν
Φοινίκων τὰ γράμματα μεταρρυθμίσαντές σφεων ὀλίγα ἐχρέωντο. Archaic Greek
characters are termed by him accordingly (2). 59) Καδμήϊΐα γράμματα.
A little consideration will shew generally, how by continued modification in
different directions, the Greek and modern European character on the one hand,
and the Hebrew square character on the other, have been developed from
a common origin. Out of the archaic 3, the Greek B arose by turning the
letter from left to right, and carrying round the lower part of it so as to form a
complete semicircle: the square 1 arose by the opening and ultimate disap-
pearance of the upper part of the original letter, as explained below (on Plate
II). A and P in Greek preserved the distinctness of type which these letters
shew on Mesha‘’s Inscription: by the addition of a tail to the 1, and the gradual
degeneration of the upper part of both letters, they acquired the great similarity
of form which they present in most of the later Hebrew alphabets. Eshmun‘a-
zar’s } is almost our Z; by successive shortening of the strokes, and extension
of the angles between them, 1 is produced. The old 5 is nearly our L: by the
addition of a tail on the right, the square 5 is produced. Mesha’’s y is our O;
the first stage in the derivation of » will appear in Plate II. Out of the old ἢ,
the Greek M arose by the gradual prolongation downwards of the upper left-
hand part of the letter (see the first stage in Fig. 5): the final is nearly the
same as the old form; the medial 5 merely differs from it by the turn to the left
given to the lower part of the letter, when the end of a word did not bring the
scribe’s hand to a pause.
‘NOILdINOSN] WVOTIS AH],
‘SSatq Mpissaniupy profxc
"4 420229)
ὯΔ '“ IDL OT,
Te ἘΝ ey
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. XV
known, next to that of Mesha‘, and perhaps earlier than some of
the seals that have been quoted, is the Inscription on the wall
of the Pool of Siloam (see Plate I). The Pool of Siloam is
situated at the extreme S. of the Eastern hill of Jerusalem (on the
N. of which the Temple formerly stood), at the entrance to the
Tyropoeon valley ; and a conduit or tunnel cut through the rock
from the Virgin’s Spring *—the one natural spring which Jerusalem
possesses—situated some distance above it, on the E. side of the
same hill, leads down to it, and supplies it with water. The
tunnel is circuitous, measuring 1708 feet (Warren), or 1757 feet
(Conder), though the distance in a straight line is considerably
less. At a distance of about 19 feet from where the tunnel opens
into the Pool of Siloam, and on the right-hand side as one enters it,
is an artificial niche or tablet in the rock, the lower part of which
is occupied by the Inscription. The Inscription was first observed
in 1880, by a pupil of Architect Schick, who, while wading in the
Pool with a lighted candle, observed what appeared to be cha-
racters engraved on the rock. Ultimately, in 1881, a gypsum cast
was obtained by Dr. Guthe, who published a photograph, with
accompanying description, in 18827, which has since been often
reproduced. A portion of three lines in the Inscription has been
destroyed through the wearing away of the rock: but the general
sense is quite plain. Here is the Inscription, transliterated into
modern Hebrew characters ὃ:
ee KK RA RK EK TY, ODI, ἼΔῚ., TN, MIpIA x x x
ΡΝ OD. xe ee Smd. ΠΌΝ why. tiyar ay Sew. maa
7, DD) xe eee TOMI. ον ἸΝῪ. δεν ΝῚ
19d)... Sy. mam. map>. we, paynn, ion, mp2
Ro, ΠῸΝ os). Bsr. notin. x. xvi. jo. on
/paynn, we, Sy, Syn... nox. ἢ
μ᾿
nao fk W N
? Not the Virgin’s Poo/, as stated incorrectly in the Palaeographical Society’s
Volume. This is a small artificial reservoir near St. Stephen’s Gate, and has no
connexion with either the Virgin’s Sfvzng, or the Pool of Siloam.
2? ZDMG. 1882, pp. 725-50.
* The dine above a letter indicates that the reading is not quite certain.
xvi Introduction.
I.e. 1. [Behold] the piercing through! And this was the manner
of the piercing through. Whilst yet [the miners were lifting
up]
2. the pick each towards his fellow, and whilst yet there were
three cubits to be [cut through, there was heard] the voice
of each call-
3. ing to his fellow, for there was a fissure (0) in the rock on the
right-hand....... . And on the day of the
4. piercing through, the miners (lit. hewers) smote each so as to
meet his fellow, pick against pick; and there flowed
5. the water from the source to the pool, 1200 cubits; and one
hun-
6. dred cubits was the height of the rock over the head of the
miners.
The Hebrew is as idiomatic, and flowing, as a passage from the
Old Testament. 1. 7373 or 372 does not occur in the ΟἿ᾽:
apa is fo pierce (2 Ki. 12, 10 al.); JAad is @ hole or aperture—On
the use of 135, comp. p. 150 no/e. 2. WI as Jer. 6, 21: usually
wYI.— Nya as Gen. 48, 7, cf. Am. 4, 7. 3. nM, i.e. probably MI
as 2 Ki. 9, 37 Kt.—ntt: the letters are quite clear, but the meaning
is altogether uncertain, the word being not otherwise known, and
the derivation from ‘3 producing no suitable sense. 4. np,
vocalize nape, the infin. of MP. 5. The order of the numerals in
mb) nnn, as Nu. 3, so AoN) mind wow. On the orshography of
the Inscription, see below, pp. xxxii, xxxv. The words, as in the
Inscription of Mesha‘, are separated by dots, without spaces.
The Inscription will not be later than the time of Hezekiah, who
is stated to have ‘made the pool, and the conduit, and brought
water into the city’ ‘to the west side of the city of David’ (2 Ki.
20, 20; 2 Ch. 32, 30) in terms which appear exactly to describe
the function of the tunnel in which the Inscription is’, though
others, from the fact that ‘the waters of Shiloah, that flow gently,’
are alluded to by Isaiah (8, 6), in a prophecy dating from the reign
1 Guthe, 4c. pp. 745-8.
om
K
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. κνῖϊ
of Ahaz, assign the tunnel, and with it, of course, the Inscription,
to a somewhat earlier date’. The Samaritan character, as stated
in the passages quoted above from the Talmud and the Fathers,
preserves in all essential features the old Hebrew type, the modi-
fications being confined to details, and originally, no doubt, being
merely calligraphic variations :—
AMQAPMIAVEIBASMVEWTEAITIASA
Maven sos oo ees Ss.) βῆ at SOON
In Palestine the old Hebrew character was used regularly on
coins, from the earliest Sheqels and half-Shegels struck by Simon
Maccabaeus (B.c. 141-135) to those of the Great Revolt, a.p.
65-68, and of Simon Bar-cochab, Α. Ὁ. 132-1357. The example
(Fig. 7) is a Shegel of the third year (1 w i.e. ἃ maw) of Simon
Maccabaeus :—
Fig. 7.
Ὁ pw awipA Ὁ Ὁ)
λῸ
(From Madden’s Ορέγος of the Jews, p. 68, No. 5.)
As characters that were entirely unknown would evidently not
be suitable for use upon coins, it may be inferred that though
in the time of Christ the older character had been generally super-
seded (for the ", Matth. 5, 18, is by no means the smallest letter in
the old alphabet), it was still known, and could be read without
difficulty.
In the characters represented hitherto, no tendency to modi-
fication in the direction of the modern square type has been
observable. Such a tendency first manifests itself in the Aramazc
1 Stade, Gesch. 757. i. p. 593 f.
* Madden, Cozns of the Jews (ed. 2, 1881), pp. 67 ff., 198 ff., 233 ff.
ς
XVili Introduction.
alphabet, and may be traced most distinctly in Aramaic Inscriptions
from Egypt. Plate II is a facsimile of the ‘Carpentras stele,’ a
monument carved in limestone, the early history of which is not
known, but which is now deposited in the Bibliothéque et Musée
d'Inguimbert in the town of Carpentras (dép. Vaucluse) in France.
The monument is a funereal one: the representation above the
Inscription exhibits the embalmed body of the deceased, a lady
named Taba, resting on the lion-shaped bier, and attended by the
jackal-headed Anubis at the feet, and by the hawk-headed Horus
at the head, with the four customary funereal vases beneath. The
figures stationed as mourners at a little distance from the head and
feet of the bier are Isis and Nephthys. The first three lines of the
Inscription are about 93 inches long; the height of the letters is
2 of an inch, or a little more.
The Inscription, in square characters, is as follows :—
ΝΠῸΝ “DIN NMA ΠῚ ΠᾺΣ NaN ABN ὦ
mon nox xd wx wna) ΠΩΣ Nd wna Dy 2
‘mp Ὁ ΘΝ DIP jd 47 AD. DIX DIP 3
Sab aie 1,5: ΡΣ anda ὙΠ 4
I.e. 1. Blessed be Taba, the daughter of Tahapi, devoted wor-
shipper of the God Osiris.
2. Aught of evil she did not, and calumny against any man she
never uttered.
3. Before Osiris be thou blessed : from Osiris take thou water.
4. Be thou a worshipper (sc. before Osiris), my darling; and
among the pious [mayest thou be at peace !].
τ. ΝΠ, Monh is an Egyptian word, meaning perfeci, pious ;
the prefix fa (7’) is the fem. article. "t=Heb. nt: the demonstrative
with the force of a relative, as regularly in Aramaic. But (=
Arab. 59) is usually hardened to “Ἴ in Aram. (Dan. Ezr. passim) ;
the same form, however, recurs in Plate III, lines 1,3,5%. 2. OY
1 Also on ancient Aramaic weights (Levy, /iidische Miinzen, p. 149 ff.; or
De Vogué, Mélanges a’ Archéologie Orientale, pp. 183 f., 194; cf. p. 121), and in
Aramaic Inscriptions from Téma, Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885), pp. 210-212.
(‘Aja190g JeorydeaSoavjeg 911 Aq paystiqnd [sates
[ejUaHIQ] suodiiosuy puv sidruosnuvy JO 59. παιθοῦ ἢ O49 JO ATX'T 3d Woy ‘uorsstursted Aq ‘paonposdey)
‘ATALS SVULNAMUVD FHL
‘Ssatq Gisda2uy profxo
agit jopjo7D
wax *f av OT,
Tt ey ΤΩΙ
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. xix
is the oldest extant form of the word which appears in Mandaic as
px73"D, in the Targums as DY, and in Syriac as pes: comp.
ZDMG. xxxiv. 568,766. ΝΞ is the older form of the Syr. wad
evil: comp. WN3 Zo de evil in the Targums, Gen. 21; 11 and often,
ΩΣ (emph.) ev. NTIY and NON are the usual Aram. forms of
3 fem. pf. ‘85 must=what is usually written in Aram. as "yp (see
Dan. 3, 8. 6, 25); in Mandaic, however, the root is written p3;
and comp. Syr. διότ Heb. NYP, and Mand. xuwn> = |Xacko=
Heb. bwp, The term will be used here in the derived sense of
‘calumny’ (though this explanation is not free from objection) 1.
man cannot mean ferfect (NOM) ‘because adjectives of this form
are very rarely derived from verbs y’’y (the Aram. form is pool”),
and because, as the subj. of nx, we should expect the emphatic
nmnon. If Aon=Syr. col= Heb. DY, as in Ezr. 5, 17. 6, 1. 6.12,
it must mean ¢here, yonder, the speaker being conceived as in the
world beyond the grave, and therefore referring to this earthly life
as “yonder.” This seems, however, rather forced: and it is perhaps
better to adopt Lagarde’s suggestion that mon=Syr. psks (rad.
pool) “ever”? (Dr. Wright). The word must be allowed to be
uncertain. 3. }, i.e. 2. The expression Rececve water may be
illustrated from Greek Inscriptions’; and the representation of the
bestowal of water upon the dead is common on Egyptian monu-
ments. 4. ‘Nyd3 (which admits of no explanation) is supposed to be
an error of the stone-cutter for ΘΝ my pleasant, delightful one (cf.
2Sam.1, 26. Cant. 7, 7). ™ON=/ieas she prous. At the end
mn dvi (or "¥1) ὙΠ may be plausibly supplied: some have thought
that traces of these letters are even discernible on the stone. The
Δ Lagarde, Symmicta, ii. p. 61 f.
2 Comp. ἌΣ LEX rte» Suds τοῖο yd ὍΛΟΣ by the
side of 51 Ἐν Mz 5p ἪΡ Jr pr (Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur Griech. Ubers.
der Proverbien, 1863, on 4, 3°).
8 Boeckh, Corp. Jnscr. Graec. 6562 : Θ(εοῖξ) Κ(αταχθονίοις). Αὐρηλίᾳ Προσόδῳ
Διοσκουρίδης ἀνὴρ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ συνβίῳ χρηστοτάτῃ καὶ γλυκυτάτῃ μνείας χάριν"
εὐψύχει, κυρία, καὶ δοί(η) σοι 6 "Οσιρις τὸ ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ. The same wish, 70.
6717.
C2
xX Introduction.
language of the Inscription is almost pure Aramaic: a Hebrew (or
Phoenician) element is, however, present in Ws and "ΠΡ (npd).
The date of this Inscription is not perfectly certain: but it
belongs probably to the fourth cent. B.c. A somewhat earlier type
of the Egyptian Aramaic character is exhibited on the stele of
Saqqarah (W. of Memphis), found in 18771; the stele of Carpentras
has been preferred for reproduction here, as the characters are
more distinct. Observe that the upper part of the 3, 5, Ἢ, and ἡ
is open: this is the first stage in the formation of the later square
character, which is ultimately produced, in the case of these letters,
by the disappearance of the two parallel lines at the top of 3, 4, 5,
and by the addition of a tail to the y. (These letters are formed
similarly on the Saqqarah stele.) The stroke at the upper right-
hand corner of the δὲ is almost, if not quite, separated from the
transverse stroke which forms the body of the letter: this is a
similar change in the direction of the later form of the character.
The three horizontal strokes of the old 7 are replaced by two,
forming an angle—sometimes a right angle—with each other,
anticipating thus the form ultimately assumed by the letter. The
is open at the top, and also rounded at the lower part. “ only
differs from Ἵ by having a slightly longer tail. 1 and + have both
nearly assumed the modern form. 1M appears (as on the Saqqarah
stele) with only a single horizontal bar. On the stone of Mesha‘
(as on the Inscriptions figured above) * appears composed of four
distinct strokes (like Z with ‘wo parallel strokes on the left at the
top): here the four strokes are crumpled up so as to form a sort of
triangle, which, when reduced in size, becomes the modern’, In
the stele of Saqqarah, the » appears still in its old form. Ὁ exhibits
a modification which is difficult to describe, but which, when the
tail, as happens afterwards, is curled round to the left, produces an
evident approximation to the modern form of the letter. w has
been modified, and approaches the modern type: almost the same
? Plate LXIII in the Palaeographical Society’s Volume. The Inscription is
dated the 4th year of Xerxes (=B.C. 482): the name Xerxes is written W1N?wN
Hshiarsh (Pers. Khshayarsha).
el
hut pal.
My M4 ar
᾿
Νὰ
y \% gir Gey
PLATE TTL
To face p. xX2.
a
Collotiy pe Oxford University Press.
EGYPTIAN ARAMAIC PAPYRUS.
(Reproduced, by permission, from Plate XXVI of the Facsimiles of Manuscripts
and Inscriptions published by the Palaeographical Society.)
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. xxi
form appears on the stele of Saqqarah. 1 is no longer a complete
cross: the horizontal cross-line is confined to the right-hand side
of the letter, and is deflected downwards: by the further pro-
longation of this deflection, and the accompanying reduction of
the upper part of the perpendicular stroke, the modern n is
produced. Some of the other letters, as 5 Ὁ, 3, are not materially
changed, shewing, as was said, that the transition to the square
character was gradual, and not accomplished for all the letters
at the same time. ‘The words are separated, not by dots, but by
small spaces.
The transition to the square character has advanced still further
in the specimen of Egyptian Aramaic on a fragment of papyrus
now in the British Museum (Plate III), belonging to the late
Ptolemaic or Roman period. Mere is a transliteration of the
Inscription :—
PVE 595. Nana PY Sb: eases 2
Pee sea SONITED SIMINSI PBI TT gira bse 42
Saeed TUM Noob ἢ ΡΟ WATS te. εὐ 2
ake ΠΕ 3 INA ΠΝ ΠΟΘ δ) ὁ νον 04
ον Nmy ΜῊΣ ΠΩ ae poo ἢν... 5
cece e DOr ΟΝ pn xd pon ἼΡΝΞ,, εν 6
At aS Shsg ries) OBOE OM Ba yale. F
I.e. 1. ... to my children on account of .... of the king, and he
heard...
2. ... the son of Punsh, he delayed (ἢ). The king answered .....
3. ... the son of Punsh the words which the king had spoken,
PTV:
4. ... thou didst kill them. Mayest thou go with the sword of thy
strength, and....
5. ..+..+....and the captives which thou hast taken this year.....
6. ....in them; and thy bones shall not descend into She’ol, and
thy shadow.....
Paes Arie do on the thousands of the king....
The text, as is evident, is much mutilated. The subject appears
to be a tale, ‘ composed either by a heathen Aramaean, who was
Xxii — Introduction.
hostile to the Egyptian religion’, or by an Egyptian Jew as a
Haggadah on Ex. 1,—more probably the latter’ The language is
Aramaic, tinged (like the Carpentras Inscription) with Hebrew or
Phoenician. 2. x2 my, cf. Dan. 2, 5.8. 20 etc. 4. 197 shem,
as Ezr..4, 10.23 etc. ἘΠ cf. 7" ΒΖ ἢ, ἢ. 6. FN those, as Dan.
3, 12 etc. [NM from NM), the common Aram. word for go down.
After what has been said with reference to the Carpentras
Inscription, detailed remarks on the characters will be unnecessary:
speaking generally, it may be said that the Carpentras type is here
more distinctly and definitely marked. The is particularly clear.
The tail of the 1 shews a tendency to curl round to the left: the
transition to the modern form of the letter is here commencing.
From the immediate neighbourhood of Palestine an early ex-
ample of the Aramaic transition-alphabet is afforded by an Inscrip-
tion, consisting of a single word, found at ‘Araq-el-Emir, in the
country of the ancient Ammonites, near Heshbon*®. Here, as we
learn from Josephus (Ant. xii. 4, 11), Hyrcanus, nephew of the
High Priest Onias II, being persecuted by his brothers, found for
himself a retreat among the hills, where he built a stronghold
(8. ο. 176), one feature of which consisted in a series of caves, in
two tiers, hollowed out in the side of the rock. At the right hand
of the entrance to one of these caves, on the smoothed surface of
the rock, stands the Inscription, in letters nearly eight inches high °.
Fig. 8.
MAW
(From No. 383 of the Photographs published by the Palestine
Exploration Fund.)
* There is an allusion to the ‘Egyptian gods’ in the first column of the
papyrus (also mutilated) published as Plate XXV of the same Volume.
* See Socin’s Palistina u. Syrien (in Baedeker’s Handbooks), Route ro (end).
* See views taken from photographs, and including the Inscription (though
on p. 76 f. not accurately reproduced), in the Memoirs of the Survey of Eastern
Palestine, vol. i. (1889), pp. 76 f., 84.
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. — xxiii
From its position, the Inscription cannot well be earlier than the
period when the caves were constructed, and may, of course, be
later. On the ground of De Vogué’s transcript !, which he states
(Adélanges, p. 162) was made by him ‘ with the greatest care,’ the
Inscription was read by Néldeke (ZDMG. 1865, p. 640) as m2,
which has since been generally accepted by scholars. But the
photograph leaves no doubt that the first letter must have been
reproduced incorrectly, and that it can in fact be only y. The
word can hardly be read otherwise than ΠΡ ἽΝ, i.e. probably 31.
The transitional character of the alphabet appears in the fact that
while the y retains its primitive form, the other letters exhibit an
archaic form of the square type: observe the 3 open at the top,
the ' approaching the " of Fig. 9, the rectangular figure of the 7.
The next Inscription is that of the Bené Hezir, above the
entrance to the so-called Tomb of St. James, situated on the
Mount of Olives, immediately opposite to the S.-E. angle of the
Temple-area.
Fig. 9.
τ pl Tv Tue whabs 3 Sl
Ee NuAws VW bt 1 Cran
41M ws
Inscription of the Bené Hezir.
(From Chwolson’s Corpus Iuscriptionum Hebraicarum, No. 6.)
rm pyow mam any mn ΡΟΝ afs}wom ἼΡ[Π] ΠῚ
mon soa ΜΌΝ. ΠΌ[Γ 91] . 6.2... [2 HOY 3
ayia) 22 oe @
1 In the facsimiles attached to Chwolson’s Corp. Zuscr. Hebr. (No. 1), it is
given thus (dzagram). In the transcript in the Rev. Archéol. x.
(1864), Plate VII, which was all that Noldeke had at his disposal q 1.116
in 1865, the shading of the first letter is such as to suggest a
} (though it was not so read at the time by De Vogué himself). In Fig. 8 the
horizontal line in the lower part of the » is more clearly defined than in the pho-
tograph: indeed, if examined through a glass, it may seem doubtful whether it
consists of more than natural indentations on the rock.
XXIV Introduction.
I. e. This is the tomb and the resting-place for Eleazar, Hanniah,
Yo‘ezer, Yehudah, Simeon, Yohanan,
‘bheysons οἵ Yoseph, the son of.. 47. [and for Yo]seph and
Eleazar, the sons of Hanniah,
...» Of the sons (i.e. family) of Hezir.
Here we observe Hebrew advancing towards the square character.
A Hezir, ancestor of a priestly family, is mentioned 1 Ch. 24, 15:
another Hezir, not a priest, but one of the chiefs of the people,
is named Neh. το, 21. The date of the Inscription is probably
shortly before the Christian era. The advance towards the square
character is very marked. Notice, for instance, the δὲ, the ἢ,
the 5, the Ὁ, the y, the 1; and the bar of the n, higher up than in
the Egyptian Aramaic. Notice also that by the turn to the left
given to the lower part of the 3, when standing in the middle of a
word, a medial and a final form of the letter are distinguished (as
in jn at the end of the first line): when » follows, this turn is
regularly connected with it, giving rise to a ligature: the same
happens with 3 followed by 3. 4 and? are scarcely distinguishable
from one another. The first letters of line 3 are uncertain: they
may perhaps be read as n’3,...?
The ligature just spoken of is peculiarly common in the Palm-
yrene character. The Palmyrene Inscriptions are written in a
dialect of Aramaic *, and date from Β. 6. 9 onwards; the character
differs from the square type only in calligraphical details. A
specimen (Fig. 10) is given, for the sake of illustrating the tendency
of Aramaic on the East, as well as on the West, of Palestine to
advance in the direction of the square character :—
1 Other Inscriptions (mostly fragmentary), from approximately the same
period, may be seen in Chwolson’s volume, Nos. 2 (132 orn Zémzt [Aram.] of
Gezer), 3, 4, 5 (Aram., from the Hauran), 7, 8, 9,10. No.5 is bilingual, and
may be found also in De Vogué, Syrze Centrale, Ὁ. 89: 73297 NAN Ἵ WWE?
My. NIN 19 ="Odaivabos ᾿Αννήλου ὠκοδόμησεν τὴν στήλην Χαμράτῃ τῇ
αὐτοῦ γυναικί.
* Which exhibits some noticeable affinities with the Aramaic of Ezra and
Daniel: see Sachau in the ZDM/G, 1883, pp. 564-7.
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. XxV
Fig. Io.
AMAIA CI
rm AYray aq As
AAI AMGY 755
IAYI AHA AT
KAA UIAY AN
MPM FS AAAS
(From De Vogué’s Syrze Centrale, Plate V, No. 305.)
‘| m9 Nap 1.6. This tomb is that of
yn 43 jnony ‘Athinathan, son of Kohilu, which
33 "πον 43 built for him his sons
moa pom ids Kohilu and Hairan his sons,
NN ὯΔ Ὁ °F of (the family of) the children of Mitha,
WNW Iw pss ns in the month Kanun, in the year 304
[25 is zwrdtten px] [Seleuc. = 8. c. 9].
In the following Inscription, from the lintel of a door, belonging
to a ruined Synagogue at Kefr-Bir'im, a village a few miles N.-W.
of Safed in Galilee, discovered by M. Renan in the course of his
expedition in Palestine in 1863, the transition to the square cha-
racter may be said to be accomplished: the date may be c. 300 a. Ὁ.
(Renan), or somewhat earlier (Chwolson).
Fig. 11.
NIL OWNI a1 B33 τσ 5. DIG! {πὶ
Wirpannaronnim tip YnNNZV isan
(From Chwolson’s Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum', No. 17.)
nov Ssaw mip Soa) ΠῚΠ ΟΡ, ovby ony
wyyoa A Nan ΠῚΠ aypwn mwy vd 73. nbn
' In the original the Inscription is in one line: it is divided here merely for
convenience. See Photograph No. 459 of the Palestine Exploration Fund.
Xxvi Introduction.
I.e. May there be peace in this place, and in all the places of
Israel !
Yosah the Levite, son of Levi, made this lintel: may blessing
come upon his works !
wy is evidently an error of the carver for wy: he first
omitted the w by accident, and then attached it at the end. Notice
in this Inscription the close resemblance between } and ', which
in the Inscription of the Bené Hezir are distinguished by the turn
to the left—a survival of the primitive form of the letter—at the top
of the ‘; also that between 3 and 9, as well as the fiza/ np. Notice
also the regular plena scrifhio. The resemblance of min’ to ΠΙΠΙ
(p. xi) in a character such as this will be evident.
In conclusion, a specimen is given (Plate IV) of a complete
Phoenician Inscription, which may serve as an example of the
style, as regards character and general appearance, in which the
autographs of the Old Testament must have been written. The
Inscription was found at Zidon in 1887, engraved on the base of a
sarcophagus of black basalt, of Egyptian workmanship, and bearing
in front a hieroglyphic Inscription, designed no doubt originally for
use in Egypt, but diverted from its original purpose and taken to
Phoenicia in order to receive the remains of a Phoenician prince.
The contents of the hieroglyphic Inscription bear no relation to
those of the Phoenician one. Transliterated into square characters,
the latter reads as follows :—
oy po monwy yD man ἫΝ
mxa aay ony 7. minwy yma ὝΟΟΣΝ
n bs Ss ΝΠ ms pan we om 55 ΠΝ opt
ax ow joa ax ow 3 pon dyn ΤΌΝ nna
non bx bx twa apy ἫΝ nda qwo on 551 yan
nd os} NADIA Many nayn 5. yan ὉΝῚ ondy Π
py nnn ona yn [ΠΡ 1[3]} δὲ pan nm onby nan Π
DNS NS AvP Ψ
I.e. 1. I Tabnith, priest of ‘Ashtoreth, king of the Zidonians, son
2. of Eshmun‘azar, priest of ‘Ashtoreth, king of the Zidonians, lie
in this coffin :
cosa nm -& ὦ ND A
‘qnoe-y]Inf ‘2gg1 ‘anbisojosyoay anaay ey} wo ‘uvuo 25911} ΔΝ JO uorsstuad Aq ‘paonpoade
(qyoe-TInf “288 Ἰσοϊορηοαν a 91 ἐ u ad “WJ pane q “peonp Ὲ
‘NOdIZ 10 ONTY ‘HLINAV], 10 NOILdINOSNT
‘SSI4T 4215. 4221...) P4ofxC
"afiljopjo7
Al ALVId
Early History of the Hebrew Alphabet. — xxvii
3. whatsoever man thou art that bringest forth this coffin, do not
4. open my sepulchral chamber, and disquiet me not ; for there is
no image of silver, there is no image of
5. gold, nor any jewels of ..?..: only myself am lying in this
coffin ; do not o-
6. -pen my sepulchral chamber, and disquiet me not; for such an
act is an abomination unto ‘Ashtoreth; and if thou at all
7. Openest my chamber, or disquietest me at all, mayest thou have
no seed among the living under the su-
8. -n, or resting-place with the Shades.
The Tabnith who speaks is the father of the Eshmun‘azar (II)
whose long and interesting funereal Inscription? (22 lines) was
found in 1855 on the site of the ancient necropolis of Zidon, and
who describes himself (lines 13-15), as son of Tabnith, king of the
Zidonians, and of Ammi‘ashtoreth, priestess of ‘Ashtoreth, and
grandson of Eshmun‘azar (I), who is mentioned here as Tabnith’s
father. From the style of the Egyptian ornamentation displayed
both by the sarcophagus of Tabnith, and also by the related
sarcophagus of Eshmun‘azar II, it is concluded that the date of the
Inscription is not earlier than the fourth cent. B.c.; and as upon
other grounds it cannot be much later than this, it may be plausibly
assigned to c. 300 B.c.2 The Inscription is of value to the
Hebrew student, not only on account of its palaeographical interest,
but also on account of the illustration which it affords of the
language and ideas of the Old Testament.
I. J38 occurs frequently in Phoenician Inscriptions: it was
pronounced probably 38 (Schréder, Phén. Spr., p. 143): a final
vowel is often not represented in Phoenician orthography: comp.
below +, 5, jmnqn’.
1 It may be found in M.A. Levy’s Phénizische Studien, i. (1856) ; in Schré-
der’s Die Phin. Sprache (1869), p. 224, with Plate I; and elsewhere: most
recently in the CZS. No. 3.
* Ph. Berger in the Revue Archéologique, Juillet 1887, p. 7.
° So ὃν these (p. 27 note), in accordance with the dissyllabic form found in
the Semitic languages generally, was pronounced in all probability 5x (in the
Poenulus v. 1, 9 written ἐὰν ; in an Inscr. from N. Africa, ZDMG. xxix. 240, Xx).
xxviii fntroduction.
2. FS of a coffin, or mummy-case, as Gen. 50, 26.
3. t, Le. ἢ (Heb. 7). So regularly, as CZS. 7, 3 } pwn this gate ;
61, τ ἢ ΣΝ this pillar; 165, 3 (the sacrificial table from Mar-
seilles) t MNwnn this payment; 88, 4? ‘Ippon. Observe that ἢ (un-
like the Heb. i) is without the article, although the accompanying
noun has it : pronounce, therefore, here I Se) (not 83), as line 3
1 [WN7.—The construction of ΔΝ 55 ΠΝ Ἢ is difficult, and the
sense uncertain. Renan, observing that in Eshmun‘azar’s In-
scription there occurs twice the similarly worded phrase, line 4
raowp mix nna by ot 521 node 55 nx snp, line 20 AN ‘Dp
ὙΌΣ nna Ss os 551 nbn bs, suggests that 9 is an error of
the stone-cutter for "22, which is supposed, on the strength of
a statement in the Mishnah, Grftten 4, 7 (WON ΠΝ PIN. ΠΝ
TWD 8 DN Dip inv ive. a man in Zidon said to his wife
DP 15) ὈΝῚ and let him (them) not have son or
seed in his (their) stead; 11-12 Dye 153 r9iab way nd ip) by
wow nnn ona anni (see Is. 37, 31).
8, DNS] ΠΝ ὩΞΦΙΟῚ : comp. 47. line 8 OND ΠΝ 3aw» Dd [50 dys:
ΣΦ of a resting-place in the underworld, as Ez. 32, 25: the
D’ND] as Is. 14, 9. 26, 14.19. . 88, 11 al.?
1 For further information on the subject of the Phoenician language and
Phoenician Inscriptions, the reader is referred to M. A. Levy, Phéndzische
Studien, in 4 Heften, Breslau, 1856-70, and Phénizisches Worterbuch, Breslau,
1864; Schroder, Die Phénizische Sprache, Halle, 1869, the Corpus Inscriptio-
num Semiticarum, Tom. I (where the Bibliography relating to each Inscription
is specified in full). The best treatment of the relation of Phoenician to Hebrew
is to be found in the Essay of Stade in the MJorgenlindische Forschungen
(Leipzig, 1875), pp. 179-232. All these authorities may, however, in greater
or less degree, be supplemented from Inscriptions that have been discovered
more recently, and for which search must be made (chiefly) in the volumes of the
Journal Asiatique, the Revue Archéologique, and the ZDMG.
For further details respecting the history of the West-Semitic alphabets
generally, and of the Hebrew alphabet in particular (in addition to the works
of Levy, Chwolson, and Madden mentioned above), reference may be made to
Lenormant, Zssai sur la propagation de l’ Alph. Phénicien dans lanc. monde,
1872-3; Stade’s Lehrbuch, pp. 23-34 (with the references); Wellhausen’s
edition of Bleek’s Zzn/eztung, ed.1878, p. 626 ff.; ed. 1886, p. 580 ff.; De Vogué,
Mélanges d’ Archéologie Orientale (1868), especially pp. 141-178, ‘ L’Alphabet
Araméen et Alphabet Hébraique;’ Isaac Taylor’s History of the Alphabet,
Chaps. IV, V; the other Facsimiles of Semitic Inscriptions contained in the
Palaeographical Society’s Volume; Euting’s Mabatdische Inschriften (1885) ;
the Plates in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum ; and Neubauer’s Fac-
similes of Hebrew Manuscripts, with Transcriptions, Oxford, 1886.
XXX Introduction.
§ 2. arly Hebrew Orthography.
Having determined the nature of the old Hebrew character, we
have next to consider the nature of the old Hebrew orthography.
Did this differ from that which we find in modern printed texts?
and if so, in what respects?
1. Division of words. In the Inscription of Mesha‘ and in the
Siloam Inscription the words are separated by a point, but in
Inscriptions on gems and coins and in Phoenician Inscriptions
generally (see e.g. Plate IV) separations between words are not
marked. Whether they were marked (either by points or spaces)
in the autographs of the OT. cannot be determined with certainty :
if they were, some irregularity and neglect must have been shewn
in the observance of them: for the existing MT. contains instances
of almost certainly incorrect division of words (a); and the LXX
frequently presuppose a different division from that in MT. (8),
which (whether right or wrong) could scarcely have arisen had the
separation of words been marked distinctly. It is probable, how-
ever, that before the Massoretic text was definitively established, the
division of words had been generally established and the five final
letters introduced: for the Massorites, instead of altering 2% the text
what they view as a wrong division of words, leave the text as it is,
and only direct the reader to substitute the correct division; this
implies that at the time when notes such as those referred to were
added, the division of words found in the 29 was regarded as
definitely settled (c).
(2) Gen. 49, 19-20 “WNID 3 apy leg. WW 3 DIpy.
Ω
2 3. 21,1 DOTA mabey 1. ΟἽ ΠΙΛΞ ΟΝ,
Is. 17, 6 AMD ΠΈΝΌΣ 1. AM|N ‘AyD.
Jer. 15, 10 nbsp mda (a grammatical monstrum) 1. pnb2
ΟΣ
22, 14 pad) sbn Ὁ yop) (another grammatical anomaly)
1. fipp wen xd spy.
23, 33 NBETIOTNN 1, NYT DAN (so LXX, Vulg.).
Early Hebrew Orthography. XxXxi
Ez. 43, 13 ΠΌΝΠ pm 1. 78 APN.
Hos. 6, 5 8X NN POD) 1, ΝᾺ IND "HEWN (so LXX,
Pesh. Targ.).
ψ. 25, 17 IST AD 1. bun) 315 (see the Commentators).
42, 6-7 ὙΟΝ 8 mynw 1. syndey yp myw (so LXX,
Pesh.: comp. v. 12. . 43, δ):
73, 4 Dn? 1. on in (so Ew. Hitz. Del. etc).
(2) τ 8. 1,1 ANI: ἐν Nave B= IDI.
14, 21 MDA OI DAD: ἀνεστράφησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ ΞΞ- Δ ὩΣ 1230.
20, 40 NIN >>: πορεύου, εἴσελθε = NII nad,
1 Ch. 17, rob s-aN) : καὶ αὐξήσω ce = TUN.
Jer. 5, 6 MI ANT: λύκος ἕως τῶν οἰκιῶν ΞΞΞ ΛΔ) ANT.
9, 4 end—5 ANN ἼΠ32 naw onda: (od) διέλιπον τοῦ ἐπι-
στρέψαι. τόκος ἐπὶ τόκῳ --Ξ- NI 77 aw yn),
13, 25 ΝΘ ΠΩ ΓΙ : μερὶς τοῦ ἀπειθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐμοὶ ΞΞΞ 52
AS Dane.
1,1 dy WY AWY: ποιῶν πλοῦτον αὐτοῦ ov= xb nwy wy,
46, 15 ANDI ΨΥ : διὰ τί ἔφυγεν (ἀπὸ cod) ὁ "Ams ;=NID
AIM Ὁ).
Hos. 11, 2 DAMIEN: ἐκ προσώπου μου" αὐτοὶ = ὮΠ "25)5,
Zeph. 3, 10 ayo-bo-ne : ἐν σοὶ ἕνεκεν σοῦ (as though JAN
7222).
ψ. 4, 3 ΠΟΘ 25: Βαβάκαρδίοι ; ba i= mad Ὁ a
44,5 8 DNDN : ὁ Θεός pov, ὁ ἐντελλόμενος Ξ-- TN sry,
106, 7 py-by ; ἀναβαίνοντες = Bio),
Pr. 13, 14 AWD WPOD: ὑπὸ παγίδος θανεῖται Ξ-- Τὴ) WHPIDD.
£4, ἢ nya) : ὅπλα δὲ αἰσθήσεως = NYT ΣΝ
27, 9 WEITNYYD WY PND: καταῤῥήγνυται δὲ ὑπὸ συμπτω-
μάτων ψυχὴ --- WS) N¥yD AYP,
Job 40, το (LXX 14) SIN WY Wy: πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαί-
ἔεσθαι = I2-PHYD WWYT (ψ. 104, 26).
See also Ψ. 76, 7. Jer. 6, 9. 23, cited below, pp. Ixvi, Ixvii; and
the notes'on I 3, 24: 2; 13. 21, 7.
Xxxii Introduction.
(c) a Jer. 6, 29 DNWNID: ON WN DP.
Ψ. 55, τό NYU: Nd wr Ῥ,
Job 38, 1 Myon: mMypA Ὁ.
40, 6 MYDIN: MD [Ὁ Ῥ.
Neh, 2, 13 ὈΝΝΥΊΒΩΠ: OND an ’p.
t Ch. Ὁ YD 92 jBS ja: 735 32 jo 3a 45 7p.
Bika. 4, 3B 85: DD /p,
2 Ch. 34,6 anna ana: pmnaina Ῥ.
y 25.5, 2 (20M) SO ANA: war NYS ΤΠ De
21,12 Dynwdan ow: onwde naw Ῥ,
Ez. 42, 9 ΠΌΝΠ msw> annnoy: ndsn miowdr nnn Ῥ.
Job 38, 12 YIP ANY Any: dips Nw AYA Ῥ,
Ezra 4, 12 ‘eau Mer: bday ΒΥ Ῥ,
However, as the need of a re-division of words is comparatively
unfrequent, it may perhaps be inferred that in old Hebrew MSS.
the divisions between words were not regularly unmarked.
2. The plena scriptio was rare. Thus in Mesha‘’s Inscription
the * of the plural is regularly not expressed (line 2 woy thirty :
4 ‘abn the kings ; 5 2 72), i.e. [22 [25 many days ; 16 72), i.e.
123 men): we have also το. 13. 20 WN, 11 AP for what in MT.
would be δ δ, 1°? : further (attaching the points, to avoid repetition)
1 IND, 4 YW saved me, 41 ἼΩΞ, DI: and even 23. 27. 30 N3,
4 mns, for M3, TMD (once 25 723); the duals, 15 OVA (in
MT. 8°78), 20 jn fwo hundred, 30 ndas na (Jer. 48, 22
pind na), 31 j7N (Isa. 15, 5 Ὁ)... Even δὲ is sometimes
omitted, not merely in AMN rr. 20 (i.e ΠΝ NINN), 24 TWN
(281), where the radical δὲ following the prefix of 1 ps. sg. of
the imperfect is dispensed with as in Hebrew, but in ΠῚ 20=7WN7
ats chief(s).
Similarly in the Siloam Inscription we find 2. 4 WN (i.e. WN),
2 ΠῸΝ (i.e. NON), 3 7¥2 (783), ow (ὍΝ), 4. 6 DANA (DINAN),
6 Ayn (787); and even (where the 1 is radical) 2 Sp (so rarely in
MT. : usually ip), 3 Ὁ (ie. O13—never δὴ in MT.). We find,
however, beside these ‘ defective’ forms 1. 2 Ty3 (TY3), 5 N¥VON,
and 6 WN".
Early Hebrew Orthography. Xxxiii
Perhaps the most remarkable case of the defechiva scripio is that
of the pron. of 3 szmg., which is twice on Mesha‘’s Inscription (in
the masculine) written Nn (6 NADI WON; 27 NF Dw 1D). In
Phoenician Inscriptions, the same orthography is found regularly
with dofh genders’: it appears, therefore, that, while NN was all
that was written, the context was regarded as a sufficient guide to
enable the reader to pronounce it correctly Aw’ or hz’, according as
the reference was to a masc. or fem. antecedent. (The alternative
supposition that Aw’ was used for both genders, is excluded by the
fact that a// other Semitic languages have a feminine with yod,
which obliges us to suppose that the double form was already
possessed by the ancestors of the different Semitic nations when
they still lived together in a common home 3.)
It may be inferred that the Alena scriptio was introduced gradually,
though, so far as δὲ is concerned, the instances of its omission,
where it is required by the etymology, are so exceptional, that it was
probably in use, as a rule, from the beginning. In the case of
ἡ and ° there is abundant evidence that the LXX translated from
MSS., in which it was not yet generally introduced ; for in pas-
sages where it is found in MT. they constantly do not recognize it.
Thus, to take but a few examples out of many—
io; 12, 70 np iy b5 me: τὴν πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην K.—="" Nps.
8 DIDwW: Kal κατῴκισεν αὐτοὺς = DAW,
18, 27 oixdn : A, Luc. καὶ ἐπλήρωσεν αὐτὰς = oxo,
19, 5 MN: (πᾶς Iopanh) εἶδον = N81 or ON) (construction as
Thea),
20, 26 end WY: κεκαθάρισται = 1D,
21,04 (τῷ LXX) a: κατέῤῥει = THI,
1 C/S. 1, 9 ΝΠ ΡῚΣ "Ὁ he was a just king, 13 NT NINdD that work ;
3, IO NT DIN that man, 11 N77 ΠΡ) Ὁ that kingdom; 93, 2 (254 B.C.) and
94, 2 nw xm that year; 166,440 ondn; 171, 7; and in the Inscription of
Tabnith (p. xxvi), line 6.
2 The view formerly held that the epicene x17 was an archaism in Hebrew,
cannot, in the light of these facts, be any longer sustained : Hebrew must have
possessed the double form from the beginning. Cf. Noldeke, ZD/G. 1866, p.
458 f.; 1878, p. 594; Delitzsch, Comm. on Geneszs (Engl.Tr.), i. pp. 42 f,, 50.
d
XXXIV Introduction.
TiS; 23, 25 mponan ybp: πετρὰ ἡ μερισθεῖσα = MPSA ybp.
27, ὃ PONT nia nan: ἰδοὺ ἡ γῆ KaT@Ketro= PINT nav m3,
“ΡΠ τ yo-man : κατεκληρονόμησεν αὐτὸν = {NI
Jer. 6, 15 oan wba): πεσοῦνται ἐν τῇ πτώσει αὐτῶν = pPp23 ἼΣΩΝ
23 nionbnd wo: ὡς πῦρ (5) εἰς πόλεμον.
29 ‘pn3 xb DY): πονηρία αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐτάκη = IAI xb Dyn.
12,15 DNDWN): καὶ κατοικιῶ αὐτοὺς ΞΞ pawn,
17, 25 DDIDD: καὶ ἵπποις avrav= DDIDA.
32 (39), 5 πρὶν; πο τ 5 (nN being disregarded).
50 (27), 16 YU: oméppa=Y (in spite of the parallel κατέχοντα
δρέπανον).
51 (28), 59 ANID WW: ἄρχων δώρων--- ΠΣ] WY,
Ezek. 7, 24 DMY p81: τὸ φρύαγμα τῆς ἰσχύος a’rdv= OW ἢ) δὲ (comp.
24, 21).
13, 13 AYYD AN: πνοὴν ἐξαίρουσαν = ΓΝ Ὁ ΠῚ.
42, 16-17 (similarly 17-18) ὙΠ 1220 : καὶ ἐπέστρεψε...
καὶ διεμέτρησε i.e. ὙΠ 235 (so most moderns:
comp. v.19 MT.).
ψ. 5 title mibsnannbe : ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης-- ΠΟ ΠΡ ΓΙΓΟΝ,,
58,12 ΒΦ : ὁ κρίνων αὐτοὺς -- ΘΕ),
104, 17 DWI: ἡγεῖται αὐτῶν ΞΞ DUNT,
107, 17 ΟΝ : ἀντελάβετο αὐτῶν--- DON ΟΥ̓ poss 1.
Job 19, 18 pdyy : εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα = odyy?.
3. The suffix of 3 sg. masc. was written Π- instead of }-, as is
normally the case in MT. The original form of this suffix was
w7-, as seen still in ἽΠ5, and in derivatives of π΄ Ὁ verbs as pwd,
W2', etc.: also in such verbal forms as INDY, IPDN, nN,
MINN, WA, ΠΛ, PI (Siade, §§ 345, 628), and the form
-hu is used regularly in Arabic; but in the majority of cases a
contraction takes place, the aspirate being rejected, and a-hu, for
? As though from a verb 518 or oN: cf. ψ. 22, 1 Nd ἀντίληψις; 20°19
βοήθειά μου; 88, 5 x yx ἀβοήθητος : Syr. IL? help, succour, Ephr. i. 398 al.
? Yet in some cases the plena scriptio must have been in use: Jud. 9, 37
D1 καταβαίνων κατὰ θάλασσαν (0°17); Jer. 22, 20 OD ayn εἰς τὸ πέρας τῆς
θαλάσσης (Ὁ AY).
Early Hebrew Orthography. XXXV
instance, becoming first az and ultimately 6. At first, however, the
orthography was not altered, A- remained, though it /o//owed the ¢,
and in fact was only a sign of the final long vowel: in the end,
however, j- was mostly substituted for it. Mesha‘ still writes
uniformly 7-; e.g. (adding the points) ΠΕΣ, 79a, HhIa, 7a,
nw, etc.: on the Siloam Inscription, on the contrary, the ex-
amples which occur, viz. 17 thrice, have j-. In MT., though in
the vast majority of cases the contracted suffix is written j-, there
occur a number of instances in which Π- has been suffered to
remain, testifying (in the light of the cognate dialects) to a previous
general prevalence of this form: viz. Gen. 9, 21. 12, 8. 13, 3.
an 21 TAN ; 49, ΤΙ ny and nap ; Bix ΣΡ. ἢ mya ; 26 ΠΡΌΣ;
Ex. 32, 17 313; 25 ΠΙΊΒ; Lev. 23, 13 73D); Nu. ro, 36 TIN;
23, 8 NAP ; Dic 34, 7 nhb Jos. 11, Τὸ nha’ ; Jud. 9, 49 πὶ:
2 Ki, 6, το TMT; 9, 25 MBO; το, 23 NEP (Is. 37, 24 ΝΡ);
20, 13 (=Is. 39, 2) 73); Jer. 2, 3 nANIIN; 17, 24 TD; 22, 18b
mn; Ez. 12,14 WY; 41, 18. 32, 31. 32. 39, 11 all MDT; 48,
15 end. 21 end MAN (also v. 8 in Hahn’s text, but not according to
the Massorah); 18 MMNIAN; Hab. 3, 4 WY; ψ. 10, 9. 27, 5 ΠΞΌΞ:
42,9 71; Dan. ΣΙ, 10 niyo ; and the eighteen (seventeen) cases
of riba quoted on II 2,9. The non-recognition of this form of the
suffix in 2 Sam. 21, 1 (see note). Ez. 43, 13 has led to error in
MT. Comp. also Gen. 49, ro in the Versions (dws), The reten-
tion of the form in the instances cited is probably due to accident:
it cannot be said to occur more frequently in passages that are
(presumably) ancient than in others; thus in Gen. 49 and Ex. 22
there are numerous cases of the usual form in §-, in other ancient
passages there are no occurrences of A- whatever. (In two or
three of the instances, the Massoretic punctuation may be open to
question 1.)
1 1 do not stop to shew in detail that ancient Hebrew MSS. were zsfornted.
That they were unpointed is (1) probable, from the analogy of all ancient
Semitic writing, which has come down to us in its original form (Moabitic,
Aramaic, Phoenician, Hebrew Inscriptions); (2) certain, (@) from the very
numerous renderings of the Ancient Versions, presupposing a different vocal-
d2
XXXvi Introduction.
§ 3. The Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament.
It does not lie within the compass of the present work to give a
complete account of the different Ancient Versions of the Old
Testament: it will suffice if enough be said to illustrate their
general character and relation to one another, so far as the Books
of Samuel are concerned, and to establish the principles upon which
they may be used for purposes of textual criticism’.
The special value of the Ancient Versions consists in the fact
that they represent MSS. very much earlier than any Hebrew MSS. at
present extant, and belonging in some cases to different recensions.
The majority of Hebrew MSS. are of the twelfth to the sixteenth
centuries. Very few are earlier: the earliest of which the date is
known with certainty being the MS. of the Later Prophets, now at
St. Petersburg, which bears a date=a.p. 9167. This MS., though
it differs from the great majority of Hebrew MSS. by exhibiting
(like others acquired within the last half-century from the East *)
ization from that of the Massoretic text, which it cannot reasonably be sup-
posed that the translators would have adopted had they had pointed texts
before them; (4) from the silence of the Talmud and Jerome as regards any
system of punctuation, which, when it is considered that passages are frequently
discussed, and alternative renderings and pronunciations compared, both by the
Rabbis and by Jerome, is more than would be credible, had Hebrew MSS. in
their day been provided with points. (On Jerome, particulars may be found in
Nowack’s monograph [p. liv zofe], p. 43 ff.) The system of points must have
been introduced during the sixth and seventh cent. A.D.—a period of which the
literary history is unfortunately shrouded in obscurity, which even the pedigree
of Aaron Ben-Asher, brought to light by the Crimean MSS. (Strack, in the art.
cited below, note *, pp. 610-613), does not enable us to pierce.
1 For fuller information on the subject of the following pages, see generally
(where special monographs are not referred to) Wellhausen’s edition of Bleek’s
Linleitung, ed. 4, 1878, p. 571 ff., or ed. 5, 1886, p. 523 ff., with the references,
2 Published in facsimile with Prolegomena by H. L. Strack, Codex Babylonicus
Petropolitanus (St. Petersburg, 1876). Another relatively ancient MS. is the
Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets at Carlsruhe (A. Ὁ. 1105), De Rossi’s 154, the
facsimile of a page of which may be seen in Stade’s Gesch. 757. i. p. 32, or in
the Palaeographical Society’s Volume, Plate LX XVII.
3. On these MSS. see Strack in the Zeztschr. fiir Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1875,
p- 605 ff., and Wickes, Hebrew Prose Accents, App. ii. p. 142 ff., with the
references.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. xxxvii
the superlinear system of points and accents, does not contain a
substantially different text. In fact, so soon as we pass beyond the
recognized variants known as the Qrz’s, the variations exhibited by
extant Hebrew MSS. are slight; in other words, αἱ AZSS. belong to
the same recension, and are descended from the same tmperfect arche-
type’. Existing MSS. all represent what is termed the Aassoretic
text”. That this text, however, does not reproduce the auto-
graphs of the OT. in their original integrity becomes manifest,
as soon as it is examined with sufficient care and minuteness.
It is true, since the rise of the school called the A/assorites in the
seventh and eighth centuries, and probably for parts of the Old
Testament, especially the Law, from a considerably earlier date,
the Jews displayed a scrupulous fidelity in the preservation and
correct transmission of their sacred books: but nothing is more
certain than that the period during which this care was exercised
was preceded by one of no small laxity, in the course of which
corruptions of different kinds found their way into the text of the
Old Testament. The Jews, when it was too late to repair by this
means the mischief that had been done, proceeded to guard their
sacred books with extraordinary care, with the result that corrupt
readings were simply perpetuated, being placed by them (of course,
unconsciously) on precisely the same footing as the genuine text,
and invested with a fictitious semblance of originality. Opinions
1 Comp. Olshausen, Dee Psalmen (1853), p. 17 ff.; Lagarde, Proverbien,
p. 2; and the note in Stade, ZA TW. iv. 303.
2 The variations exhibited by existing MSS. have been most completely col-
lated by J. B. De Rossi, Variae Lectiones Vet. Test., 4 vols., with Supplement,
Parma, 1784-98. But for assistance in recovering the genuine text of the
passages—which are not few—in the Hebrew Bible, which bear the marks of
corruption upon their face, one consults this monumental work in vain. And
how little is to be gained for the same end from the MSS. discovered since De
Rossi’s day, may be learnt from Comill’s collation of the MS. of A. D. 916, for
Ezekiel, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (1886), p.8f. Baer’s editions of the
text of different parts of the OT. are valuable as exhibiting the J/assoretic text
in its best attested form; but they are naturally of no service to those whose
object it is 2o get behind the Massoretic tradition, for the purpose of obtaining a
text that is purer and more original.
XXXvili Introduction.
may differ, and, as our data for arriving at a decision are often
imperfect, cannot but be expected to differ, as to the extent of
corruption in the Massoretic text: but of the fact, there can be no
question. The proof, as was shewn by Professor Kirkpatrick in a
paper read at the Church Congress at Portsmouth, 1885 (Guardzan,
Oct. 7, p. 1478), is to be found, stated briefly, in the following
facts: (1) There are passages in which the text, as it stands, cannot
be translated without violence to the laws of grammar, or is irre-
concileable with the context or with other passages; (2) parallel
passages (especially parallel lists of names) found in more than one
book, differ in such a manner as to make it clear that the variations
are due largely to textual corruption; (3) the ancient versions con-
tain various readings which often bear a strong stamp of probability
upon them, and remove or lessen the difficulties of the Hebrew
text. The present volume will supply illustrations. When the
nature of the old character and orthography is considered, the
wonder indeed is that the text of the Old Testament is as relatively
free of corruption as appears to be the case. If, then, these cor-
ruptions are to be removed otherwise than by conjecture, we must
discover, if possible, a text (or texts), which, unlike the text of all
Hebrew MSS. which we possess, is relatively free from them.
And such texts are afforded by the Ancient Versions. ‘These
versions were made from MSS. older by many centuries than those
which formed the basis of the Massoretic text; and when we
consult them in crucial passages, where the Massoretic text has
the appearance of being in error, we constantly find that the read-
ings which they presuppose are intrinsically superior to those
exhibited by the Massoretic text, and have evidently been made
from a MS. (or MSS.) free from the corruption attaching to the
latter.
The work of the Massorites, it should be remembered, was
essentially conservative, their aim was not to form a text, but by
fixing the pronunciation and other means, to preserve a text which
(in all essentials) they received, already formed, from others. The
antecedents of the text which thus became the basis of the Masso-
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. xxxix
retic text can only be determined approximately by conjecture.
It was already substantially the same in ii—v. cent. a.p.; ἴῸΓ quo-
tations in the Mishnah and Gemara exhibit no material variants \.
The Targums also (see below) presuppose a text which deviates
from it but slightly, though the deviations are sufficient to shew
that, even in official Jewish circles, absolute uniformity did not
exist. All that can be said is that the text which was adopted by
the Jews as a standard, and which, as such, was made by the
Massorites the basis of their labours, had in previous stages of its
history been exposed to influences, which resulted in the introduc-
tion into it of error and corruption. The MSS. on which the
Septuagint is based, and those from which the Massoretic text is
descended, must, of course, have had some common meeting-point
(prior to the second or third century B.c.); and whilst on she
whole the purer text was undoubtedly preserved by the Jews, in
many individual cases the text in their hands underwent corruption,
and the purer readings are preserved to us by the Septuagint 3,
The texts on which the other Ancient Versions are based (which
usually deviate less from the Massoretic text, and often accordingly
[e. g. Ez. 40 ff.] reproduce corruptions from which the Septuagint
is free) will have been derived from the current Jewish text at
a later period than the LXX, when the corrupting influences had
been longer operative upon it. Still, these versions also sometimes
agree with LXX against MT. in preserving the purer text.
The use of the Ancient Versions is not, however, always such a
simple matter as might be inferred from the last paragraph but
one. The Ancient Versions are not uniformly word-for-word
translations, from which the Hebrew text followed by the trans-
lators might be recovered at a glance: sometimes their text,
especially that of the LXX, has not been transmitted to us in its
1 Strack, Proleg. Crit. in Vet. T., pp. 59 ff., shews this in detail.
2 No doubt in some cases, even where LXX and MT. agree, the text is
corrupt, i.e. the corruption was already present in the MSS. which were the
common source doth of the LXX and of the MT. Here, it is evident, the only
remedy is critical conjecture (a brilliant one in Cornill on Ez. 13, 20).
xl Introduction.
primitive integrity; and even where it has been so transmitted, they
contain, or are liable to contain, an element of paraphrase, the
nature and extent of which must be determined as accurately as
possible before they are available as safe guides for the correction
of the Massoretic text. In determining the character of this ele-
ment, each Version, and often each book, or group of books,
contained in a Version—for the different parts of an Ancient
Version were not always the work of one and the same hand, and
the different translators were liable to follow different methods in
translating—must be examined separately: our standards of com-
parison must be those parts of the Massoretic text which afford
presumptive evidence of being free from corruption, and in cases
where there is matter of doubt, the intrinsic superiority of one text
above the other, as estimated by its conformity with the context,
its grammatical correctness, its agreement with the general style
and manner of the writers of the Old Testament, and similar
considerations. In the use of an Ancient Version for the purposes
of textual criticism, there are ‘Aree precautions which must always
be observed: we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess
the Version itself in its original integrity: we must eliminate such
variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the .
translator’; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a
difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator,
we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations
just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on
which side the superiority lies.
1. The Version that is of greatest importance for purposes of
textual criticism is that known as the Septuagint. In the case of
the Pentateuch, this Version dates, no doubt, from the third century
1 In Prof. Workman’s 7ext of Jeremiah (1889), the neglect to observe this
second precaution has led to disastrous consequences : a very large proportion
of the examples cited, p. 283 ff., in the ‘Conspectus of the Variations’ pre-
suppose no difference in the Hebrew text read by the translator, but are due
simply to the fact that the translator did not make it his aim to produce a
word-for-word version. See a criticism by the present writer in the Zxoszfor,
May, 1889, pp. 321-337.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. — xli
B.c.—according to tradition from the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
B,C. 285-247: the subsequent parts of the OT. were probably
completed gradually in the course of the two following centuries,
for the differences of style and method exhibited by the different
books shew that the whole cannot be the work of a single hand.
The characteristics of the LXX are best learnt from actual study
of it, though illustrations, so far as the Books of Samuel are con-
cerned, are given below. In some books, the translation is much
more literal than in others; in difficult passages, especially such as
are poetical, the translators have evidently been often unable to
seize the sense of the original. Except in such passages as Gen.
49. Dt. 32. 33, the Pentateuch is the best translated part of the
historical books: the Psalter is tolerably well done, and though few
Psalms are wholly free from error, the general sense is fairly well
expressed: the translation of Isaiah is poor and paraphrastic ; those
of Job and the Minor Prophets are often unintelligible. In the
case of Jeremiah the text represented by LXX deviates so con-
siderably from the Massoretic text as to assume the character of
a separate recension. There are few books of the OT. in which
the Massoretic text may not, more or less frequently, be emended
with help of the LXX1; but the LXX Version of Samuel, parts of
Kings, and Ezekiel, is of special value, as the MS. (or MSS.) on
which the Massoretic text of these books is based, must have
suffered more than usually from corrupting influences.
2. The Zargums are Aramaic Versions made for the use of the
Jews, in Palestine or Babylon, when Hebrew ceased to be generally
spoken. These are of various and not always certain -date.
According to tradition, the Targum that was first committed to
writing, in the first century, was that on Job; but other of the
Targums undoubtedly embody traditional interpretations that were
1 And naturally, sometimes, of other Ancient Versions aswell. A minimum
of such necessary emendations may be found in the margin of the Revised
Version : a larger selection—the majority, at least as it appears to the present
writer, not less necessary—is afforded by the notes in the ‘ Variorum Bible,’
published by Eyre and Spottiswoode,
xlii Introduction.
current orally before they were definitely fixed in writing. The
Targum was originally an extemporaneous translation and inter-
pretation of successive verses of Scripture, delivered by the }227;N)
in the public worship of the Synagogue. From the circumstances
of its origin it lent itself readily to expansion: edification, rather
than literal translation, was the aim of the "2 2; and hence the
very paraphrastic character which the Targum—especially that on
the Later Prophets—is apt to assume. In the historical books,
however, except in poetical passages (as Gen. 49, Jud. 5, 1 Sam.
2, I-10, 2 Sam. 23, 1-7), the Targum is as a rule tolerably literal.
The Targum on the Former and Later Prophets is ascribed to
Jonathan ben Uzziel’.
3. The Syriac Version, commonly known as the Peshitto
(INbxao Jase editio simplex), originated in the needs of the
large Syriac-speaking population N. and N.-E. of Palestine, whose
literary centre was Edessa. No historical details respecting its
origin have come down to us: already Theodore of Mopsuestia
(fourth cent.) declares that it is not known who translated the
Scriptures into Syriac; but it is generally considered to date, at least
in the main, from the early part of the second cent. a.p. Like the
Septuagint, the Peshitto is not the work of a single hand ; and the
style of the different books, or groups of books, varies. Mainly,
no doubt, the translators were either Jews, or (more probably)
Jewish Christians. Thus the translation of the Pentateuch, for
instance, often adheres closely to ancient Jewish exegesis *, traces
of which are also discernible in other books, especially in the
Chronicles, the translation of which has additions and embellish-
ments, imparting to it quite the character of a Targum*. Job, on
the other hand, is literal: while the translation of the Psalms is
strongly influenced by the Septuagint, with which it often re-
markably agrees, where both deviate from the Hebrew.
1 For fuller particulars, see the art. Zavgum (by E. Deutsch) in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible ; and Bacher in the Ζ2) 270. xxviii. p. 1 ff.
2 See especially J. Perles, Weletemata Peschitthoniana (Vratislaviae, 1859).
3. Sig. Frankel, Die Syr. Ubersetzung zu den BB, der Chrontk (1879).
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. xiiii
4. After the destruction of Jerusalem in a. Ὁ. 70, a reaction began
in Jewish circles against the use of the LXX, partly, as seems
probable, originating in opposition to the Christians (who from the
times in which the NT. was written had been accustomed to quote
the LXX as an authoritative Version of the OT.), partly in a
growing sense of the imperfections of the Septuagint translation,
and of its inadequacy as a correct representation of the Hebrew
original. Hence arose in the second cent. a. Ὁ. the three improved
Greek Versions of the OT., those of Aguzla, Theodotion, and
Symmachus. Aquila and Theodotion are both mentioned by
Irenaeus (iii. 21) writing c. Α. Ὁ. 180: Symmachus lived probably
somewhat later. Of these translators, Aquila was a Jewish proselyte
of Pontus. His method was that of extreme literalness', which
he carried to such an extent, that he sought to represent words
which had acquired derived meanings in accordance with their
etymology, and even to reproduce particles for which Greek pos-
sessed no proper equivalent?. Jerome on Is. 8, 14 mentions a
tradition that Aquila was a pupil of R. Aqiba; and the statement
is confirmed by the character of his translation. For R. Agqiba, at
the beginning of the second cent. a. pD., introduced a new system of
interpretation, laying exaggerated stress upon even syllables and
letters, quite in the manner followed by Aquila ὃ,
1 Δουλεύων τῇ Ἑ βραικῇ λέξει, Origen, Ep. ad Africanum, § 2.
? Jerome, Ep. 57 ad Pammachium: quia Hebraei non solum habent ἄρθρα
sed et πρόαρθρα, ille κακοζήλως et syllabas interpretatur et literas, dicitque (ἐν
κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὃ θεὸς) σὺν [ΠΝ] τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν. 7 locale
he represented by -δε, as ᾿ὨΩφείρδε 1 Ki. 22, 49; Κυρήνηνδε 2 ΚΙ. 16,9. As
examples of etymologizing renderings may be quoted στιλπνότης for 17%,
διεδηματίσαντό me for 1111MD Y. 22, 13, ἐκλεκτώθητε for 17377 Is. 52, 11, τενοντοῦν
for FY, etc. Sometimes, in genuine Rabbinic fashion [e. g. Gen. 41, 43 Targ.],
he treated a word as a compound: thus 1 Sam. 6, 8 327982 is rendered by him
ἐν ὕφει κουρᾶς as though=132 17825 Ψ. 16,1 ONIN ταπεινόφρων καὶ ἁπλοῦς
(ON 7), 72, 21 JIINWN πῦρ καπνιζόμενον (jn WN). See more in the Pro-
legomena to Dr. Field’s Hexaf/a, p. xxi ff., or in the art. Hexagla (by Dr. Ὁ.
Taylor) in the Dictionary of Christian Biography.
$ Illustrations may be found in Dr. Pusey’s What ts of Faith as to Everlasting
Punishment ? p. 80 ff.; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 53 ff.
xliv Introduction.
The version of Theodotion was rather a revision of the LXX
than a new translation, and hence frequently agrees with it.
Renderings of Theodotion have often found their way into MSS.
of the LXX, sometimes as doublets, sometimes as insertions made
with the view of supplying apparent omissions (1 Sam. 17, 12-31
in cod. A). In the case of Daniel, Theodotion’s version superseded
that of the LXX, and occupies its place in ordinary MSS. and
editions ἢ.
Symmachus was an Ebionite (Eus. Ast. Eccl. vi. 17). He is
praised by Jerome as frequently clever and successful in his ren-
derings: not slavish like Aquila, and yet reproducing, often with
happy accommodations to Greek idiom, the sense of the original ?.
These three translations are not preserved in their entirety:
they have been transmitted only in fragments, chiefly through the
work of Origen, which is now to be described.
Origen (A.D. 185-254), observing not only the variations be-
tween the Septuagint and the Heb. text current in his day, but also
the variations between different MSS. of the Septuagint itself,
undertook the task of recovering, if possible, the true text of the
‘Septuagint, partly by aid of the Hebrew, partly by aid of the
other Greek Versions. For this purpose, he arranged the different
texts which he wished to compare in six parallel columns; the
work thus formed being known in consequence as the Hexafia.
1 The LXX version of Daniel was first published from a unique MS. in 1772.
In Tisch.’s edition it stands at the end of the second volume. Renderings agree-
ing remarkably with Theodotion’s version occur in the NT. and writers of the
early part of the second century: it has hence been conjectured that his version
of this book is based upon an earlier Greek translation independent of the LXX
(Salmon, /ztrod. to the N.T., ed. 3, p. 586 ff.).
? Illustrations are given in abundance by Dr. Field, Hexafia, p. xxxif.; for
instance, in his use of the ptcp., of adverbs, of compounds, 1 Sam. 22, 8 LXX
(literally) ἐν τῷ διαθέσθαι τὸν υἱόν μου διαθήκην, Symm. συντιθεμένου τοῦ υἱοῦ
pov; Gen. 4; 2 LXX καὶ προσέθηκε τίκτειν, Symm. καὶ πάλιν ἔτεκεν ; Pr. 15, 15
Δ) 110 Symm, ὁ εὐθυμῶν ; 15. 9, 15 Ὁ) NIW) αἰδέσιμος ; I Sam. 25, 3 Naw
5 LXX ἀγαθὴ συνέσει, Σ. εὐδιανόητος ; 10. Ὁ Ὁ» Ἢ LXX πονηρὸς ἐν ἐπιτη-
δεύμασι, Σ. κακογνώμων ; 2 Sam, 12, 8 72719) 7209 LXX κατὰ ταῦτα, Σ. πολλα-
πλασίονα.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. xlv
In the first column, he placed the Hebrew text; in the second,
the Hebrew transcribed in Greek characters; in the third and
fourth, Aquila and Symmachus respectively; in the fifth, the Sep-
tuagint; in the sixth, Theodotion. In the Septuagint column,
additions, to which nothing corresponded in the Hebrew, were
marked by an obelus prefixed (~......4)1; omissions, where
words standing in the Hebrew were not represented in the Greek,
were filled in by him, usually from Theodotion, and noted similarly
by an asterisk (X...... 4)’. In cases where copies of the LXX
differed between themselves, it is probable that Origen adopted
silently the reading that agreed most closely with the Hebrew.
Proper names, also, which the original translators had sometimes
transliterated with some freedom, sometimes expressed in accor-
dance with the older pronunciation, or which in other cases had
become corrupted by transcription, Origen assimilated to the
current Hebrew text. The manuscript of this great work was
preserved for long in the library of Pamphilus in Caesarea ; Jerome
collated it specially for his own use ; but it perished after the seventh
cent. a.D., though in what manner is not known. Copies of the
whole work were probably never made ; but the Septuagint column
was edited separately by Eusebius and Pamphilus, and was widely
used. At the same time, the more important variants from the
Versions of Aq. Theod. and Symm., contained in the other columns,
were often excerpted; and many of these have thus been preserved
1 The sign indicates the close of the words to which the obelus or asterisk
refers.
The following is the important passage in which Origen himself describes
both the motive and plan of his work; Nuvi δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν
ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γράφεων εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν
μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ
διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων. Ti μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ διορθώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς
διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ δίδοντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι κρυτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς
λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν... καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἑ βραικῷ μὴ κείμενα οὐ
τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν, τινὰ δὲ μετ᾽ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν, ἵνα
δῆλον ἢ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς O' ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραικῷ
προσεθήκαμεν, καὶ ὃ μὲν βουλόμενος πρόσηται αὐτά, ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ τοιοῦτον
ὃ βούλεται περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν, ἢ μή, ποιήσῃ (Comm. in Matth. xv. § 14).
xvi Introduction.
to us, partly through citations made by the Fathers, partly from
the margins of other MSS. In particular, Origen’s text of the LXX
(called the Hexaplar text), with many such marginal variants, was
translated into Syriac by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in a. Ὁ. 617-18 ;
and a peculiarly fine MS. of this translation (containing the pro-
phetical and poetical books), preserved in the Ambrosian Library at
Milan, has been published in facsimile by Ceriani. The most com-
plete edition of the remains of the Hexapla is that of the late Dr.
Field (Oxford, 1875), who has shewn remarkable skill in recovering
from the renderings of the Syriac translation the original Greek.
Origen’s work was projected with the best intentions: and it has
been the means of preserving to us much, of priceless value, that
would otherwise have perished. But it did not secure the end
which he had in view. Origen did not succeed in restoring the
genuine translation of the LXX. He assumed that the original
Septuagint was that which agreed most closely with the Hedrew
text as he knew it: he was guided partly by this, partly by the other
Versions (Aq. Theod. Symm.), which were based substantially
upon it: and where the Septuagint text differed from the current
Hebrew text, he systematically altered it to bring it into conformity
with it. This was a step in the wrong direction. Where a passage
appears in two renderings, the one free, the other agreeing with
the existent Hebrew text, it is the former which has the presump-
tion of being the more original: the latter has the presumption of
having been altered subsequently, in order that it might express
the Hebrew more closely. Origen, no doubt, freed the text of the
LXX from many mznor faults; but in the main his work tended to
obliterate the most original and distinctive features of the Version.
To discover the Hebrew text used by the translators we must
recover, as far as possible, the text of the Version as zt left the
translators’ hands ; and Origen’s labours, instead of facilitating,
rather impeded this process. In addition to this, the practical
effect of the method adopted by Origen was not to improve the
purity of the LXX MSS. themselves; for not only were the signs
which he himself used to indicate additions and omissions often
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. x\vii
neglected, as the Hexaplar text of the LXX was transcribed, but
the Hexapla, from its very nature, encouraged the formation of
mixed texts or recensions, so that, for instance, MSS. arose
exhibiting side by side the genuine LXX and corrections introduced
from Theodotion.
For the recovery of the genuine text of the LXX, the following
canons have been laid down by Lagarde}.
1. The MSS. of the Greek translation of the OT. are all either
immediately or mediately the result of an eclectic process: it
follows that he who aims at recovering the original text must follow
an eclectic method likewise. His only standard will be his know-
ledge of the style of the individual translators: his chief aid will
be the faculty possessed by him of referring the readings which come
before him to their Semitic original, or else of recognizing them as
corruptions originating in the Greek.
2. If a verse or part of a verse appears in both a free and a
slavishly literal translation, the former is to be counted the genuine
rendering.
3. If two readings co-exist, of which one expresses the Masso-
retic text, while the other can only be explained from a text
deviating from it, the latter is to be regarded as the original.
The first of these canons takes account of the fact that existing
Greek MSS. exhibit a more or less mzxed text, and justifies us in
not adhering exclusively to a single MS.: a given MS. may contain
on the whole the relatively truest text of the LXX; but other MSS.
may also in particular instances, in virtue of the mixed origin
of the text which they exhibit, preserve genuine Septuagintal
renderings. ‘The second and third canons formulate the principle
for estimating double renderings in the same MS., or alternative
renderings in different MSS., and derive their justification from the
fact that the general method followed by later revisers and cor-
rectors was that of assimilating the renderings of the LXX to the
Hebrew text (the ‘Hebraica veritas’) current in their day. The
1 Anmerkungen sur Griech. Ubersetzung der Proverbien, p. 3.
xl viii Introduction.
process, however, of recovering the genuine Septuagintal rendering,
from two or more variants, can be successfully carried on only by
the continuous comparison of the existing Hebrew text: it is this
which affords us a general idea of what, in a given passage, is to be
expected, and supplies us with a criterion for estimating the relative
originality of the variants that may come before us. An illustration
may be taken from Jud. 5, 8, cited by We. from Ewald. Cod. A
there reads oxen νεανιδων σιρομαστῶὼν ανηφθη και σιρομαστης. These
words are evidently corrupt; how are they to be restored? ‘The
Massoretic text is M21) ANT ON fa. This gave the clue, which
enabled Ewald to explain and restore the words quoted. The
Hebrew shews that they contain a double rendering, which must
be read σκέπην ἐὰν ἴδω καὶ σιρομάστην and σκέπη ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ σιρο-
μάστης, and that the first—either ἃ freer rendering of ΠΝ) DX, or
presupposing the variant NNN OX—is the true reading of the LXX.
But this could hardly have been determined, or at least could not
have been determined with the same assurance, without the guidance
afforded by the Hebrew text itself}.
Of course, after the application of Lagarde’s canons, the two
all-important questions still await the textual critic ; whether, viz.,
the reading which deviates from the Massoretic text is actually
based upon a divergent text, or is simply a freer rendering of the
same text, and whether, further, supposing the former alternative to
be the more probable, the divergent text is superior or not to the
Massoretic text. And these two questions can only be determined
by help of the general considerations alluded to above (p. xl).
Illustrations will be afforded by the notes in the present volume.
In very many cases the answer is apparent at once, but not un-
1 Various readings which exist only in the Gveek, and disappear when the
Greek is translated back into Hebrew, are, of course, only indirectly, and in
particular cases, of importance for the textual critic, who is interested primarily
in such variants alone as presuppose a different Hebrew original: thus in Jud.
I, 4. 5. 17 ἔκοψαν (B) and ἐπάταξαν (A) equally express the Hebrew 13°); in
1 Sam. 5, 4 τὰ ἐμπρόσθια and τὸ πρόθυρον and ἁμαφεθ all equally represent
the same Hebrew term ;npnn. Variants of this kind are frequent in MSS,
of the LXX.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. xlix
frequently more difficult cases arise, in which the answer is by no
means immediately evident, or in which the arguments on both
sides may be nearly equally balanced. It is the judgment and
acumen displayed in handling the more difficult cases which arise
under these two heads, that mark a textual critic of the first order,
and distinguish, for example, Wellhausen, in a conspicuous degree,
both from Thenius on the one side, and from Keil on the other.
According to a well-known passage of Jerome, /iree main
recensions of the Septuagint prevailed in antiquity, that of Hesychius
in Egypt, that of Zwczan in Asia Minor and Constantinople, that of
Origen in Palestine’. The Manuscripts containing the recensions
of Hesychius and Origen are not certainly known’; though
Ceriani with some reason supposes the latter to be contained in
the Syriac version of the Hexaplar text, mentioned above, and in
the allied Cod. 88 of Holmes and Parsons and the Cod. Sarra-
vianus*; that of Lucian has been edited (as far as Esther) by
Lagarde; and will be spoken of below.
The three principal MSS. of the LXX are the Vatican (B), the
Sinaitic ( or 5), and the Alexandrian (A). The Vatican MS. is
complete with the exception of Gen. 1, 1—46, 28. 2 Sam. 2, 5--Ἴ.
10-13. Ψ. 105, 27—137, 6; the Sinaitic MS. is defective for
nearly the whole of Gen.—z Esdras, in the rest of the OT. the
only serious lacuna is Ezekiel; the Alexandrian MS. is complete
except for Gen. 14, 14-17. 15, I-5. 16-19. τό, 6-9. 1 Sam. 12,
Preface to Chronicles (printed at the beginning of the Vulgate): Alexandria
et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychzwm laudat auctorem ; Constantinopolis
usque Antiochiam Zzczaniz martyris exemplaria probat ; mediae inter has pro-
vinciae Palestinos. codices legunt quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pam-
philus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varictate compugnat.
The last of these recensions is naturally the source of the Hexap/ar text spoken
of above ; and Jerome states elsewhere (I 635 Vallarsi) that it was read (‘ decan-
tatur’) at Jerusalem and in the churches of the East.
2 Lagarde, AZittheclungen, ii. 52.
8 Le recensiont det LXX e la versione latina detta Itala, Estratto dai Ren-
diconti del R. istituto Lombardo, Serie II, vol. xix, fasc. 1V (Milan, 1886), p. 2.
Lagarde, /. c. p. 56, says that he knows of one MS. of the Octateuch (in private
hands), not yet collated, which ‘ almost certainly’ contains it.
€
] Introduction.
18—14, 9. Ψ. 49, 20—79, 11. That of all MSS. of LXX, B
(with which δα frequently agrees) exhibits re/a/ively the purest and
most original Septuagintal text, is generally allowed: that it con-
tains double renderings, and has otherwise not escaped corruption,
will appear presently (p. lvi ff.)*. The Alexandrian MS. exhibits a
text which has been systematically corrected so as to agree more
closely with the Hebrew: proof of this is afforded by almost any
page: thus 1 Sam. 1, 1 where cod. B has ΓΑνθρωπος ἢν ἐξ “Ἄρμαθαιμ
Sepa, cod. A has Καὶ ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος εἷς ἐξ “Appabar Σωφιμ-Ξ" 7»)
DD OND Ὁ InN wx. The two best editions of the LXX are
that of Dr. Swete?, which contains the text of B with the variants
of & and four other uncials on the margin, and that of Lagarde
containing the recension of Lucian*. The readings of other MSS.
must, however, sometimes be consulted (for they may preserve read-
ings of importance); these, so far as they have been collated, are
chiefly to be found in the great work of Holmes and Parsons *.
Lucian’s recension of the Septuagint. In the apparatus criticus
of Holmes and Parsons four MSS., 19, 82, 93, 108, are cited
1 Respecting the recension to which B presumably belongs, its text exhibits
affinities with the Hexaplar text which lead Dr. Hort to infer (Academy, Dec.
24, 1887) that it is taken from a MS. (or MSS.) partly akin to the MS. (or MSS.)
upon which Origen based the text of the LXX column of his Hexapla. This
view has been accepted by Cornill (Gott. Gelehrte Nachrichten, 1888, pp. 194-6),
who abandons now the hypothesis formerly propounded by him tentatively
(Zzechiel, pp. 81, 84, 95) that B is itself dased upon the Hexaplar text of Origen,
on the ground chiefly that the forms of Hebrew proper names which it exhibits
shew no influence of the corrections introduced by Origen into the LXX text,
so that it cannot be dependent upon Origen’s text. Comp. Ceriani, /.¢. p. 7:
B ‘exhibits the unrevised text of LXX, as it was before Origen.’
2 The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol.i [as far as
4 Kings], Cambridge, 1887. This edition when completed will supersede that
of Tischendorf. Till vol. ii has appeared, the readings of B NA, in the rest of
the OT., if exactness be required, must be ascertained from Nestle’s collation
(published at the end of the sixth and subsequent editions of Tischendorf’s
text).
3 Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior (as far as Esther]
Graece Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus edita (Gottingae, 1883).
* Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum vartis lectionibus, Oxonii, 1798-1827.
See Swete, p. ix.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. li
frequently as agreeing together in exhibiting a text considerably
different from that of either Bor A. That these MSS. preserved
in some cases important readings of superior originality even to
those of B was noticed by Wellhausen in 18717, though he did not
perceive the full bearing of the fact, or pursue the subject further
beyond observing that Vercellone had remarked that the readings
of these MSS. often coincided with those of the Itala, or pre-Hiero-
nymian Latin Version of the OT. That these MSS. exhibit in
fact the recension of Lucian appears to have been first recognized
by Ceriani in 1863°. The same conclusion was arrived at also by
Lagarde *, who pointed to the numerous agreements between the
text of these MSS. (to which he adds 118) and the citations of Chry-
sostom, who, as a priest of Antioch, and Bishop of Constantinople,
would presumably, in accordance with Jerome’s statement, make
use of this recension; and its correctness was further established
by Dr. Field*, who shewed that the text of the same four MSS.
corresponded with readings cited in the Syriac Hexaplar text with
the letter Z. Lucian was a priest of the Church of Antioch, who
suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia, a.p. 312: according to the
passage of Suidas cited below’, he prepared with great pains a
revised edition of the Septuagint, which he sought by comparison
with the Hebrew to free from the corruptions which by accident or
design had in process of time been introduced into it. One large
1 Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, pp. 221-4.
? Monumenta Sacra et Profana, ii. 2 (1864), pp. 76, 98, 102 (specially codd.
10, 108, 118, and the Complut. text) ; also (for the Lamentations) 2d. i. (1861),
on Lam. 2, 22 end. 3, 7. 22. 29. 30. 33. 63. 4, 7 etc., where the agreement of
Theodoret is also noted. See also Ceriani’s opinion as cited in Dr. Field’s
Hexapla, ii. 429 (published originally in 1869).
8 Pars Prior etc. Preface, pp. vii-xiv.
* Hexapla, p. \xxxvii.
° S.v. Λουκιανὸς 6 μάρτυς" otros τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους θεασάμενος πολὺ τὸ νοθὸν
εἰσδεξαμένας, τοῦ γε χρόνον λυμηναμένου πολλὰ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς, καὶ τῆς συνεχοῦς
ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρων εἰς ἕτερα μεταθέσεως, καὶ μέντοι καί τινων ἀνθρώπων πονηροτάτων, οἱ
τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ προειστήκεισαν, παρατρέψαι τὸν ἐν αὐταῖς θελησάντων νοῦν, καὶ
πολὺ τὸ κίβδηλον ἐνσκευασαμένων, αὐτὸς ἁπάσας ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς ‘EBpaldos
ἐπανενεώσατο γλώττης, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἣν ἠκριβωκὼς πόνον τῇ ἔπαν-
ορθώσει πλεῖστον εἰσενεγκάμενος.
€2
lii Introduction.
class of alterations made by Lucian affect, however, only the
literary form of the Septuagint: they consist namely in the sub-
stitution of synonyms (as παρεγένετο for ἦλθεν, ἐπολέμησε for mape-
τάξατο, τὸ ἀρεστὸν for τὸ ἀγαθὸν) for the words originally used by the
translators. Obviously variants such as these do not point to a
different reading of the Hebrew. Double renderings also occur
frequently in Lucian’s recension, i.e. retaining the normal Septua-
gintal version of a passage, he placed beside it a rendering express-
ing more closely the current Hebrew text, either framed by himself,
or (more probably) adopted from particular MSS., or other trans-
lators. But what imparts to Lucian’s work its great importance
in the criticism of the O. T., is the fact that it embodies renderings,
not found in other MSS. of the LXX, which presuppose a Hebrew
original self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the
existing Massoretic text. Whether these renderings were derived
by him from MSS. of the LXX of which all other traces have
disappeared, or whether they were based directly upon Hebrew
MSS. which had preserved the genuine reading intact, whether in
other words they were derived mediately or immediately from the
Hebrew, is a matter of subordinate moment: the fact remains
that Lucian’s recension contains elements resting ultimately
upon Hebrew sources, which enable us to correct, with absolute
certainty, corrupt passages of the Massoretic text. Several in-
stances will be found in the notes in the present volume. In some
of these, it is instructive to notice, a conjectural emendation made
by a modern scholar has proved to be afterwards confirmed by the
testimony of Lucian’. The full gain from this quarter is in all
probability not yet exhausted: a number of passages, selected from
the Books of Kings, in which the Massoretic text may be emended
by the help of Lucian’s recension, are noticed by I. Hooykaas’.
‘Let him who would himself investigate and advance learning, by
1 So in 2 Ki. 15, 10 Gratz’s clever conjecture (Gesch. der Juden, ii. 1, Ὁ. 99)
9522 for the un-Hebraic oy-bap is confirmed by Lucian. y
? Tets over de Grieksche vertaling van het oude Testament (Rotterdam, 1888),
p- 12 ff.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. 1
the side of the other Ancient Versions, accustom himself above all
things to the use of Field’s Hexapla, and Lagarde’s edition of the
Recension of Lucian’.
4. We reach now the Latin Versions. Of these the first is the
Old Latin Version, used by early Latin Fathers, as Tertullian (died
c. 220), Cyprian (d. 257), Lactantius, Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 371),
and Augustine®. This Version exists only in a more or less frag-
mentary form, derived partly from MSS., partly from quotations in
the Fathers. Of the OT. the most complete part is that of the
Pentateuch, published by Ulysse Robert from a Lyons manuscript
(Paris, 1881): in the Books of Samuel only fragments are extant
derived from the sources just named. Of these fragments, such as
were known at the time were published by Sabatier in 1743 in
his great work, Bibleorum Sacrorum Antiquae Verstones Latinae:
Vercellone in 1864 in vol. ii of the Variae Lectiones Vulgatae
Latinae Bibliorum editionis printed other considerable extracts from
the margin of a Gothic MS. at Leon in Spain*®; three fragments,
discovered in the bindings of some books at Magdeburg (II 2, 29 —
3, 5 [also τ Ki. 5, 2-9%]) and Quedlinburg (I 9, 1-8"; 15, 10-172),
were edited by von Miilverstedt in 1874*: two other fragments,
discovered similarly at Vienna, were published in 1877°; in 1885
1 Klostermann, Dze Biicher Sam. u. Konige (1887), p. xl.
The Complutensian Polyglott exhibits the text of Lucian, Holmes’ MS. 108
= Vatican 330 is the manuscript which was sent in 1513-4 by Leo X to Spain
for the use of the editors of that Polyglott. As Vercellone has pointed out, the
minutes relating to the loan and return of the MS. still exist in the Vatican
Library (Delitzsch, Hortgesetste Studien zur Lutstehungsgesch. der Compl.
Polygl., Leipzig, 1886, p. 2).
2 Comp. Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus
(1879); Herzog, RZ*, art. Latecnische Bibeliibersetzungen (by O. F. Fritzsche).
3 Variae Lectiones, ii. pp. xxi-xxii, 179, etc. : comp. i. pp. xciii—xcv.
* Zeitschrift des Harzvereins, 1874, pp. 251-63. The two Quedlinburg frag-
ments were re-edited by W. Schum in the Stud. τ. Kritiken, 1876, p. 123 f.
(1 Ki. 5, 9’-6, τ τὸ has recently been recovered from the same source: A. Diining,
Ein neues Fragment des Quedlinburger Itala-Codex, 1888).
5 Augustissimae Bibliothecae Caesareae Regiae Palatinae Vindobonensis Prae-
fecto Doctori Ernesto Birk munerum publicorum feliciter peracto XL annorum
cyclo gratulantes qui a Bibliotheca sunt Veteris Antehieronymianae Versionis
liv Introduction.
J. Belsheim edited some longer fragments (of other parts of the
OT. as well as 1-2 Sam.) from a palimpsest MS. at Vienna’.
The Old Latin Version does not, as a rule, possess an independent
value for the textual criticism of the OT., for it was not made
immediately from the Hebrew, but was formed upon the Greek.
As the extant parts of it shew that it existed in different recensions *,
it becomes a matter of importance to inquire how these are related
to one another, and upon what MSS., or family of MSS., of the
LXX they are based. As will be shewn below (p. Ixxviiff.), in
the Books of Samuel the recensions which we possess are based
upon a text agreeing with that of Lucian.
More important for our present purpose is the Latin Version of
Jerome, commonly known as the Vulgate*. Jerome began his
labours as a translator by merely revising the Old Latin; but
ultimately made a new Version directly from the Hebrew. He
had originally learnt Hebrew as a youth *, and after having dropped
the study for a while, resumed it in his later years, after his
migration to Bethlehem in 386. The Books of Samuel and
Kings were published first (c. 393), but the whole work was not
completed till 405. For the purpose of perfecting his knowledge
Libri II Regum stve Samuelis Cap. X. 18—XT. 17 et Cap. XIV. 17-30 prin-
cipem editionem dedicant inlustratam Tabulis Photographicis (Vindobonae,
MDCCCLXXVII). Cited as Vind."
1 Palimpsestus Vindobonensis antiquissimae Vet. Test. Translationis latinae
fragmenta e codice rescripto eruit et primum edidit Johannes Belsheim Chris-
tianiae, 1885 (1 Sam. I, 14—2, 15. 3, 1o—4, 18. 6, 3-15. 9, 2I—1I0, 7. Io, 16
—II, 13. 14, 12-34. 2 Sam. 4, 1lo—5, 25. 10, 13—11, 18. 13, 13—14, 4. 17,
12—18, 9). Cited as Vind.? (One column of this MS., containing II 11, 2-6,
had been published previously, as a specimen, by Eichenfeld and Endlicher,
Analecta Grammatica, Vindob. 1837, p. 1x.)
* Which according to some (especially Ziegler) were independent versions.
* On the Vulgate generally, see the elaborate article by Mr. (now Professor)
Westcott in Smith’s Dictzonary of the Bible: on its relation to the Hebrew text
of the OT. in particular, the careful monograph of W. Nowack, Die Bedeutung
des Hieronymus fiir die alttestamentliche Textkritik (Gottingen, 1875), should by
all means be consulted.
* Preface to Daniel (printed at the beginning of editions of the Vulgate) ; Ep.
125, § 12 (Migne, i. 1079),—an interesting passage, too long to quote.
Chief Ancient Versions of the Old Testament. ἵν
of Hebrew, and also subsequently for assistance in the translation
of particular books, Jerome engaged the help of Jewish teachers,
to whom in his commentaries he more than once alludes}, and
from whom no doubt he derived the Rabbinical interpretations
which occur from time to time in the pages of the Vulgate’.
Though his Version was made afresh from the Hebrew, he did
not disdain to avail himself of the labours of his predecessors, and
consulted constantly the Greek Versions (both the LXX and Aq.
Theod. Symm.), the renderings of which he frequently quotes and
discusses. He was especially prone to be guided by Symmachus.
Where the Vulgate exhibits a rendering which deviates alike from the
Hebrew text and from the LXX, the clue to its origin will generally
be found in one of the other Greek translations, especially in
that of Symmachus (see pp. ]xxxii—Ixxxiv).
NoTe.—For the recovery of the original text of the LXX, much yet remains
to be done. The first step is the more accurate collation of MSS. for the
purpose, if possible, of grouping them in families, or recensions. Upon this
field of study Lagarde stands pre-eminent (comp. Cornill, Zzech., p. 63): and
his researches, which it is hoped may soon be completed, will lead probably to
important results.
1 Ep. 84, § 3: Putabant me homines finem fecisse discendi. Veni rursum
Terosolyma et Bethleem. Quo labore, quo pretio Baraninam nocturnum habui
praeceptorem ! Timebat enim Judaeos, et mihi alterum exhibebat Nicodemum.
Preface to Chron.: Denique cum a me litteris flagitassetis ut vobis librum
Paralipomenon Latino sermone transferrem, de Tiberiade quemdam legis
doctorem qui apud Hebraeos admirationi habebatur assumpsi: et contuli cum
eo a vertice, ut aiunt, usque ad extremum unguem; et sic confirmatus ausus
sum facere quod iubebatis. Preface to Job: Memini me ob intelligentiam
huius voluminis Lyddaeum quemdam praeceptorem, qui apud Hebraeos primus
haberi putabatur, non parvis redemisse nummis. On Am, 3, 11 he alludes to
the ‘Hebraeus qui me in sacris Scripturis erudivit:’ similarly on Zeph. 3, 8.
Gal. 3, 14 al. On Hab. 2, 15: Audivi Lyddae quemdam de Hebraeis qui
sapiens apud illos et δευτερώτης [= N32] vocabatur narrantem huiuscemodi
fabulam, etc. On Zech. 14, 20: quod cum ab Hebraeo quaererem quid signi-
ficaret, ait mihi, etc.
2 Comment. on Is, 22,17 on 111: Hebraeus autem qui nos in Veteris Testa-
menti lectione erudivit gallum gallinaceum transtulit. (See the Comm. of Rashi
ad loc.) Comp. M. Rahmer, Die Hebriischen Traditionem in den Werken des
LTieronymus (Breslau, 1861) ; continued (with reference to Hosea) in Frankel’s
Monatschrift, 1865, pp. 216, 460; 1867, p. 107; 1868, p. 419.
ἵν]
Introduction.
§ 4. Characteristics of the Chief Ancient Versions
of Samuel’.
1. The Septuagint.
A. Features which presumably are not original elements in the
Version, or due to the translators themselves.
(a) Examples of double renderings (‘doublets’): these are fre-
quently connected by καί :—
I 1,16 Luc. ‘mw 22 = ἐκ πλήθους ἀδολεσχίας μου καὶ ἐκ πλήθους
3
4
5
~
»
“
᾽
-
.
"-
ἀθυμίας μου.
26 ADDY = ἐνώπιόν σου μετά σου.
24 pow 3 WN ΠΡΟΦΠ ΠΕῚΘ sib 19 9a Seas, τέκνα, ὅτι
οὐκ ἀγαθὴ ἡ ἀκοὴ ἣν ἐγὼ ἀκούω, μὴ ποιεῖτε οὕτως ὅτι οὐκ ἀγαθαὶ ai
ἀκοαὶ ἃς ἐγὼ ἀκούω.
17 end pox = σοὶ ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν σου.
14-16% (to by by) =[14 kal ἤκουσεν Ἤλει τὴν φωνὴν τῆς βοῆς
καὶ εἶπεν Τίς ἡ βοὴ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης : καὶ 6 ἄνθρωπος σπεύσας
εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν τῷ Ἤλει: 15 καὶ Ἤλει υἱὸς ἐνενήκοντα
ἐτῶν, καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπανέστησαν καὶ οὐκ ἔβλεπεν"] καὶ εἶπεν
Ἤλει τοῖς ἀνδράσιν τοῖς παρειστηκόσιν αὐτῷ Τίς ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ ἤχους
τούτου ; 16 καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ σπεύσας προσῆλθεν Ἤλει καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ.
In LXX 14 is a doublet to 15b-168: 15>-164 represent the
original LXX of 14-16% Heb., 15 Heb. being accidentally
omitted; the omission was afterwards supplied, a closer ren-
dering of 14 Heb. being given at the same time.
4 ynpon-by mina yt) mp. Nw = καὶ ἀμφότερα τὰ ἴχνη χειρῶν
αὐτοῦ ἀφῃρημένα ἐπὶ τὰ ἐμπρόσθια ἁμαφεθ ἕκαστοι, καὶ ἀμφότεροι ot
καρποὶ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ πεπτωκότες ἐπὶ τὸ πρόθυρον.
fac. by omy πὸν xb ἼΩΝ = ἄνευ τῶν τετεγμένων ἐφ᾽ ἃς οὐκ
ἐπετέθη ζύγος (ἄνευ τῶν rer. = OW omby xb ἽΝ We.)
8 INN onndy = καὶ ἐξαποστελεῖτε αὐτὴν, καὶ ἀπελάσατε αὐτήν.
12 Luc, wi bn ΟΠ ΓΠΝ πῦρ. = ἐν τρίβω εὐθείᾳ ἐπορεύοντο"
ἐκοπίων . .. ἐν ὁδῷ μιᾷ ἐπορεύοντο πορεύουσαι καὶ βοῶσαι (kor, =
ἼΜ) for $93).
1 Only the more salient features can be noticed.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. Wii
10, 2 Luc. nybya = μεσημβρίας ἁλλομένους μεγάλα (see note).
14, 40 Luc. jn cosy ἽΠΝ Tay yan ons Seow 52 bs ox
ney pry. aon Sew dx oyna ms tnx says ama 2
= Kal εἶπε Σαουλ πάντι ἀνδρὶ Ἰσραηλ Ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθε εἰς δουλείαν, καὶ
ἐγὼ καὶ Ἰωναθαν 6 vids μου ἐσόμεθα εἰς δουλείαν. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς
πρὸς Σαουλ Τὸ ἀρεστὸν ἐνωπίον σου ποίει" καὶ εἶπε Σαουλ πρὸς τὸν
λαὸν Ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθε εἰς ἕν μέρος, καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ Ἰωναθαν ἐσόμεθα εἰς ἕν
μέρος. Here a second translation, correcting the strange
mistranslation of LXX, is inserted in the text out of its
proper place.
14, 47 andy 505 = ἔλαχεν τοῦ βασιλεύειν, κατακληροῦται ἔργον
(M227 read as MPT = PNPM) 1,
15, 3 py Sonn ny b TWN δ5 ΤΙΝ ὨΓΠΠῚ ΞΞ καὶ Ἴερειμ καὶ πάντα
τὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ περιποιήσῃ ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξολεθρεύσεις αὐτόν᾽ καὶ
ἀναθεματιεῖς αὐτὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ φείσῃ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.
Here each verb is rendered twice (éfoAcp.= DNA as 2. 9.
15 al.), on being represented moreover a third time by
καὶ Ἴερειμ.
16, 16 ap) WYi=kai ἀγαθόν σοι ἔσται καὶ ἀναπαύσει ce. (The com-
bination of two renderings, though accepted by Th. as the
original text, has the effect, as We. remarks, of putting the
effect before the cause.)
18, 28 Luc. ἸΠΏΣΠΝ ΟΝ ΠΣ Soy = καὶ [Μελχολ ἡ Ovyarnp αὐτοῦ
καὶ] πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ ἠγάπα αὐτόν. Here by the side of the genuine
LXX rendering is inserted a second translation expressing
the later (and corrupted) Hebrew text : see note.
20, 9 poy = emi σε... εἰς τὰς TOAELS σου (Jy).
21,14 (13 LXX) apywn minds Sy any ova Soany = καὶ προσ-
ἐποιήσατο ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἐτυμπάνιζεν (= An’) ἐπὶ ταῖς θύραις
τῆς πόλεως καὶ παρεφέρετο ἐν ταῖς χέρσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ τὰς
θύρας τῆς πόλεως. Each verb is represented in the Greek
twice.
1 Lucian combines the two renderings rather cleverly: κατακληροῦται τὸ ἔργον
τοῦ βασιλεύειν ; cf.12, 2 (the addition of ἐκ τοῦ νῦν). 16, 20 (Ρ.11Χ). 17,2, 21,12.
lviii Introduction.
23, 1 MIDINNN D DY AMA ΞΞ καὶ αὐτοὶ διαρπάζουσιν καταπατοῦσιν
τοὺς ἅλως. (katamaréw=NDY 14, 48; = DDY 17, 53.)
Il 6, 2 ANA ὄν ποτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἼἼουδα ἐν ἀναβάσει (i. 6. dyna
for ‘ya [see p. Ixviii]; Klo.’s view is less probable)?.
While ‘ doublets’ are thus not infrequent even in Cod. B, they
are peculiarly characteristic of the recension of Lucian?. When
Lucian found in his MSS. two divergent renderings of a passage,
he systematically comézned them, producing thereby what would be
called in the terminology of New Testament criticism ‘conflate
readings.’ As my friend, Prof. Sanday, reminds me, this method
of combining different readings is characteristic of the Syrian school
of critics, from whom the modern ‘ Textus Receptus’ of the NT.
is essentially derived. The application of the same method, at
approximately the same time and place, to the text of both Testa-
ments must be due to some common influence, even if (as has been
conjectured *) it be not Lucian himself to whom the Syrian recen-
sion of the NT. is due.
(2) Corruptions originating in the Greek text itself in the process
of transmission. Where by the change of one or two letters the
Greek may be brought into conformity with the Hebrew, it is more
probable, as a rule, that the variation originated in the Greek only
(especially if it is one that might be facilitated by the context), than that
it is due to a difference in the Hebrew text used by the translators :—
I 4, 19 YIDN) ἔκλαυσεν from ὥκλασεν (We.): see τ Ki. 8, 54. 19,
18.—9g, 24 DO ἥψησεν (probably) a corruption of ὕψωσεν (cf. ὑψόω
2 Ki. 2, 13. 6, 7), induced by the context.—ro, 2 "2.28 Oya ἐν
τῷ ὄρει for ἐν τῷ ὁρίῳ “.---τ3, 4 ἸΌΝ ἀνέβησαν corrupted likewise
1 See also the notes on I 20, 30 (Luc.). 27, 8: 11 13,16. 14, 6. 15, 17 f. 19,
44. 20, 18-19. 22. 21, I. 5.
? Add, from Lucian, I 1, 6. 2, 11. 4, 18. 6,8. ¥, 16: 8, 8. ἘΦ 19 2, - 1}
1°, 12, 2. 3. 14, 7: 33. 15, 29. 32. 16, 14. 18. 17, 2 (οὗτοι -- 95) 18. 22. 25,
14. 41 end. 26, 17. 27, 8%. 28, 23. 31, 9 etc.
* Westcott and Hort, Zhe New Testament in the Original Greek, ii. 138. For
examples of ‘ conflate’ readings, see 20., p. 94 ff.
* Luc. ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις. The same corruption Jud. 2, 9 (cod. A). y. 78, 54°.
Ez. 11, 10, 11; the converse one Mal. J, 3.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \ix
through the influence of the context for ἀνεβόησαν ((PYS—LXX do
not recognize the JVz/. of this verb: cf. 11, 7). So 14, 20 ἀνέβη for
ἀνεβόησε (as in A).—14, 5 (see note).—zd, bn bis, ἐρχόμενῳ ‘ to one
coming ...,’ from ἐχόμενον close 10 (so Luc.), which represents are)
Nu. 22, 5. Dt. 11, 30.—14, 45 Luc. ἔλεον (from ὁ λαὸς [OY read as
DY] to bring the meaning into some relation with the context).—
15, 23 θεράπειαν (from Oepapw).—16, 20 Luc. γόμον (from γομορ,
adapted so as to harmonize with "\n=édvov).— 17, 40 τελείους (from
Acious).—18, 7 ΠΡ ΠῚ Luc. ἐξήρχοντο (for eéfpyov).—21 Luc. ἐν ταῖς
δυνάμεσιν (for δυσὶν A),—20, 11 N¥I καὶ μένε for καὶ ἴωμεν (We.).—
15 εὑρεθῆναι prob. for ἐξαρθῆναι (as A).—26, 10 παιδεύσῃ (for main).
—II 17, 9 BOYNON from BOCYNON.—16 καταπείσῃ (for καταπίῃ).----
23, ὃ στρατιώτας (probably for τραυματίας : see Φ. 18).---Ο ἀνεβόησεν
(for ἀνέβη : cf. the reverse change above)*. Cf. II 14, 20 δόλον.
Compare from other books: 2 Ki. 3, 21 m5yn1 ANAM ἼΔΤΤ 490 IpyE καὶ
ἀνεβόησαν ἐκ παντὸς περιεζωσμένοι ζώνην καὶ εἶπον “OQ for καὶ ἐπάνω under the
influence of the preceding (incorrect) ἀνεβόησαν ; 23, 5. 11 Naw) κατέκαυσε for
κατέπαυσε ; Ψ. 4,8 ΠΡῸ ἀπὸ καρποῦ for ἀπὸ καιροῦ ; 17, 14 Ὁ}}1 YAW? ἐχορτάσ-
θησαν ὑείων 5 (swine’s flesh!) from υἱῶν ; 31, τό πτν of κλῆροί μου from οἱ
καιροί μου; 30, 6 ΠῚ ΕΒ παλαιὰς from παλαιστὰς (as A); 44,13 DOWN: ἐν
τοῖς ἀλαλάγμασιν αὐτῶν from ἀλλάγμασιν ὃ; 40, 9 5 ΠῚ ἐκοπίασεν from ἐκόπασεν
1 Comp. in proper names: 15,1 ’ABevynp; 17,1 Ἰδουμαίας ; 21, 2 (see note)
᾿Αβειμελεχ; 25, 43 (B). 29, 11 (A, B, Luc.) Ὁ): Ἰσραηλ; 25, 44 Luc. τῷ
ex Γολιαθ; 30, 14 TeABove; 11 2, 2 al. ᾿Αχινοομ ἡ Ἰσραηλεῖτις ; 8, 7 Ἰεροβοαμ;
10, 6. 8 MIYD’AMaAnK; II, 21, 22 ᾿Αβειμελεχ υἱὸν IepoBoap; 12, 30 Μελχολ
(usually for 53°); 14, 27 end ᾿Αβιαθαρ.
Sometimes, also, constantly, as 2) 1} “ABvyaa (no doubt A for A); 52°»
Μελχολ; NwWa-wN Ἰεβοσθε (but in 11 3-4 MepdiBoode) ; DIN-IAay ᾿Αβεδδαρα
(Luc. ᾿Αβεδδαδαν); yaw-na Βηρσαβεε; τ Ki. 1-2 (throughout) 7°27 Luc. Opa
(cf. IL 3, 4 Β Ὄρνειλ, A ᾽Ορνιας). Comp. 112 Ναυη. But where the incorrect
form is constant, it is probable that it is due generally to the translators, and is
not a mere error of transcription.
* Whence saturati sunt porcina found its way into some copies of the Old
Latin Version and is mentioned by Augustine, 6. g. ΤΥ. 73 (Bened.) ‘ubi dictum
est “‘saturati sunt porcina” non nulla exemplaria “ saturati sunt filiis” habent :
ex ambiguo enim graeco interpretatio duplex evenit’ (quoted by Lagarde in his
Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lateinischen Ubersetzungen des Alten Testaments,
Gottingen, 1885, p. 40).
3. Comp. Land, Aznecdota Syriaca, iv. 190: and Field’s note ad oc.
ΙΧ Introduction.
(see Amos 7, 5); 69, 27 795m τραυμάτων pov from τραυματίων cov; 89, 21
WIP OWA ἐν ἐλέει ἁγίῳ from ἐλαίῳ ; 139, 9 ὙΠῸ κατ᾽ ὀρθὸν from κατ᾽ ὄρθρον
(A); Jer. 15, Io 2 ἸῺ2 NDI MDI ND οὔτε ὠφέλησα, οὔτε ὠφέλησέν με οὐδείς,
already noted by Origen as ἃ γραφικὸν ἁμάρτημα for ὠφείλησα, ὠφείλησεν. Cf.
p. 60 xote.
B. Features due presumably to the translators themselves :—
(a) The translators are apt to be very literal, representing
Hebrew expressions not by idiomatic Greek equivalents, but by
word-for-word renderings: thus I 3, 6 προσέθετο καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ; ὃ al.
προσέθετο καλέσαι; II 2, 28 al. προσέθετο rod... —3, 10 al. DYDA DYDD
ὡς ἅπαξ καὶ dra&.—4, ἢ al. owdy Syons ἐχθὲς καὶ Tpirny.—z. (see note)
MNID ANN γέγονε τοιαύτη.---6, 7 ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν αὐτῶν.----", 8 μὴ παρασιωπήσῃς
ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ μὴ βοᾷν.----", 14.17, I al. Pa... Δ ἀνὰ μέσον... . καὶ
ἀνὰ μέσον.---τ8, 22 “A PDN θέλειν ἐν; 25 βούλεσθαι ἐν.---20, 21 JOD
MIM ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ὧδε.---22 ΠΝΟΠῚ ‘JOD ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ἐπέκεινα.----24, 7
μηδαμῶς μοι παρὰ Κυρίου (MIND), εἰ ποιήσω .. .--28, 17 λαλεῖν ἐν χειρί
twos.—II1 18, 4 YW by ἀνὰ χεῖρα τῆς πύλης.----24, 3 ON) OI
ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς (contrast Dt. 1, 11—by a different
hand—o55 ὡς ἐστὲ χιλιοπλασίως).
The pron. of 1 pers. sing. (when expressed in the Hebrew) is
sometimes curiously represented by the sadbs/antive verb :—
IL 11, 5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχω; 12, 7 καὶ ἐγώ εἶμι ἐρυσάμην σε;
15, 28 ἐγώ εἶμι στρατεύομαι ; 18, 12 καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι ἵστημι; 20, 1 ᾿Δκούω
ἐγώ εἰμι; 24, 12 τρία ἐγώ εἰμι αἴρω ἐπὶ σέ; 17 ἰδοὺ ἐγώ εἰμι ἠδίκησα ἧ.
Comp. 7, 29 ὅτι σὺ εἶ... ἐλάλησας 3.
(2) They even translate not unfrequently wholly regardless of
the sense :—1, 26 ‘3 ἐν ἐμοί.--5, 6 DOW καὶ ἐπήγαγεν αὐτοῖς (one,
the suffix construed as a dative: Ges. ὃ 121. 4).—8, 3 YSN NN
ὀπίσω τῆς συντελείας.- ὃ, τό ΠΡ MWY) καὶ ἀποδεκατώσει (νὴ εἰς
1 So sometimes in other books, as Jud. 5, 3. 11, 35. 37. I Ki. 2, 2.
* From 11 2, 7 (incl.) there is a singular change in the rendering of Da, which
is now often represented by καί γε: ΤΙ 2, 7. 11, 12.17. 21. 24. 12, 14. 13, 36.
14, 6. 7. 15) 20. 24. 16, 23. 17, 5: 16. 12: 16: 18, 2. 22: 26. 27. τεῦ, 2004eee.
20, 16. 21, 20. (So before in A and Luc. but not in B, as 11,6 L. 8,8L. 18,
5 AL. 19, 24 A. 24,11 L. Il 2,6A. 3,19 A; and in other books sometimes
in B, as Jud. 1, 22. 2, 10.87. 3, 2aal. 1 Ki. 1, 6,48 al.)
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. 1xi
τὰ ἔργα airod.—12, 2 ‘HW καὶ καθήσομαι (IY*),—12, 25 DON
προστεθήσεσθε (as though ΒΘ from ἢ"): so 27, 1.—14, 38 τὰς
γωνίας Tov ‘Iopank.—1 4, 40 nay eis δουλείαν ([A}say>).—1 5, 11 mapa-
κέκλημαι (SO II 24, 26 παρεκλήθη : ὉΠ) --- παρακαλέω ; hence παρακέκλημαι
derived mechanically to express the /Vzfa/).—18, 21 ‘1 καὶ ἢν
(ΠΠ})} ἐπὶ Σαουλ (!) χεὶρ ἀλλοφύλων.
(c) A Hebrew word not understood, or treated incorrectly as a
proper name, or if of a technical character, is often transliterated :
I 1, 24 oid, veBed [ 10, 3 ἀσκόν].---2, 18 ἐφουδ ' Bap.—28 al. ἐφουδ ".----
32 (cod. A) κραταίωμα pover.—g, 12. 13 al. Baya.—10, 5 ἃ]. ναβλα.--
13, 3 NaceiB.—14, I εἰς Μεσσαβ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων (but 13, 23 ὑπόστα-
ows),—6. II. 12, 15 Meooah.—23 τὴν Bapob.—33 ἐν Τεθθαιμ (for
DN3!).—16, 20 youop (see note).—17, 18 Luc. épov8a.—20, 19
mapa τὸ ἐργαβ exeivo.— 20 eis τὴν ‘Apparraper.— 21 γοῦζαν.---41 ἀπὸ τοῦ
apyaB.—25, 18 οἶφι, γομορ.---32. 39 Luc. Bapovy.—30, 8. 15. 23
γεδδουρ (for T73).—IT 3, 33. 34 Ναβαλ.---12, 31 Luc. ibn ἐν Ma-
δεββα (no doubt A for A).—15, 28 and 17, τό ’ApaBwh.—15, 32 ἕως
τοῦ ‘Pows (Luc. ‘Pos: so 16, 1); 17,19 dpapwl.—29 σαφφωό.---21,
20 Μαδων.---25, 9 Luc. ἐν Σερραμ (for DD9N1).—13 εἰς Καδων.----24, 7
Mawap.
And so in other books: as Gen. 28,19 3115 D518) καὶ Οὐλαμμαυὺς (!). Jos. 7, 24
Ἣν poy Ἐμεκαχωρ. 7πᾶ.1, 19 O79 212 29 32 ὅτι Ῥηχαβ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς.
3, 3 non Nad Ἵν ἕως AaBw Ἕμαθ. 6, 26 11" Μαουεκ. 8, 7 ἁβαρκηνειν. 9, 27
καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑλλουλειμ. 41 ἐν ᾽Αρημα. 18, 29 Ὁ} DDN καὶ Οὐλαμαις. 20, 48
DND WYN ἀπὸ πόλεως Μεθλα. 2 Ki. 2,14 NIT HR ἀφφω. 3, 4 1P) νωκηθ. το,
IO NIDN ἄφφω. 12, 5-7 βεδεκ. g [see Stade, ΖΗ ΤΊ. 1885, p. 280 f.]. 23, 4
ΤΥ ΤῸ σαλημωθ. 5 χωμαρειμ, μαζουρωθ, etc,
Sometimes the translation and transliteration are found side by
side, giving rise to a species of doublet :—I 5, 4 (p. lvi) éuape6.—
6, 8 ἐν θέματι βερεχθαν (A dpyol).—11. 15 καὶ τὸ θέμα ἐργαβ (A ἀργοῦ .--
ἡ, 4 τὰ ἄλση ᾽Ασταρωθ (NINWYN, as v. 3. 12, 10, taken as=NNWNN,
which is regularly rendered adon).—10, 5 ἀνάστεμα.. . . Νασειβ..----
14, 25 Ἰααλ (see note).—15, 3 Ἴερειμ (p. lvii).—8 Ἴερειμ ἀπέκτεινεν
(for onn).—32 Luc. ἐξ ᾿Αναθωθ τρέμων.----21, 2 ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῷ Aeyo-
1 In the Pentateuch represented regularly by ἐπωμίς.
Ixii Introduction.
μένῳ Θεοῦ πίστις (as though ΠΣ (δ) DN) Φελλανει Μαεμωνὶ (for Dds
ΟΝ .)55).-- συνεχόμενος Νεεσσαραν (3 }}).---23, 14 ἐν Μασερεμ ἐν
τοῖς στενοῖς (for njqy192 read as nyy03).—19 ἐν Μεσσαρα ev τοῖς στενοῖς
(for n}T¥92),—2 4, 23 εἰς τὴν Meooapa στενὴν (for maasin-by),
(4) There is a tendency in the version to make slight additions
for the purpose of giving an explanation or otherwise filling out
the sense: thus I 1, 5+ ὅτι οὐκ ἣν αὐτῇ παιδίον. 2. ὑπὲρ ταύτην. 14
(τὸ παιδάριον) Ἤλει. 22. + καὶ πορεύου ἐκ προσώπου Κυρίου. 21 + ἐν Σηλωμ.
2, 12 Ἤλει (τοῦ ἱέρεως). 28 end+eis βρῶσιν. 29 (ἀναιδεῖ) ὀφθαλμῷ (see
note). 5, 12 οἱ (ζῶντες καὶ) μὴ ἀποθανόντες. 9, 18 -᾿- πρὸς αὐτόν. το, 4
δύο (ἀπαρχὰς) ἄρτων. II, 10 πρὸς Ναας (τὸν ᾿Αμμανίτην). 15, 17 -᾿ πρὸς
Σαουλ. 23>. 16, 12 ἀγαθὸς ὁράσει (κυρίῳ) ; and afterwards + πρὸς
Σαμουηλ and ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν (ἀγαθός). 17, 36. 43 -Ἐ καὶ εἶπε Δαυειδ Οὐχὶ
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ χείρων κυνός. 19, 8 - πρὸς Σαουλ. 20, 28 εἰς Βηθλεεμ (τὴν πόλιν
αὐτοῦ πορευθῆναι). 21, 4 end+xKal φάγεται. 25, 26 τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν εἰς αἷμα
(ἀθῶον). 31 end+ ἀγαθῶσαι αὐτῇ.
(e) Hebrew writers are apt to leave something to be supplied by
the intelligence of their readers: thus the subject of a verb is often
not expressly named, and the object is either not named or
indicated merely by a pronoun, the context, intelligently understood,
sufficiently fixing the meaning. In such cases, however, there was
a temptation sometimes even to a scribe of the Hebrew, but still
more to a translator, to facilitate the comprehension of the reader,
or to preclude some misapprehension which he contemplated as
possible, by inserting explicitly the imperfectly expressed subject
or object. Cases in which MT. and LXX vary in the presence or
absence of subject or object are numerous. Thus I 2, 28 ἸΠΝ τὸν
οἶκον τοῦ πατρός cov.—3, 18> “ON καὶ εἶπεν Ἤλει.---6, 20> καὶ πρὸς
τίνα ἀναβήσεται (κιβωτὸς κυρίου) ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν; 9, 6 τὸ παιδάριον.----24. καὶ
εἶπε (Σαμουηλ τῷ Saovd),—12, 5 omy ΩΝ καὶ εἶπε Σαμουηλ πρὸς
τὸν Nadv.—I5, 27 καὶ ἐκράτησε (Saovd).—16, 12 WNW χρῖσον τὸν
Δανυειδ, etc.
Hence Wellhausen lays down the canon that ‘if LXX and MT.
differ in respect of a subject, it is probable that the original text
had neither.’
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xiii
I 2, 20b yorpnd Ἰ55Π), LXX καὶ ἀπῆλθεν 6 ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ.
The original text was wrpad ἼΡΠῚ.---Ἴ, 14 Wo Sew» Syn 1012) nw
onwda, LXX kai τὸ ὅριον Ἰσραηλ ἀφείλαντο x.7.4. Both MT. and
LXX may be accounted for by the assumption of an original AN}
ΤΌΘ ΤῸ ΝΠ πὰ Ξ- το, 22 wy, LXX καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν Σαμουηλ.
The original text had 5yw*y.—1 1,9 oranda WN, LXX καὶ εἶπεν
τοῖς ἀγγέλοις. Originally ΘΝ, here best read as a singular ‘on
account of the definiteness of the message’ (We.).—15 dy,
LXX καὶ ἔχρισε Σαμουηλ .---τ, 39? poy 15 pip, LXX καὶ dda .
povow αὐτὰ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. Originally only pbyn pp", fixed in MT. to
a sing. by the addition of 115, read by LXX as D3D".—30, 20 mp)
wyn-boons aI, LXX καὶ ἔλαβεν πάντα τὰ ποίμνια. 3\9 almost
certainly a false ‘Explicitum :’ see note.
On the Orthography of the Hebrew Text used by LXX.
(Comp. above, pp. xxx ff.)
(1) The number of cases in which LXX and MT. differ in respect
of the number of a verb, or in which the MT. itself has one
number where the other would be expected, makes it probable that
there was a time when the final consonant was not always expressed
in writing, and that when the scrzpfo plena was introduced an
(apparent) singular was sometimes left, which ought to have become
a plural. The omission was in some cases made good by the
Massorites in the Qri, but not always.
Nu. 13, 22 p3n Jy Nay 2202 dy (read IN). 32, 25 993 TDNN
JUIN 123) Δ. 33, 7. Jud. 8, 6. 1 Sam. 9, 4. 19, 20 N1 (of the
orsxdp just mentioned), LXX καὶ εἶδαν. 1 Ki, 13, II 992 NID"
yo-ED" (the sequel ἘΠ ΣΝ nap shews that % 78D" 13 Nia
must have been intended: cf. LXX ἔρχονται οἱ viol αὐτοῦ καὶ διηγή-
gavto). 22, 49 (probably aon and NYINT ἼΣΩΣ 5. were intended
by the author). Ψ. 79, 7 wn... box (contrast the plurals in
Jer. 10, 25>).
The correction is made in the Qri (Och/ah we-Ochlah, No. 119), Gen. 27, 29
WNW; 43, 28 Nw) 179; Jud. 21, 20, 1 Sam. 12, 10. 13, 19 Ὁ ΠῸῺῸ Ἐ ἼΩΝ 55.
1 Ki. 9, 9. 12, 7. 2 Ki. 20, 18 mp (as Is. 39, 7 1p»; but the sing. may here
stand: LXX λήμψεται). Est. 9, 27 (contrast Ὁ. 23). Ezr. 3, 3.
Ixiv Introduction.
Elsewhere the sing. may be explained by the principle noticed on I 16, 4:
Gen. 42, 25 J) DT) wy sc. πων πὶ (LXX καὶ ἐγενήθη ; but wy21 would be
unnatural), 48, I ADI) ON sc. WOINT (LXX καὶ ἀπηγγέλη =79N21). 2
WON... TI (LXX ἀπηγγέλη δὲ ... λέγοντες).
Conversely MT. sometimes has a plural where LXX (not always
rightly) read as a singular: I 7, 13 pnwdp 1505»), LXX καὶ ἐταπεί-
νωσεν Κύριος (comp. p. lxiii)—r1o0, 23 HP yy, LXX both sing.,
i.e. NPY ~.—12, gb oa yond", LXX καὶ ἐπολέμησεν.--Τ0, 21
wm, LXX καὶ ἀπηγγέλη (3394%—1read in MT. as 373%, by LXX as
ἜΝ: so x Ki. τ, 23).—30, 1 IW... 1... YD "pony, LXX
all sing. (as MT. itself sometimes in similar cases: 15, 6 ἢ} 1D"),
Nu. 14, 45. Jud. 6, 3)—20> WON, LXX καὶ ἐλέγετο (WON, 1. 6.
either 28") or VO8"—the latter not idiomatic)—21> 5yxwy, LXX
καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν (the subject is the men left behind). Comp. Gen.
25,25 WY WwW IN Ip, LXX ἐπωνόμασεν : v. 26 (in a similar context)
MT. has 7p, LXX ἐκάλεσεν.
The correction is made in the Qri (Ochlah we-Ochlah, No. 120): Jos. 6, 7
DYT ON CIP ION) 170N) (the subject is Joshua). 9,7 CIP WON) TON
JR1w) wr (the correction is here unnecessary). 1 Sam. 15, 16. 1 Ki. 12, 3.
12, 21. 2 Ki. 14,13 YD) DWI WA... WEN Crp xan) LXX καὶ ἦλθεν.
Ez. 46, 9° 155) (τοῦ strangely zot made). Neh. 3, 15 (comp. v. 14).
The case is particularly clear in some of the instances in which
the phrase ἀπηγγέλη (or ἀνηγγέλη) λέγοντες occurs. This strange
construction κατὰ otveow’ might be supposed to have been forced
upon the translators when they found what would only naturally
be read by them as ἜΡΩΣ Wt 15, 1.2. τὸ, 19.011 6, 12 ἘΠ ΞῚ
(MT. wn). το, τ. 1 Ki. 1, 517: but it is scarcely credible that
they should have gone out of their way to use it for what in MT.
stands as xd y34 I 14, 33- 23, 1. 24, 2 (λεγόντων). IT 3, 23.
1 Ki. 2, 39: in these instances, therefore, it can hardly be doubted
that the original text had simply 33%, which was read by LXX as
73°. but in MT. was resolved into 3735).
? Winer, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § lix. 11.
* So also Gen. 22, 20. 38, 13. 24 (cf. 45, 16. 48, 2). Jos. 10, 17. Jud. 16, 2
(in MT. 1391 has dropped out). 1 Ki, a, 29. 41 (without 19).
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xv
(2) The MSS. used by the LXX translators—except, probably,
in those parts of the OT. which were translated first—must
have been written in an early form of the square character’. That
it was not the unmodified archaic character appears clearly from
the frequency with which letters, which have no resemblance to
one another in that character, are interchanged in many parts of
the Septuagint. or the same reason it can hardly have been very
similar to the Egyptian Aramaic alphabet illustrated above. It was
no doubt a transitional alphabet, probably a Palestinian one, of a
type not greatly differing from that of Kefr-Bir‘im (p. xxv). In this
alphabet, not only are ἡ and ' remarkably alike, but also 2 and 3,
and 3 and 1 (of which there appear to be clear instances of con-
fusion in the Septuagint) : 4, Π, and the final o also approach each
other. Ἵ and Ἢ resemble each other in most Semitic alphabets :
so that from their confusion—next to that of } and‘, the most
common in LXX—little can be inferred respecting the alphabet
used ?.
Examples of letters confused in LXX :—
(a2) ΜΤ.", LXX 4: Il 23, 7 nbn καὶ πλῆρες (=xdm»): MT. 4,
LXX*: I 2, 29. py[o] ὀφθαλμῷ (=}'y). 12, 2 (p. Ixi). 19, 22 13W3
ἐν Seer (=*DWI). 24, 16 AM) γένοιτο (=A): both changes to-
gether, 12, 3 11 "}} ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (= 13Y).
1 So long ago Gesenius, Gesch. d. Heb. Sprache u. Schrift (1815), p. 158;
for a more recent opinion, see K. Vollers in the ZA 7/WV. 1883, p. 230f.
2 It is true, the Kefr-Bir‘im alphabet is considerably later than the LXX (as
the scriftzo plena alone would shew), but the Inscription of Bené Hezir, and
those alluded to ἢ. xxiv, zofe 1, appear to shew that an alphabet not differing
from it materially was in popular use in Palestine at least as early as the
Christian era: and if more abundant records had been preserved it would
probably be found to begin at an earlier period still. The confusion of » and },
and Ὁ and 2 (which cannot be explained from the old character) is in the Pent.
so uncommon that it may be due to accidental causes: the books in which it is
frequent can only have been translated after the change of character had been
effected ; the Pent. (as tradition states) may have been translated earlier.
Possibly a large and discriminating induction of instances (in which zso/ated
cases, especially of pr. names, should be used with reserve) might lead to more
definite conclusions.
f
Ixvi Introduction.
Very clear examples are afforded by the Psalms: MT. ",
LXX }:—
ae 2. Ὁ bn 22 κατεστάθην βασιλεὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ --- ἸΞΟΙΘ 28).
16, 3 ὟΒΠ b> πάντα τὰ θελήματα αὐτοῦτ ἘΠ 55.
20, 10 4993!) καὶ ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν ΞΞΞ 12) ).
22,17 “IND ὥρυξαν = N29,
32, 4 PP ἄκανθαν ΞΕ.
35, 16 apd ἐξεμυκτήρισάν pe= 39.
36, 2 5 spa ἐν ἑαυτῷ -- 12> Ip.
38, 12 PI Fyyrav=W3I (see 32, 6. 88, 4).
45, 12 "ὦ MMW) καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ΕἸ ἘΠ ynanwni.
46, 5 ΣΦ WIP ἡγίασε τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ = 1) 3} wap,
BO, 21 NNN ἀνομίαν τ-- ΤΠ (see 52, 2).
58, 4 213 M37 ἐλάλησαν ψευδῆ ΞΞ 23. 1.
69, 33 minds: wast ἐκζητήσατε Ξ-- WT.
73, ἢ MODY ἀδικία αὐτῶν = W25y.
1o® YY ὁ λαός μου = "DY.
76, 12-13 “N° syd τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἀφαιρουμένῳ = 3} xd,
88, 16 JON NNWI ὑψωθεὶς δὲ ἐταπεινώθην = PON Nw (see
Lev. 25, 39, and cf. ψ. 106, 43).
go, 16 ns καὶ ἴδεξξε Π δ,
οι, 6 TW καὶ δαιμονίου --- TW) (see 106, 37).
122, 6 pour καὶ εὐθηνίατε- Mow (0. 7):
144, 15% "WN euaxdpicav=WWR,—a passage which shews how
scrupulously the LXX expressed what they found in
their MSS.; for in the parallel clause "WS =pakdpuos.
Add Is. 29, 13 ἡ ‘NN BANSW IM μάτην δὲ σέβονταί pe x.7.d. (SO
Mt. 15,8; Mk. 7, 6)="n& ONS nh).
Jez: 6, 9 ΡΝ bby Καλαμᾶσθε καλαμᾶσθε = yoy hry.
10, 20 NY) καὶ Ta πρόβατά pou=INY).
Zech. 5, 6 DY ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν --- DFP, etc.
MT. 1, LXX $:—
Ψ. 17, TE WWWN ἐκβαλόντες με =") 2?? (perhaps Aram. ‘2 7S),
12 Ἰ))2ὍῚ ὑπέλαβόν pe= "TH,
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xvii
Ψ. 22, 25 OD ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τε DD.
30 Nn xd yw καὶ ἣ ψυχή μου αὐτῷ G=MN i) WED},
41, 9 13 Pi’ κατέθεντο κατ᾽ euod = 93? .
56, 8 }\S8 by ὑπὲρ τοῦ pnbevds =}'% by,
59, 10 WY τὸ κράτος pou= "ty (cf. v. 18).
62, τ PIN ᾿Ἰδιθουν 3,
5 NWI τὴν τιμήν pov.
64, 7 AP προσελεύσεται: Δ",
65, 8 pond pO) ταραχθήσονται ἔθνη = DONS pron (or 12}.
68, 7 ΠΙΤΝ WIW τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν τάφοις =? ϑῦν,
73, τοῦ ΝΟ "Ὁ καὶ ἡμέραι πλήρεις --- Ὁ 2) (καὶ added).
76, 7 DIDI JIN OMI ἐνύσταξαν οἱ ἐπιβεβηκότες τοὺς ἵππους =
DID °235 1977),
QI, 5 MIND) κυκλώσει σε Ξε ΠΝ.
109, Io YW) ἐκβληθήτωσαν --- WW)",
28 WP οἱ ἐπανιστάμενοί μοιτεΞ 2.
BIO, 5 πον abyp wb ὮΝ οὐ γὰρ of ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν--- Ὁ ὮΝ
nb sy. ,
Add Ez. 48, rob myn’ ἔσται-ε: ΠΝ".
35 WOW MIN ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς = OW ANN.
Lam. 3, 22 191m ND 5 οὐκ ἐξέλιπόν pe= "20 xb (Ges. § 121. 4).
Sometimes both confusions occur in one word or verse :—
W- 35, 19 PY WP καὶ διανεύοντες dpOarpois=f'V xP).
145, 5 “ITN AaAnoovor =).
Jer. 6, 23 JY 139% DDI by ἐφ᾽ ἵπποις καὶ ἅρμασι παρατάξεται:
ἘΠ) aI pw ον".
ΠΟ π ἘΠῚ 50. 1. 77, wu Neb. ΤῊ, 17. ΤΟΝ: 16, 38): and in LXX of 1 Ch-
9, 16 etc., where MT. has regularly y1n17>.
5. Instances such as Σειῴ for ΗῚΣ ; “Ayxous for WIN; Y. 8 2716 NIN τῶν ληνῶν
=ninan; 27, 6 div ὕψωσε =0°97; 88, 11 101? DRED ON ἢ ἰατροὶ ἀναστή-
govot=1D"P’ DND ON (cf. Is. 26, 14) are not cited, as the difference of pro-
nunciation presupposed by LXX is due probably, not to confusion of } and »,
but to the absence of the Alena scripizo.
That the MS. (or MSS.) upon which the Massoretic text is founded must
also at one time or other have been written in a character in which » and 1 were
very similar, is clear from the frequency with which 1 occurs with » 1p, and »
f 2
Ixviti Introduction.
(2) MT.1, LXX 4: I 4, τὸ and 15, 4 "5. ταγμάτων (as though
sys; see Nu. 2, 2, etc.); 10, 24 iy ἔγνωσαν; 13, 3 and i4, 21
DMAy δοῦλοι ; 40 dzs Vay δουλείαν ; 19, 13 WII Aap (999); 23, 15
AWINI ἐν τῇ Καινῇ; 24, 3 Luc. ΣΝ τῆς θήρας (WN); 11 το, 18 ΠΝ)
MAY καὶ ἐλειτούργησαν τὴν λειτουργίαν ; 22, 21. 25 Luc. 733 δόξαν,
δοξασμὸς (723).
MT. 3, LXX 1: 117, 8 pay Ἑβραῖοι; 19, 22 543 ἅλω (7);
21, 7, etc. Δωὴκ ὁ Σύρος ; 23, 14. 19. 24, I NIN Macepep, Μεσσαρα,
ἐν τοῖς στενοῖς ; 24,12 MY δεσμεύεις (WY); 30, 8 TI γεδδουρ; II 3, 4
MIN, Β Ὄρνειλ, A Ὄρνιας, Luc. Ὄρνια [so 1 Ki. 1-2 Luc., through-
out]; 6, 10-12 (so 1 Ch. 13,13. 14%, but not 15, 24. 25, etc.) Sap
DIN ᾿Αβεδδαρα (as though AN“).
And often in other books.
(ce) MT. 3, LXX 5: 11-5; 20 ps5 byan ἐκ τῶν ἐπάνω διακοπῶν
(=p's"5 Sy) ; 11,21 ἢ pAN Θαμασι; 21, 19 3) ‘Pow; and probably
(though not certainly) in the following places where 3 is rendered
by ἀπό, εκ: 1 4..2: 25, 14 end. Il 2, 31.5, 24. .6, τ 0 7 ae
18, 8. 19, 23. Cf. D993 ᾿Αμειναδαβ 1.
MT. Ὁ, LXX 5:1 6, 20 ἽΝ διελθεῖν (TBP); 9, 2 “Ὁ &v; 26 (see
Note) τὴ τ. il aoe
Other letters confused in LXX may be noted by the reader for
himself. All cannot be reduced to rule: a certain number are
with 1 1p (Ochlah we-Ochlah, Nos. 80, 81, 134-148), the »1p being often, as
1 Sam, 22, 17. 25, 3. 2 Sam. 15, 20 (though not always), indisputably correct.
1 See also y. 18, 14° (ἐξ as in || 2 Sam. both LXX and MT.). 32, 3%. 78, 26°.
105, 36%. 119, 84». 139, 13°. Pr. 10, 21 Dan ὑψηλὰ (0D). 12, 3%. 24, 5%. 28,
12. 28 DIpa ἐν τόποις (DIPN: notice ΠῚ ΔῚΣ ὯΔ in the Inscr. of Kefr-Bir‘im).
I Ch. 7, 6 ΥἹῸΣ for 131 Jos. 7, 1. Hos. 5,13 and 10, 6 17» “Iapep. 13, 9 22
LXX, Pesh. 5 (rightly). Jer. 38, 24%. 46, 10%. Ob. 21. Jos. 8, 33 ΕἾΤΞΝ za-
ρεπορεύοντο (cf. on II 15, 23).
* See also ψ. 45, 14° ἐν. 68, 23” (ἐν in spite of éx 23%). 36%. 81, 70 (ΠΣ 29 172
for ΠΣ Δ Π 1177). 104, 155. 119, 68> (2) ΟῚ read as 1313)): cf. 70, 4 139?
for 1 40, 16. Pr. 17, 10%. Jer. 21, 1 Π ὋΝ Ὁ Βασαιου. 46, 25 NI τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτῆς (1123). Jos. 3,16” 11a» εἱστήκει. Sometimes, as Ψ. 31, 8%. 135, 21%. Jer.
9, 18 (19). 20, 17, it may be doubtful whether the variation points to a dif-
ference of reading, as the LXX may have rendered loosely ; but in most of the
instances quoted, there seems no reason to suppose this.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. xix
due to accidental causes, as the partial illegibility of a letter in
particular cases’.
(3) According to Lagarde’, the three letters 4, 0, n, when occur-
ring at the end of a word, were not written in the MSS, used by
LXX, but represented by the mark of abbreviation (’) which
already appears on Hebrew coins. This is not improbable: though
it may be doubted if it was in use universally. Certainly there are
cases in which the difference between LXX and MT. may be
readily explained by the supposition that a mark of abbreviation
has been differently resolved (or overlooked) in one of the two
texts*; but they are hardly numerous or certain enough to establish
a rule, the differences being frequently capable of explanation in
other ways; for instance, from textual imperfection or corruption,
or from looseness of rendering on the part of the translators. Thus
in the 2 pf., MT. has sometimes a pl. where LXX express a sing.,
and vice versa: but it is difficult to shew conclusively that such
variations can only be explained in this manner; 2 sg. pf. masc. has
often n- in MT. (as ΠΠΠ 2), and the variation may have arisen from
confusion between 7 and O; or again, as the variation often occurs
in passages where the zwmder of the pron. in the Hebrew changes,
it may be due to an assimilating tendency on the part of the
translators. Change of number is so frequent in Hebrew, accord-
ing as the speaker or writer thinks of a group or of an individual
belonging to, or representing, a group, that the variation may in
such cases be original. In the case of numbers, as of persons, the
temptation to assimilate to the context, or to define more closely
what the Hebrew left undefined, or to adopt a more idiomatic usage
in the construction of collective terms, would often be strong: so
that, though there are, no doubt, exceptions, it is probable that
variations of this kind between MT. and LXX are to be attributed,
1 On graphical errors in MT., comp. (with reserve) Gratz, Die Psalmen,
pp. 121-144, where they are classified and illustrated.
2 Anmerkungen zur griech. Ubersetzung der Proverbien, Ὁ. 4.
8 Consider Lagarde’s remarks on Pr. 2, 20%. 3, 18%. 7, 17% 11, 15%. 13, 19°.
τ. fo". 15; 155. 16, 120, 10. 21, 23%.
Ixx Introduction.
as a rule, to the translators’. At the same time it may well be that
abbreviations were in occasional use *,
2. The Targum. The text deviates but rarely from MT.
Only two features need here be noticed: (a) the tendency, in this
as in other Targums, to soften or remove anthropomorphic ex-
pressions with reference to God: (0) the tendency to paraphrase.
(a) I 1, 3 to worship and sacrifice defore Jehovah of Hosts (so 21) ;
10 was praying defore Jehovah (so v. 26); 11 if the affliction of
thine handmaid zs revealed before Thee (Heb. if Thou seest) *;
19 end and the memory of her entered in before J. (asp nai Sy
v%; Heb.” aIDM: so v.11. 2,21); 28 50 yndxwn I have
delivered him up that he may minister defore J.; 23. Y% Siw he
shall minister defore J.; 2, 11 ministered Jefore J.; 25>” pan "5
for it was pleasure (Niy7) Jefore J. to slay them; 35 and I will raise
up defore me; 6,17 as a guilt offering defore J.; 7, 3 and worship
before Him alone (so v. 4. 12,10»); 17 and built an altar there defore
J.; το, 17 gathered defore J.; 11 7, 5 shalt thou build defore mea
house? And so frequently.
DIP [Ὁ from before is employed similarly: I 1, 5 and children
were withheld from her from Jdefore J. 20 for from before J. have
1 So, for instance, 1 Sam. 5, 10". 11; 29, 3°NN ἡμῶν; 30, 22; 2 Sam. 10,11 des;
Ex. 14, 25 TDIIN φύγωμεν ; Jud. 11, 19 ed; 20, 23. 28 etc.
2 Unless, for instance, the translators found abbreviations in their text, such
renderings as the following are difficult to account for: Jud. 19, 18 717 na ΠΝ
eis τὸν oikdy μου Ξε. ΓΔ 5x; Jer. 6, II TIT NON τὸν θυμόν μου Ξε NNN; 25, 37
VT ὮΝ θυμοῦ μου = bx; and unless they could assume them, as something
familiar, they would scarcely have been led to adopt these renderings: Jer. 2,
2>-38 5xqw wp me [repeated by error] λέγει κύριος, ὁ ἅγιος Ἰσραηλ (=7708
INIW? WIP); 3,19 PR γένοιτο κύριε ὅτι =99 TIT JON ('29'N: for γένοιτο
=JON see If, 5); Jon. I, g 1238 ay Δοῦλος κυρίου εἰμὶ eyh= DIN TAY.
Is. 53, 8 1105 εἰς θάνατον -- ΠῚ ὩΣ (105). The supposed ‘ apocopated plural’
in »— (Ew. § 177%; Ges. § 87. 1») is also best explained as an error due to the
neglect of a mark of abbreviation: comp. Cheyne, critical note on Is. 5,1;
ψ. 45,9. We. (p. 20) points to 14, 33 DNI21 LXX ἐν Γεθθαιμ, as proof that
the abbreviation, though it might be used in some cases, at any rate was not
universal.
* So constantly when ΠΝ is used of God: as 9, 16. Gen. 29, 32. 31, 12.
Ex. 3, 7.9 ete.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxi
I asked him. 3, 8» that it was called to the child from before the
Lord?. 20 the request which was asked from before J. 6, 9 then
Jrom before him is this great evil done unto us’. 9, 9 to seek
instruction from before J. (Heb. nndxd wid). τῷ and it was said
to Samuel from before J. (so 17). 11, 7 and there fell a terror from
before J. upon the people. 15, ro and the word of prophecy was
with Samuel from before J., saying (so II 7, 4). 26, 19 if from
before J. thou art stirred up against me, let mine offering be accepted
with favour, but if the children of men, let them be accursed /rom
before J.
(6) Paraphrastic renderings. These are very numerous, and
only specimens can be given here: I 1, 12 and Eli waited for her
till she should cease; 16 Dishonour not thy handmaid before a
daughter of wickedness; 2, 11 sy ΠΣ in Eli’s lifetime (for 3 τ
ssy); 328 and thou shalt observe and shalt behold the affliction
that shall come upon the men of thy house for the sins which ye
have sinned in my sanctuary; and after that I will bring good
upon Israel; 3, 7% and Samuel had not yet learnt to know in-
struction from before J., and the prophecy of J. was not yet revealed
to him; 19 and Samuel grew, and the Word ("7110") of J. was his
help*; 4, 8 who will deliver us from the hand of the ‘Memra’ of
J. whose mighty works are these? 6,19 and he slew among the
men of B., because they rejoiced that they had seen the ark of J.
exposed (δὰ 33); and he killed among the elders of the people
seventy men, and in the congregation 50,000; 7, 6 and poured out
their heart in penitence as water before J.; 9, 5 they came into the
land wherein was a prophet (for ῚΝ paN: cf. τ, 1 NI) spndn for
pps; see Hab. 2,1 Heb.); 9, 12. 14. 25 NNYINDN nd dining-
chamber (for AMIN: NnyINON=n2wdr Ὁ. 22); ro, 5. 11 NAD
scribes (for D°X'29); 15, 29 And if thou sayest, I will turn (repent)
1 Such impersonal constructions are common in the Targums.
2 On the π᾿ retained mechanically from the Hebrew, in spite of the construc-
tion being varied, see the Journal of Philology, xi. 227 f.
’ So often when Jehovah is said to be ‘ with’ a person: 10, 7. 16, 18. 18, 14.
Gen. 39, 2. 3 etc.
Ixxii Introduction.
from my sin, and it shall be forgiven me in order that I and my
sons may hold the kingdom over Israel for ever, already is it
decreed upon thee from before the Lord of the victory of Israel,
before whom is no falsehood, and who turns not from what He has
said; for He is not as the sons of men, who say and belie them-
selves, who decree and confirm not; 25, 29 but may the soul of
my lord be hidden in the treasury of eternal life (Νοῦν “Mm 1933)
before J. thy God; 28,19 (on the margin of the Reuchl. cod.:
Lagarde, p. xviii. 10’) and to-morrow thou and thy sons shall be
with me in the treasury of eternal life; II 6, 19 ἽΒΦΝ (see note);
20, 18 and she spake, saying, I remember now what is written in
the book of the Law to ask peace of a city first [Dt. 20, 10]; so
oughtest thou to ask at Abel whether they will make peace; 21, 19
and David the son of Jesse, the weaver of the veils of the sanctuary
(Heb. ons y7}n nds !), of Bethlehem, slew Goliath the Gittite.
3. The Peshitto. The Hebrew text presupposed by the Peshitto
deviates less from the Massoretic text than that which underlies the
LXX, though it does not approach it so closely as that on which
the Targums are based. It is worth observing that passages not
unfrequently occur, in which Pesh. agrees with the text of Zuczan,
where both deviate from the Massoretic text ®. In the translation of
the Books of Samuel the Jewish element alluded to above (p. xlii) is
not so strongly marked as in that of the Pent.; but it is nevertheless
present, and may be traced in certain characteristic expressions,
which would hardly be met with beyond the reach of Jewish
influence. Expressions such as ‘to say, speak, worship, pray, sin
before God,’ where the Hebrew has simply /o God, are, as we have
seen, a distinctive feature of the exegesis embodied in the Targums;
and they meet us similarly in the Peshitto version of Samuel. Thus
1, 10 prayed defore the Lord (so 26. 7, 5. 8. 9. 8, 6. 12, 8. 10. 19.
15, 11. II 7,27). 2,11 besse peo Joo amas ministered defore
* Comp. Bacher, Ζ2) 776. 1874, p. 23, who also notices the other readings
published by Lagarde from the same source, pointing out (where it exists) their
agreement with other Jewish Midrashic authorities.
7 112,11. 13, 5. 14,49. 36, 15. IL 11,4. 15,7. 21, 8. 23,17. a4, 1: εἰ τ) τ
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. xxiii
the Lord (so 3,1). 26 in favour defore God. 8, 21 spake them
before the Lord (Heb. 3183). 10,17 gathered defore the Lord. 11
11, 27 end (for ‘y3). 21, 6. 23, 16 end. 24, 10 and 17 (said
before): in all these passages, except II 11, 27, Targ. also has
pip. Similarly peo gx from before: 1 2, 25 pnd ip he shall
ask (forgiveness) from before the Lord. 16,14» (for ΠΝ: so Targ.).
IT 3, 28 (for ayn: so Targ.). 6,9 (so Targ.). 23,17 peo eo OX aw
uses (so Targ., as also I 24, 7. 26,11, where, however, Pesh. has
simply ks sso gs). 1 2,17 5) nnd NN wN3 is rendered by peo Oni!
Juzs0 which is a Jewish paraphrase for 720 curse or provoke God: see
Lev. 24, 11 al. Onq. (for bbp) ; ΤΌ 22) 54. 2 Κι τη τι Pare; Pesh;
(for D‘y3n: often also besides in Targ. for this word); 2,22 niNayn
es? who prayed, Targ. axdyd INN who came to pray (cf. note) ;
30 Sy) naban: υϑος καθ. shall minisier before me, Targ. Nw
IP; 17, 49 INYD SN Coast Kus as Targ.; 21,3 ΟΝ dp DPD
wah wo Jans 15}, cf. Targ. (both here and 2 Ki. 6, 8) ‘D5 snxb
VWODI; 27, 7 τῶϑ yee for jp) as Lare.¢ 5. lied, 22cmiEynn
casa} (cf. the renderings of mann and on in the Pent, e.g.
Ex. 25, 2 Ong. NMIVIDN ‘DTP wD, Pesh. liasa® ud (aniQo,
lit. that they separate for me a separation); 6, 6 5) \ush ppnn;
14 9729 paraphrased by wise praising, as in Targ.; 7, 23
Mew bop vescons (cf. the rend. of N19, MIN by MI in Dt.
4, 34. 26, 8. 34, 12 [where Pesh. as here Joke or μὸ,.»}); 8, 18
DID esos, Targ. PAIN; 24,15 ἽΝ) ny Ty to the sixth hour 5;
As a whole the translation, though not a strictly literal one,
represents fairly the general sense of the original. Disregarding
1 So 29, 3. II 13, 23 Pesh. (but not Targ.) ; Gen. 24, 55 Ongq. (but not Pesh.) ;
Nu. 9, 22 Onq. and Pesh.
2 Cf. LXX ἀφαίρεμα. The explanation underlying these renderings is, in all
probability, correct: 0°17 is 20 172 off, MMIIN that which is /ifted off, or
separated, from a larger mass for the purpose of being set apart as sacred.
3. *Syrus in eandem sententiam de verbis 1919 ny 1y abiit, quam de illis
Rabbini statuerunt, Berach. 62 ἼΩΝ YIN NY IND ΨΥ Ny ΝΆ pana
Ἵν Dont ΠΌΤ nywn xn ὙἽ Mow) NII ΠΥ WIN NAD SRINw
wy MyM Wy ION pM 4 Nps ΠΡ Ὁ. Chaldaeus ergo (Ὁ) 3) Ὁ 1» 7
pond IY} Ν᾽ ὉΠ) primam, Syrus alteram secutus est sententiam’ (Perles,
p. 16).
Ixxiv Introduction.
variations which depend presumably upon a various reading, the
translation deviates from MT. (a) by slight and usually unimportant
additions or glosses: (4) by omzsszons, due often either to ὁμοι-
οτέλευτον, or to an inability to understand the sense of the Hebrew:
(c) by paraphrases, due sometimes likewise to an inability to give a
literal rendering, and occasionally of a curious character. Specimens
of these three classes: (a) Additions: I 2, 13 (and they made
themselves a prong of three teeth) and the right of the priests
(they took) from the people; 35 a priest faithful (after My own
heart); 4, 9 evd-1o and fight (with them). And the Philistines
fought (with Israel); 5, 8 (thrice) + the Lord; 7, 14 to Gath and
their borders [MN neglected], and (the Lord) delivered Israel, ete. ;
8, 6 to judge us (like all the peoples); 12+and captains of
hundreds ... and captains of tens; 12, 6 the Lord (alone is God,)
who, etc.; 24-+and with all your soul; 14, 49+ and Ashboshul
(=Ishbosheth'); 23, 12 erd+ Arise, go out from the city; 24, 20
and when a man finds his enemy and sends him [inden treated
as a continuation of the protasis] on a good way, (the Lord reward
him with good); 30, 15 ewd+and David sware unto him (cf. Luc.).
II 6, 5 of (cedar and) cypress; 12,8 and thy master’s wives (have
I let sleep) in thy bosom; 18, 4 deg¢nning + And his servants said
to David, We will go out and hasten to fight with them; 8 and
(the beasts of) the wood devoured of the people, etc. (so Targ.) ;
20 Kt. for (thou wilt announce) respecting the king’s son that he is
dead; 20, 8 emd and it came out, and (his hand) fell (upon his
sword); 24, 7 and they came to the land of Judah (in thirty-eight
days) [text disordered]. There are also many instances of the
addition of the subj. or obj. of a verb, or of the substitution of a
noun for a pron. suffix (‘Explicita’), of which it is not worth while
to give examples. In 2 Sam, 22 the text has generally been made
to conform with that of y. 18.
(4) Omissions: I 3, 21 twa Syowd V7 nbaa "5", 5, 10 ὙΠῸ}
py pynbyn PAN NID. 12, 2 sbann. τῇ mpd onwy WN. 13,
1 Pesh. identifies Ishui with Abinadab (see 31, 2).
2 Probably through ὁμοιοτέλευτον.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxv
42 and wow. 14, 1 oT. 34 DNDN. 35? from ὉΠΠ nN. 362
nds, 36> from ey. 15,21 DY TWN 32 nq ΣΝ Nos ἼΡ 16,
15>-162 \9N.., δ. 165 obs. 17,11 ΠΌΝΠ. 13 Comoran for
miondos 15m wwe ya nwdy oer. 14>. 22 Tw. 31. 39 TON?
ΠΏΣ... 45> ἼΦΝ 5. 18, gb ΠΝΌΠῚ. 23, 11-ἰ28 mop, , , 32.
24, 20> (abbreviated*). 25, 30 129 WN 055 1. 33 end* [cf. the
paraphr. in 26]. II 1, 21 3. 8, 14 DISND and pray) OY. 13, 12),
18 (the whole verse’). 15,18 WN MIND WY. 20 end »Qe for
MON) ION Joy’. 24 pS ΠΝ apy) oon na?. 27 ANS ANA
18, 2b-32 (99 NYN NOL... ΝΥΝ ΝΟ 5. ἸΌΝ νν νιν INDY ON
5 25%. 21}, 268 (first five words). 19, 18 (first four words). 21, 6
YI. 24, 68 (6b follows at the end of v. 7). 23 Jon.
(c) Paraphrases (including some due to mistranslation or to a
faulty text): I 2, 17 (see p. Ixxiii). 22 123) erp. 24 po vapyD
ess. 25. 29 Ny from the wilderness. 30 yd naban’ should
minister before me. 32 fy ἫΝ ΠΙΣΠῚ (31 there shall not be an old
man in thy house) or one holding a sceptre in thy dwelling. 3, 13
yond ΟΡ 5 βοῶδ codis eso οοῦ cere. AS 2
wont Jooro. 6, 6 and how /key mocked them, and did of send
them away. I0, 22 WN ndm ayy san where is this man? 12.) 98
9935 behold, I stand before you. 3 o> une λη)ο 2 Ὁ odyN
uS op0/. 6. 13, 4 ΝΣ emu. 6 DYN baa 12 1b ἫΝ 1D simply
aSsyo and they feared. 7 emd NN 377M simply osas. 12
mon xd Kote I. 14, 7> 42255 pas yado? So. 242 And Saul
drew near in that day, and said to the people, Cursed, etc. 25%
And they went into all the land, and entered into the woods. 16, 4
YIM) aaqc. 6 MWD 1 Ἴ}) ἽΝ cmmnarso fussy obas/. 19 end
INYD TWN UX Δ. 20 OND (and laded it with) bread. 17, 18>
GS fkcs7 yohsaao (cf. Targ. ‘nn p72 ΠῚ and the doublet in
Luc. καὶ εἰσοίσεις μοι τὴν ἀγγελίαν αὐτῶν). 39 nab Sx and would
not gO. 52 I" αν lio. 18, 22 sped pbs was’ s> the son of
Jesse (ἢ 20, 52 nwoyn ese MSS af fhe third hour: so 19
! Probably not understood. 2 Probably through ὁμοιοτέλευτον.
5 Or perhaps transposed.
Ixxvi Introduction.
for ny>wy. 26 wap ΝΟ 5 ΝῚΠ ὌΠ nds perhaps he is clean, or
perhaps he is not clean. 21,6 εἷς 0% Sax Jassa0 (as though
2D MY NBN 1): see also 21, 14. 16. 22, 19 (22 NN οἷν. Somo—
the two words read as one and connected with jn). 23, 22%. 25, 8.
17>, 26. 27, 8. 30, 6 (A read as And). 148. II 2,13 (ode
thrice for M272). 24 (MON 42). 27. 29 (Nanda saaq, JS).
3, 34. 397 (Mw FT] Makwo μὴ Sw). 4, 6 (DON connected with
DNDN). 5, 8 (ΝΣ Jeans). 6, τό M2730) NED Lxhawo 1.3).
21b, ἢ, 23b. 8, 13%. 11, 25 (a9Nn ΝῊ it happens in war ἢ). Daeg
end. 13, 4%. 26. 32 (‘BD ὃν odes in his mind). 14, 7. 17 (71732).
208 (ut mihi [333] morem gereres: PS. col. 279). 24. 30. 32. 15, 19.
32. 34. τό, τ. 2 (nD Jasna? eo). 4 (ΤΠ Π oS κω uqco).
8b, 21h. 17, 10 (βωβδονδο W arcasokso will zo/ melt). 16>. 20 (see
note). 18, 5* (take me the young man Absalom alive). 18. 29. 33
[19, 1 Heb.] (iN332 for in3b3). 19, Ὁ (rob). τῇ (Heb. 18: indy
they have crossed and bridged Jordan). 31 (32) end. 35 (36 Jihue
JLslwo, ie. nw On’ 1). 20, 8 (Apna lady y+). 18>, 19%, 21, 2b
(in his zeal 20 cause the Israelites fo siz). 5. 23, 1 (Saith the man who
set up the yoke [Py DPM] of his Messiah ἢ. 8.11 (177 JaSs 50 eo
of the mountain of the king: so 25 for "1ΠΠ). 19. 22. 23 (bs
inyowrD to go out and to come in). 33% (777 JN) δας ey).
D4, 139. 26. 25 (yard vy any Iss? NX μωρὸ who: not so
elsewhere).
The Syriac text of Pesh. sometimes (as might indeed be an-
ticipated from the nature of the character) exhibits corruptions,
similar to those noticed in the case of LXX, p. lviii. ‘Thus 1, 21
assed for ὥς, (so rightly the cod. Ambr. published in
facsimile by Ceriani!: also the Arab. version in the Polyglotts *, ‘to
offer’). 2, 8 kaso NAY for Les Shoo (20 at the beginning
has fallen out). 3,140... Kis!” for 9... Kiso? (Heb. *nyawa).
1 Comill, Zzechiel, p.144f., exaggerates the extent to which this MS. may
have been corrected after MT.: its approximations to MT. (p. 140 ff.) are slight,
compared with the cases in which it agrees with other MSS. against it (p. 148 ff.).
Comp. Rahlfs, ΖΑ ΤΣ. 1889, pp. 180-192.
? Which, in the Books of Samuel, and in certain parts of Kings, is Jased upon
the Pesh.: see Roediger, De orig. et indole Arab. libr. V. T. hist. interpr. (1829).
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxvii
19 peo for Sse0 (Heb. 59). 9, 4 Jexoagy for J2As09 (Heb.
ποῦν 5) a re yohasoh My probably for VGhaso My (Heb. Ἴων
yyy xd: notice the following ptcp. for ivy xy). 17, 20 WluaS
for Jaws (so cod. Ambr.). 40 JLO goo for ILS go (Heb. Snan-y).
28, 6 wt.acam for τῶν 3. (so Arab. ‘ prophets’). II τς, 8b
Kis prob. for Kus, though Zosszbly a paraphrase. 18, 17 Jocigs
prob. for }As> (Heb. sy’3). (Several of these instances are noted
by Well., p. 8.) The name 340 is represented regularly by ow.
4. The Latin Versions.
(z) The affinity subsisting between the Old Latin Version
and the recension of Lucian appears to have been first distinctly
perceived (with reference in particular to the Lamentations) by
Ceriani*®. Afterwards, it was noticed, and frequently remarked on,
by Vercellone, as characteristic of the excerpts of the Old Latin
Version on the margin of the Leon Manuscript (above, p. liii), that,
when they diverged from the ordinary Septuagintal text, they con-
stantly agreed with Holmes’ four MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108, which, as
was clear, represented on their part one and the same recension ὃ,
A version identical with that represented in the excerpts was also,
as Vercellone further pointed out, cited by Ambrose and Claudius
of Turin*. The conclusion which the facts observed authorize is
thus that the Old Latin is a version made, or revised, on the basis
of MSS. agreeing closely with those which were followed by Lucian in
framing his recension®, The Old Latin must date from the second
cent. a.D.; hence it cannot be based upon the recension of Lucian
as such: its peculiar interest lies in the fact that it affords inde-
pendent evidence of the existence of MSS. containing Lucian’s
1 So Tuch on Gen, Io, 6, and PS. coll. 681-2, 741. Comp. 2 Ki. 4, 42 Pesh.
(τῶ Ὁ connected similarly with wow, Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ, commonly represented in
Pesh. by FERS
2 Monumenta Sacra et Profana, 1. 1 (1861), p. xvi (Addenda).
8 Variae Lectiones, ii. 436 (and in other passages).
* 7b. p. 455 f. (on 3 Reg. 2, 5).
5. Comp. Ceriani, Le recensiont det LXX, etc., p. 5.
Ixxviii Introduction.
characteristic readings (or renderings), considerably before the
time of Lucian himself.
The following comparison of passages from the Old Latin Ver-
sion of 1 and 2 Sam., derived from one of the sources indicated
above (p. liiif.), and all presupposing a text differing from that of
the normal LXX, but agreeing with that of Lucian, will shew the
justice of this conclusion. Although, however, the text upon which
the Old Latin is based agrees largely with that of Lucian, it must
not be supposed to be zden/ical with it: there are passages in which
it agrees with B or A, or with other MSS., against Lucian’. Some-
times moreover, it is to be observed, other particular MSS. agree
with the Old Latin, as well as those which exhibit Lucian’s re-
cension. A more detailed inquiry into the sources of the Old Latin
Version of the OT. must be reserved for future investigators. (The
list is not an exhaustive one. The words printed in heavy type are
17 4,12 Vind.? Et cucurrit.
16 Vind.? Qui venit homo pro-
perans.
9, 24 Vind.’ Ecce reliquum.
10, 2 Goth. et in Selom, in Bacal-
lat salientes magnas fossas.
Vind.” reluctantes hic et salientes
magnum.
BA καὶ ἔδραμεν (Luc. καὶ ἔφυγεν).
Β καὶ 6 ἀνὴρ σπεύσας προσῆλθεν (Luc.
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη 6 ἀνὴρ ὃ ἐληλυθώς).
BA ἰδοὺ ὑπόλιμμα (Luc. μαρτύριον).
ἐν Σηλω ἐν Βακαλαθ XI, 44, 64, 74,
106, 120, 129, 134, 144, 236; ἐν Ση-
λωμ ἐν Βακαλαθ 244; ἐν Σηλωμ
Βακαλα 29; ἐσηλω ἐν Βακαλαθ 242;
ἐν Σηλω ἐν Βακαλλαθ 55.---ἁλλομένους
μεγάλα ΒΑ.
10, 17 Vind.? Et praecepit...con- BA καὶ παρήγγειλεν (Luc. καὶ συνή-
venire.
12, 25 Goth. apponemini in plaga.
14, 20 Vind.’ Et exclamavit.
17, I 0°71 DPN Goth. Sepherme.
II 18, 6 Vind.? in silvam Efré.
9 Vind.? Et occurrit Absalom,
aye).
B προστεθήσεσθε (Luc. ἀπολεῖσθε).
A καὶ ἀνεβόησεν (B Luc. καὶ ἀνέβη).
ἐν Σεῴφερμε 121 (ξαφερμαιμ 20, 119,
143; Σεφερμαειμ 52, 92,144, 236 ;
Σεφερμαιμ 55,64; Σαφαρμειν 245).
Β ἐν τῷ δρύμῳ ᾽Εφραιμ (Luc. ἐν τῷ δρ.
Μααιναν).
BA καὶ συνήντησεν A. (Luc. καὶ ἣν
μέγας A.).
Nor does the Old Latin express Lucian’s doublets in I 2, 11. 6, 12. 10, 2
(μεσημβρίας). 27. 15, 29. 32. Sometimes, however, his doublets do occur in it,
as I1,6G. 16G. (not V.?). 4,18G. 6, 7G. (not V.”). 16,14 G. 27,8G.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxix
those in which Lucian’s text differs from B. In the passages
marked +, the deviation is confined to the MSS. which exhibit
Lucian’s recension, and is not quoted—at least by Holmes and
Parsons—for other MSS. The quotations will also illustrate the
variations prevailing between different recensions of the Old Latin.)
I 1, 6 Goth. quia ad nihilum reputabat Luc. διὰ τὸ ἐξουθενεῖν αὐτὴν (for
eam,
2, 10 Vind.” + quia iustus est.
15 Vind.?+ante Dominum.
3, 14 Sab. et nunc sic iuravi.
Vind.? et ideo sic iuravi.
6, 12 Vind.” in viam ... rectam.
9, 27 Vind.’ in loco summo civitatis.
Io, 3 Goth. usque ad arborem glan-
dis electae.
Vind.? ad arborem Thabor alectae
(i. e. electae).
12, 3 Goth. aut calceamentum, et
abscondam oculos meos in quo di-
citis adversum me, et reddam vobis.
Sab. vel calceamentum, dicite ad-
versus me, et reddam vobis.
14, 14 Goth. in bolidis et petrobolis
et in saxis campi.
Vind.? in sagittis et in fundibolis et
in muculis campi.
14, 15 Goth. et ipsi nolebant esse in
laboribus.
15, 11 Sab. Quedl. verba mea non
statuit.
movi yaya). So 55, 158; and
similarly (ἐξουθενοῦσα) 44, 74, 106,
120, 134.
Luc. δίκαιος ὦν. So other MSS.,
among them 44, 55, 71, 74, 120,134,
144, 158, 246.
Luc. ἐνώπιον Κυρίου. So other MSS.,
among them 44, 55, 71,74, 120, 134,
158.
No Greek MS. is cited with the read-
ing therefore for 135, all having οὐδ᾽
(or οὐχ) οὕτως (see note).
Luc. ἐν τρίβῳ εὐθείᾳ Ὑ.
Lue, εἰς ἄκρον τῆς πόλεως +.
Luc. ἕως τῆς δρυὸς τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς 5.
246 ἕως τῆς δρυὸς Θαβωρ τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς.
Luc. ἢ ὑπόδημα, καὶ ἀπέκρυψα τοὺς
3 , 3 ξ > lol »» >
ὀφθαλμούς pou ἐν αὐτῷ ; εἴπατε Kat
3 lal . tee) /, ε “~
ἐμοῦ, Kal ἀποδώσω ὑμῖν Ἶ.
So also (with κἀμοὶ for κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ)
Theodoret., Quaest. 16 72 1 Reg.
Luc. ἐν βολίσι kat ἐν πετροβόλοις καὶ
ἐν κόχλαξι τοῦ πεδίου.
Luc. καὶ αὐτοί, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελον πονεῖν
(πονεῖν also in Χ, 56, 64,71, 119, 244,
245: others have πολεμεῖν).
Luc. οὐκ ἔστησε τοὺς λόγους pov. So
A, 123°.
® 71n being connected with 171 20 choose out: see II 22, 27.
> In 9, 4 (per terram Sagalim et non invenerunt) Quedl. agrees also with 123,
not with Lucian (who has διὰ τῆς γῆς Γαδδι τῆς πόλεως Σεγαλειμ: cf. 56
Γαδδι τῆς πόλεως alone).
Ixxx
117, 39 Goth. et claudicare coepit am-
bulans sub armis.
18, 21 Goth. in virtute eris mihi ge-
ner hodie.
20, 30 Goth. Filius puellarum va-
gantium, quae se passim coinqui-
nant esca mulierum.
27, 8 Goth. Et apponebant se super
omnem appropinquantem, et exten-
debant se super Gesur.
30, 15 evd (in the current Vulg.) et
iuravit ei David.
II 1, 19 Goth. Cura te (al. curare), Is-
rael, de interfectis tuis.
Sab. Considera, Israel, pro his qui
mortui sunt.
2, 8 Goth. Isbalem.
2, 29 Magd. in castra Madiam ®.
6,12 Sab. Dixitque David, Ibo et
reducam arcam cum benedictione
in domum meam.
7, 8 Goth. Accepi te de casa pas-
torali ex uno grege.
9, 6 Goth. Memphibaal.
Io, 19 Vind.t ? omnes reges qui con-
venerunt ad [Vind.? cum] Adrazar
...et disposuerunt testamentum
coram [Vind.? cum] Israel, et ser-
vierunt Israhel [Vind.? Israeli tri-
bus].
11, 4 Goth. et haec erat dimissa°
(Alas et haec erat abluta] excelso
loco.
Introduction.
Luc. καὶ ἐχώλαινε Δανιδ ἐν τῷ βαδί-
ζειν ἐν αὐτοῖς (158 ἀσχολανε).
Luc. ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν ἐπιγαμβρεύσεις
μοι σήμερον (30 44, 74, 106,120, 134).
Luc. υἱὲ κορασίων αὐτομολούντων γυ-
ναικοτραφῆ (γυν. added also in 29,
55, 71, 121 marg., 243, 246).
Luc. καὶ ἐπετίθεντο ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν
ἐγγίζοντα, καὶ ἐξέτεινον ἐπὶ τὸν Γεσ-
σουραῖον. So, except for the differ-
ence of one or two letters, 56, 158,
246.
Luc. καὶ ὥμοσεν αὐτῷ (121 marg. καὶ
So Pesh.).
Luc. ᾿Ακρίβασαι, Ἰσραηλ, ὑπὲρ κ.τ.λ.
(106 ἀκρίβωσαι στήλωσαι } . So Theo-
doret., Quaest. in 2 Reg.
ὦ. αὐτῷ Δαυιδ.
Cod. 93 (but not 19, 82) Εἰσβααλ.
Luc. εἰς παρεμβολὰς Νίαδιαμ. So 158.
Luc. καὶ εἶπε Δαυιδ Ἐπιστρέψω τὴν
εὐλογίαν εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου. 80 158.
Luc. ἐκ τῆς μάνδρας ἐξ ἑνὸς τῶν ποιμ-
νίων +.
Luc. Μεμφιβααλ +.
Luc. πάντες of βασιλεῖς of συμπορευό-
μενον [so 158] τῷ "Adpaatap... καὶ
διέθεντο διαθήκην μετὰ Ἰσραηλ καὶ
ἐδούλευον τῷ “Iopand > +.
Luc. καὶ αὐτὴ ἢν λελουμένη ἐξ ἀφέ-
Spov αὐτῆς. So the Ethiopic Version
and Pesh.
ἃ But in v. 31 Magd. has ab 110 -- παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, against Luc.
> Kal διέθ. διαθ. added to ηὐτομόλησαν on the marg. of B by an ancient
hand.
© Based evidently on λελυμένη for λελουμένη.
BA ἁγιαζομένη.
4 Which is based on the LXX. Dillmann, in his edition of the Ethiopic
Version of 1-2 Reg. (1861) Pars Posterior, pp. 9 ff., 39 ff., gives a synopsis of
the passages in which it presupposes a text differing from that of Holmes and
Parsons.
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxxi
Vind.?* haec autem lota erat post
purgationem.
Il 11, 12 Vind.?® redi hic.
11, 13 Vind." ? inebriatus est.
11,16 Vind.4? in locum pessimum
ubi sciebat ete.
II, 17 Vind.’ et caecidit Joab de po-
pulo secundum praeceptum Dayit.
11,24 Goth. de servis regis quasi
viri XVIII.
13, 21 Vind.? et deficit animo valde‘.
13, 32 Vind? in ira enim est ad
[? eum] Abessalon.
14, 26 Goth. Vind." centum.
15, 23 Goth. et omnis terra bene-
dicentes voce magna [/aczna] per
viam olivae, quae erat in deserto.
17, 8 Goth. sicut ursus qui a bove
[dias ab aestu] stimulatur in
campo. :
17, 13 Goth. ut non inveniatur ibi
conversatio.
Vind.? ut non inveniatur tumulus
fundamenti.
17, 20 Vind.’ festinanter transierunt
prendere aquam ; (et inquisierunt)
etc.
17, 22 Sab....et antequam denu-
daretur verbum ...
17, 29 Goth. et lactantes vitulos.
Vind.’ et vitulos saginatos.
18, 2 Vind.’ Et tripartitum fecit
Davit populum,
18, 3 Vind.” non stabit in nobis cor
nostrum,
20, 8 Goth. gladium rudentem (/.
bidentem, We.).
I.e. δῷ for 1. Not cited from any
Greek MS.
Luc, ἐμεθύσθη +.
Lue, ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν πονοῦντα “ [οὗ
ἤδει] κτλ.
Luc. καὶ ἔπεσον ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ κατὰ τὸν
λόγον Δαυιδ.
Luc. ἀπὸ τῶν δούλων τοῦ βασίλεως
ὡσεὶ ἄνδρες δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ. 80 158.
Luc. καὶ ἠθύμησε σφόδρα.
Luc. ὅτι ἐν ὀργῇ ἦν αὐτῷ ABecadwp +.
Luc. ἑκατόν Ἰ.
Luc. καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ εὐλογοῦντες φωνῇ
μεγάλῃ καὶ κλαίοντες...
ὁδὸν tis ἐλαίας τῆς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.
‘ BY
κατὰ τὴν
Luc. ὥσπερ ἄρκοι παροιστρῶσαι ἐν
na ,
τῷ πεδίῳ ἴἼ.
Luc. ὅπως μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐκεῖ συστροφή +.
Luc. Διεληλύθασι σπεύδοντες καὶ
ἐζήτουν ἴ.
Luc. ἕως τοῦ μὴ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι τὸν
λόγον, οὕτως διέβησαν τὸν Ἰορδάνην +.
Luc. καὶ γαλαθηνὰ μοσχάρια. 80 158.
Luc. καὶ ἐτρίσσευσε Δαυιδ τὸν λαόν +.
Luc. οὐ στήσεται ἐν ἡμῖν καρδία Τ.
Luc. μάχαιραν ἀμφήκη. 158 μάχ.
δύστομον (1. δίστομον) ἀμφήκη.
2 There are lacunae in these passages in Vind.!
Ὁ Unless indeed edz be an error for sede: cf. sedit in clause ὁ.
¢ ‘Verba τὸν πονοῦντα eleganter vertunt Hebraeum pv wr [pro yt Wwr]’
(Dr. Field).
4 Goth. ef zratus factus est agrees here with B καὶ ἐθυμώθη.
5
Ixxxii Introduction.
II 20, 23 Goth. Et Baneas filius Joab Luc. καὶ Βαναίας vids Ιωαδδαι ἐπὶ τοῦ
desuper lateris et in ponentibus πλινθίου καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς Suvaoras. So
(1 potentibus). (except δυνατοὺς) Theodoret., Quaest.
40 in 2 Reg.
23, 4 Goth. et non tenebrescet a lu- Luc. kat οὐ σκοτάσει [so other MSS.,
mine quasi pluvia, quasi herba de among them 44, 56, 158, 246] ἀπὸ
terra, φέγγους ws ὑετός, ὡς βοτάνη Ex γῆς.
23, 6 Goth. quoniam omnes qui ori- Luc. ὅτι πάντες ot ἀνατέλλοντες ὥσπερ
untur sicut spinae, et reliqui quasi ἄκανθα, καὶ ot λοιποὶ ds ἀπόμυγμα
quod emungit de lucerna. λύχνου tavtes+.
23, 8 Goth. Iesbael filius Thegemani Luc. IeoBaad vids Θεκεμανει .. ..
... hic adornavit adornationem οὗτος διεκόσμει τὴν διασκευὴν αὐτῶν
suam super nongentos vulneratos ἐπὶ ἐννακοσίους τραυματίας εἰς ἅπαξ +.
in semel.
(2) On the general characteristics of Jerome’s Version of the
OT., reference must be made to the monograph of Nowack,
referred to above (p. liv). A synopsis of the principal deviations
from the Massoretic text presupposed by it in the Books of Samuel,
is given 70. pp. 25-27, 35, 37, 38, 50; the most important are also
noticed, at their proper place, in the notes in the present volume’.
The following instances (which could easily be added to) will
1 But 23, 3 agrees partly with BA: In me locutus est cwstos Israel Jarabolam
Dic hominibus.
2 The current (Clementine) text contains many passages which are no genuine
part of Jerome’s translation, but are glosses derived from the Old Latin
(marked *), or other sources. The following list of such passages (taken from
Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, ii. pp. ix—xili) is given for the convenience of
students :—
1 4, 1 to pugnam*; 5, 6 from et ebuliierunt*; 9 from znzerunt*; 8, 18 from
guia*; 9, 25 from stravit+; 10, 1 from εὖ Liberabis*; 11, 1 to mensem*; 13,
15 et religut... Benjamin*; 14, 22 from Et erant* ; 41 Domine Deus Israel and
quid est... sanctitatem*; 15, 3 et non... aliguid*; 12-13% Saul offerebat...
ad Saul*; 32 et tremens* ; 17,36 Nunc* ...tncivcumcisus ; 19, 21 from Et
tratus*; 20, 15 from auferat* ; 21, 11 cum vidissent David (‘ ex ignoto fonte’);
23, 13-14 e¢ salvatus,..opaco; 30, 15 et turavit ec David*; Il 1, 18 from
et ait, Considera*; 26 from Sicut mater; 4, 5 from Lt ostiaria; 5,23 St...meas;
6, 6 et declinaverunt cam ; 6, 12 from δέ evant; 10, 19 expaverunt... Israel.
Et ; 13, 21 from e¢ noluit*; 27 from Fecerat*; 14, 30 from Et venientes ;
15, 18 pugnuatores validi ; 20 οἱ Dominus... veritatem; 21, 18 de genere
gigantum,
Characteristics of Chief Ancient Versions of Samuel. \xxxiii
exemplify the dependence of Jerome in exegesis upon his Greek
predecessors, especially Symmachus :—
πὸ γὃ
2, 5
5» 6
6, 18
9, 24
12 4
22
14, 48
20, 41
29
ar
33
50: ἢ
Ἣν mb yn xd Σ. (οὐ) διετράπη (ἔτι), Vulg. non sunt
amplius in diversa mutati.
IN &. dvevdecis ἐγένοντο, V. saturati sunt,
pays =. κατὰ τῶν kpurtov’, V. in secretiori parte.
DT ABI ἽΝ) Σ. ἕως κώμης ἀτειχίστου, V. usque ad
villam quae erat absque muro ὅ,
syd Σ. ἐπίτηδες, V. de industria.
‘MN ἤΔλλος" ἐσυκοφάντησα, V. calumniatus sum ὅ,
”% bwin 95 V. quia iuravit? Dominus.
(δ) wy) ΓΑλλος" συστησάμενος, V. congregato (exercitu).
ben 4 ἽΝ 3. Δαυιδ δὲ ὑπερέβαλλεν, V. David autem
amplius.
Sw A. τὸν δενδρῶνα, 3. τὸ φυτόν, V, (in) nemore. Simi-
larly 31, 13.
ydan’ wwe whan Σ. καὶ ἐρρέμβοντο ὁπουδήποτε ὅ,
DY Οἱ λοιποί" περιστεφανοῦντες, V. in modum coronae
cingebant.
mddym yrs. κακογνώμων, V. (pessimus et) malitiosus.
ovndon xb s, (οὐκ) ἐνωχλήσαμεν (αὐτούς), V. numquam
eis molesti fuimus.
Dpywy Σ. ἐνδέσμους σταφίδος, V. ligaturas uvae passae.
SO 30, 12.
MWS Σ. πεφυλαγμένη, V. custodita,
npipd A. &, (εἰς) λυγμόν, V. in singultum.
ΜΕ ΠῚ Σ. ἐκδικῆσαι, V. et ulciscerer (me manu mea),
byna >. (ἐν τῇ) σκηνῇ, V. in tentorio.
1 Comp. Mic. 4, 8 pd Σ. ἀπόκρυφος.
2 Comp. Dt. 3, 5.
3. Comp. Amos 4, 1 calumniam facitis.
* See Ex, 2,
turavit here.
21 5x1") Σ. ὥρκισε δέ, V. iuravit ergo, which shews the source of
5 *Symmachum ante oculos habuit Hieronymus eleganter vertens: Auc atgue
tlluc vagabantur incerti’ (Field).
g 2
Ixxxiv Introduction.
I 27, 1 INN DY ADDN &. παραπεσοῦμαί ποτε, V. Aliquando in-
cidam una die.
30, 16 DDI Σ. ἀναπεπτωκότες, V. discumbebant.
II 2,16 ΕἸΣῚΝ npbn A. 3. κλῆρος τῶν στερεῶν, V. ager robus-
torum.
8, 2 AMID NWI >. ὑπὸ φόρον, V. sub tributo.
το, 6 ‘WI WN) Σ. ἐκακούργησαν πρὸς Δαυιδ, V. quod iniuriam
fecissent David.
12, 14 MYND YN 3. βλασφημῆσαι ἐποίησας (the other versions
all differently), V. blasphemare fecisti.
15, 28 ΠΌΠΟΙ Σ. κρυβήσομαι, V. abscondar.
18, 23 ADIN FI Οἱ LT’. (κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν) τὴν διατέμνουσαν, V. per
viam compendii.
Three examples, shewing how Jerome followed Aq. or Symm.
in dividing artificially a Hebrew word (p. xliii), may be added—the
last being of peculiar interest, as it explains a familiar rendering of
the Authorized Version :—
wv. 16, 1 syd nad A. τοῦ ταπεινόφρονος καὶ ἁπλοῦ τοῦ Δαυιδ, Jer.
humilis et simplicis David.
ix 925) an mynwd A. εἰς ὄνομα ῥύπου (ANY nw), Jer. propter igno-
miniam sordis.
Lev. 16, 8 Gry) Σ. εἰς τράγον ἀπερχόμενον (v. 10 ἀφιέμενον), A.
εἰς τράγον ἀπολυόμενον (or ἀπολελυμένον) i.e. brs ry,
Jer. capro emzssarto. Hence the ‘Great Bible’
(1539-1541) and AV. scape-goat’.
1 Jerome’s own translation of the Psalter failed to supersede the older Latin
Version that was in general use; hence it never made its way into the ‘ Vulgate,’
and must be sought elsewhere (Ofeva, ed. Bened. I. 835 ff.; Vallarsi, IX. 1153 ff. ;
Migne, IX. 1123 ff.; or Lagarde’s Psalterium Hieronymt, 1874). The transla-
tion of the Psalter contained in the ‘ Vulgate’ is merely the Old Latin Version,
revised by Jerome with the aid of the LXX.
* Comp. Is. 66, 24 1wW2 939 yINI75 wsgue ad satietatem videndi (as though
INI 15) omni carni. The same interpretation in the Targ.: ‘ And the wicked
shall be judged in Gehinnom until the righteous shall say concerning them
Rpt ΠῸ We have seen enough.’ The renderings of Aq. Symm. are not here
_preserved ; but from their known dependence on Jewish exegesis, there is little
doubt that Jerome’s rendering is derived from one of them.
a age ooh OS ie
The Inscription of Mesha‘, commonly known as the ‘Moabite Stone.’
Tue Inscription of Mesha‘ (which has been several times referred
to in the preceding pages) is of such importance as an authentic
and original monument of the ninth century B.c., remarkably illus-
trating the Old Testament, and is at the same time so difficult of
access in a convenient form to students of Hebrew in this country,
that I have determined to insert here a transcription and translation
of it, accompanied by a brief commentary. I have confined myself
to the mznimum of necessary explanation, and have purposely
avoided entering upon a discussion of controverted readings or
interpretations. The doubtful passages are, fortunately, few in
number, being limited chiefly to certain letters at the extreme left
of some of the lines, and to two or three ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, and do not
interfere with the interpretation of the Inscription as a whole.
Palaeographical details must be learnt from the monograph of
Smend and Socin, referred to on p. xii, and from Clermont-
Ganneau’s ‘Examen Critique du Texte,’ in the Journ. As., Janv.
1887, pp. 72-1121. The deviations from the text of Smend and
Socin are introduced partly on the authority of Clermont-Ganneau,
partly on that of E. Renan in the Journal des Savans, 1887, pp.
158-164, and of Th. Nodldeke in the Lz¢. Centralblait, Jan. 8,
1887, coll. 59-61. Of the older literature connected with the In-
scription, the most important is the monograph of Néldeke, Die
Inschrift des Konig’s Mesa von Moab (Kiel, 1870), to which in
parts of my explanatory notes I am indebted. It ought only to
be observed that at the time when this monograph was published,
some of the readings had not been ascertained so accurately as was
afterwards done. M. Clermont-Ganneau promises a more elaborate
study on the Inscription, which, however, up to the present time,
1 See also the Revue Critigue, 1875, No. 37, pp. 166-174 (by the same writer).
Ixxxvi Appendix.
has not appeared. The line above a letter indicates that the reading
is not quite certain.
snano. po, F>Bwns. t2. yw. ὋΝ
sop oper ny. wow. ano. dy. to, ΛΝ 13)»
[). moja ramps, wood, nxt, nan. wyN 1aN.ans tn
soy tesow . Soa. een. ay. json. Sop. pwn a py
SND.WD. RINT. TIT. oy. ND. Nw, Sew, 70,7
3 ΟΝ DD PND ΠΝ DYN. NT. DDN maa, ΠΒΌΤΝ 1 ay
[aN] ms. oy, ey ody. sax. tas, dwt anaay, ma, sas
[29 3}. ny. YIN. 792, Dy, "ym, Ay, WI. AM ESTA. Pf
rN). MNT. nD. wer, pooya. ny, PNP, wD, m3
ον goo .m5. 39, dy. nay. AND, 3. PINT, ΠΝ
(o.oy]n. 55. ns, ΔΊΠΝῚ ΠΙΠΙΝῚ apa, onndsy i mapy . ms, bw
psy. yt. SN. nN, OD, See 1 ΝΟΥ, wood. nm ἽΡΠ
WN ND. YUN. MN. 2. await ΠΥΡᾺ, woo. ad, nan
Sr ΟΝ, by. no. ΠΝ ins. Ἴθι. woo. >. open 1 ΠΟ
ἘΝῚ poqnyn oy. minwn. ypap. ma, onndsy , mdsa , abn
νοι mony 1 3227, maa. webs. myaw , Abs . any. om
[D.n]N. ovo. ΠΡ tanoonn, wna. anwyd 51 nomm.n
AS. ma. bow. ἼΡΟΥ 1 wos. med. on. anoxy, mn, %
[) ‘pao, woo . ΠΥΡῸΝ 1 Δ. monndna . na, aw, pm
,ν ΠΙΠΝῚ, yma. ΠΝΟΝῚ 1 ΠῚ, 5s. wx. ΝΘ, aNDD , MPS
nom, myn. non. amp. oma, peti. ὃν, napd
sy tonndam . oma. pe. apy. moa. oxy tay
sapa, pod. mien nds .ney. per. too, na. m2. 2
S wy. opm. Sod sony, nmpa apa. apa, IN. TDN 1 ἽΡΠ
mona. amp>., nnqoen . oma. PNY Pama. 09, YN, OD
J ymsa. ndoon ΤΩΡ. par. yy. ΤΣ, ὍΝ 1 Ses, [9]
Spy. 2, ΤΩΝ. PRENT. DIN, NOI, nd. ΠῚ DN
55o . ἼΝΙ nyown. 21. 55.03. won po
ma, px pawn, Sy. ΒΟ. ws, mpa . ΠΝῸ wn
SP). nN. ow, Nwxr, tyodya. nari ΠΟΣῚ. nay, Ν[ΞΤΊΠΟΓ[. ΠΝ]."
TEN. Pa, m2. ae. [ΠῚ 1 ΝΠ. iy”
[ajasityina, onnda ΤῊ, wos. , ἼΩΝ
wy. own, (no, oa, wo, n(n]
IW pIw ne
oe Ὅσον am ff W N
Io
11.
12.
16.
17.
The Inscription of Mesha‘. Ixxxvii
. Lam Mesha‘ son of Chemoshmelek, king of Moab, the Da-
. -ibonite. My father reigned over Moab for 30 years, and I reign-
. τεῦ after my father. And I made this high place for Chémdsh
in QrHH, a high place of sal-
. -vation, because he had saved me from all the kings (?), and
because he had let me see my pleasure on all them that hated
me. Omr-
. -i was king over Israel, and he afflicted Moab for many days, be-
cause Chemosh was angry with his la-
. -nd. And his son succeeded him; and he also said, I will
afflict Moab. In my days said he th[us ;]
. but I saw my pleasure on him, and on his house, and Israel
perished with an everlasting destruction. And Omri took
possession of the [la-|
. -nd of Méhédeba, and it (i. 6. Israel) dwelt therein, during his
days, and half his son’s days, forty years; but [resto-|
. -red it Chemosh in my days. And TI built Ba‘al-Me‘on, and I
made in it the reservoir (?); and I built
. Qiryathén, And the men of Gad had dwelt in the land of
‘Ataroth from of old; and built for himself the king of I-
-srael ‘Ataroth. And I fought against the city, and took it.
And I slew all the [people of ]
the city, a gazingstock unto Chemosh, and unto Moab. And
I brought back (07, took captive) thence the altar-hearth of
Davdoh (?), and I drag-
. -ged it before Chemosh in Qeriyyoth. And I settled therein
the men of ΞΗΚΝ, and the men of
. mMuRTH. And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo against
Israel. And I
. went by night, and fought against it from the break of dawn
until noon. And I too-
-k it, and slew the whole of it, 7,000 men and..... , and
women, and....
-s, and maid-servants: for I had devoted it to “‘Ashtor-Chém6sh.
And I took thence the [ ves- |
Ixxxviii Appendix.
18. -sels of YAHweH, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And
the king of Israel had built
19. Yahaz, and abode in it, while he fought against me. But
Chemosh drave him out from before me; and
20. I took of Moab 200 men, even all its chiefs; and I led them up
against Yahaz, and took it
21. to add it unto Daibon. I built qrun, the wall of Ye‘arim
(or, of the Woods), and the wall of
22. the Mound. And I built its gates, and I built its towers. And
23. I built the king’s palace, and I made the two reser[voirs (Ὁ) for
wa |ter in the midst of
24. the city. And there was no cistern in the midst of the city,
in grHH. And I said to all the people, Make
25. you every man a cistern in his house. And I cut out the
cutting for Q@kHH with the help of prisoner-
26. [-s of] Israel. I built “Aro‘er, and I made the highway by the
Arnon.
27. I built Beth-Bamoth, for it was pulled down. I built Bezer, for
ruins
28. [had it become. And the chie|fs of Daibon were fifty, for all
Daibon was obedient (to me). And I reign-
29. -ed [over] an hundred [chiefs] in the cities which I added to
the land. And I buil-
30. -t Mehédé[b]a, and Beth-Diblathén, and Beth-Ba‘al-Me‘on ;
and I took there the sheep-grazers (?),
Shy oa Cece oc pan Dee sheep of the land. And as for Horonén, there
dweltstheren)y-e)--. SiG vet ahs
2 oe ee ek Ὑ ὅτ Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight
against Horonén. And I went down.........
SR Ἐν [and] Chemosh [resto]red it in my days. And
I went up thence to.....
Qui aw yenssainlane ailedeeeh = tomer Anda sah igontie
The Inscription gives particulars of the revolt of Moab from
Israel, noticed briefly in 2 Ki. 1, 1 = 3, 5. The revolt is there
stated to have taken place after the death of Ahab; but from line 8
The Inscription of Mesha'. Ιχχχὶχ
of the Inscription it is evident that this date is too late, and that it
must in fact have been completed by the middle of Ahab’s reign.
The territory N. of the Arnon was claimed by Reuben and (con-
tiguous to it on the N.) Gad; but these tribes were not permanently
able to hold it against the Moabites. David reduced the Moabites
to the condition of tributaries (2 Sam. 8, 2); but we infer from
this Inscription that this relation was not maintained. Omri, how-
ever, determined to re-assert the Israelite claim, and gained pos-
session of at least the district around Medeba, which was retained
by Israel for forty years, till the middle of Ahab’s reign, when
Mesha‘ revolted. How complete the state of subjection was to
which Moab had thus been reduced is shewn by the enormous
tribute of wool paid annually to Israel (2 Ki. 3, 4). The Inscription
names the principal cities which had been occupied by the Israelites,
but were now recovered for Moab, and states further how Mesha‘
was careful to rebuild and fortify them, and to provide them with
means for resisting a siege. Most of the places named (1-2, 21, 28
Dibon, 8, 30 (Ὁ) Mehedeba,. 9 Ba‘al-Me‘on, ro Qiryathén, ro, 11
‘Ataroth, 13 Qeriyyoth, 14 Nebo, 19 Yahaz, 26 ‘Aro‘er, 27 Beth-
Bamoth, 30 Beth-Diblathén, Beth-Ba‘al-Me‘on, 31 Horonén) are
mentioned in the OT. in the passages which describe the territory of
Reuben (Nu. 32, 37 f. Jos. 13, 15-23) or Gad (Nu. 32, 34-36. Jos.
13, 24-28), or allude to the country held by Moab (Is. 15, 2. 4. 5.
Jer. 48, 4. 3. 18: τὸ. 21. 22. 23..24. 34. 41. Ez. 25, 9. Am. 2, 2);
24 Bezer in Dt. 4, 43. Jos. 20,8: only 3, 21, 24, 25 AMP, 13 Pw,
14 MIM, 21 7} are not known from the Bible. Except (as it
seems) Horonaim, all the places named appear to have Jain within
the controverted territory North of the Arnon.
On the orthography, comp. above, pp. xxxii-xxxv. 1. Perhaps
abv Chémdshshillek should be read: cf. Eshmunshillek, Ba‘al-
shillek (CZS. 50,1; 132, 6 al.).—1-2. 992°, 21, 28 fa, 1. 6. no
doubt Dazbon, not (as in OT.) 3 Dibon. Had the vowel in the
first syllable been merely z, it is not probable that the scrzpico plena
would have been employed.—2. NW wovi= Heb. my owdy. nv
as in Phoen. (p. 64 #.); for *2¥, as M3 for *}3.—3. nxt noan
xc Appendix.
=Heb. nxt 7037: notice (1) the fem. in n-, as in Phoen., and
sporadically in the OT.; (2) nt without the art., also as in Phoen.
(p. xxvii). The passage illustrates Is. 15, 2. 16, 12. Jer. 48, 35
(of Moab); comp. 1 Ki. 10, 2 (of Solomon), The custom of wor-
shipping on ‘high-places’ was one shared by the Canaanites and
Israelites with their neighbours.—nmp, perhaps 777? (cf. 177, once
1 Ki. 16, 34 7%); it is against the apparently obvious vocalization
nM, that the fem. is regularly represented in the Inscription by Nn.
= isbn, the is not certain —'N3¥~2a INT yy. 59, 11. 118, 7.
—p5. 23" (Nold.) and afftcted (Ex. 1, 11), the third radical being
retained. As the text stands, if Ἴ be read (as seems natural) 7,
the 1 can only be explained by Zéenses, ὃ 127 a: this, however, is
harsh; so that probably 35m should be read 72%, and by has
accidentally been omitted before Synw (cf. 1. 2) by the carver of
the Inscription.— 28", if the » be correct, though an impf. is hardly
the tense that would be expected. Others prefer the reading 43NN,
which would be 138 N=the Arab, V. Néldeke suggests a ΝΠ, 282
as possible. In Heb. the Qal and (more generally in prose) the
Hithp. are in use. Cf. 1 Ki. 8, 46. 2 Ki. 17, 18.--ΟλμἍὸές land: cf.
Nu. 21, 29. Jer. 48, 46, where the Moabites are called wind Dby,—
6. MEN, cf, Wale, and Is. 9, 9 M3, i.e. Ahab.—N¥, p. xxxiii—
Ni DI, as Jud. 3, 31. 6, 35 al—a, probably 733 (τ Ki. 1, 48). ΠΝ
(Jud. 8, 8) would (as Hebrew) be preferable: but there seems not to
be room for more than two letters'.—7. 7 NIN) y.118, 7.--Ἴ TAN
ndy,—_nby as Ψ. 89, 2. 3. 38 (poetically for pbiy>). Or possibly
poy JAN JON; cf. Jer. 1, 39.—" OY WIM, as a plup. sense is
required, this by the principles of Heb. syntax should be YY "3",
Or, perhaps, ¥1 should be read: cf. the simple } (if the reading
be correct) in 1. 33.—8. S27, in Heb. 137).—nn, if the 7 be
correct, for 12° yamarh(u), i.e. "2". The original Π (Stade, ὃ 113. 4)
is seen (though not heard) in the Aram. δος. The same phrase
* Smend and Socin imagined that they could read 1273; but the traces are
far too indistinct to make it probable, in view of the close general similarity of
the two languages, that what is impossible in Hebrew (it should be 737 1175,
or 75x Ὠ Ὑ2 159) was possible in Moabitic.
The Inscription of Mesha'. xei
occurs Jer. 17, 11.—8-9. m3v: the letters supplied were con-
jectured cleverly by Néldeke in 1870, and have been generally
accepted.—g. 128).—mwnn, prop. depression (cf. AMW), 211, perhaps
an excavation used for the storage either of provisions, arms, etc.,
or (cf. line 23) of water—ro, [ΠῚ (Nold.), in Heb. DNP.—VN}
(Jud. 20, 17, etc.).—n, Heb. b—x1. DOA3N) from pnnda=Arab.
VIII conj.— P23 agaznst the city —TIN),—1 2, WiDI? D a spectacle
unto Chemosh: cf. Nah. 3, 6. Ez. 28, 17.—Either 2Y8) (Jos. 14, 7);
or (Clermont-Ganneau, Renan) 3¥8!.—5yx to be explained prob.
from Ez. 43, 15.16 of the hearth of the altar, which was prized by
the captors as a kind of ‘spolia opima’ (Smend and Socin, p. 4).
But this explanation is not certain. ΠῚ must, as it seems, be the
name of a divinity, otherwise (at present) unknown,—12-13. AND}
Jer. 22, 19. 2 Sam. 17, 13.—13. ws spb, cf. mn) pd 1 Sam. 15,
33. 2 Sam. 21, 9.—IWN: 2 Ki. 17, 24.—14, And Chemosh said
to me, Go, dake, etc.; similarly 1. 32: comp. Jos. 8,1; Jud. 7, 9;
I Sam. 23,4; 2 Ki. 18, 25>.—14-15. FOTN , cf. Job 16, 22. 23, ὃ.
“ἢ ἢ
in prose once (in 3 ps.) Ex. 9, 23.—15. ΠΡῸΣ = Heb. mp3,—yPa0,
cf. Is. 58, 8: the ordinary Hebrew equivalent would be NWA nidyn,
—16, $133, 133, men, women. The two uncertain words here may
be 173, 18 strangers, male and female —17. 12M, Jud. 5, 30: female
slaves are probably meant.—17. Asht/or-Chemosh must be a com-
pound deity, of a type of which there are other examples in Semitic
mythology, Baethgen, Pectrdége, 254 ff. The male Ashtor is a
South Semitic deity, 2. 117 ff—MDINI: see p. 101.—17-18.
[5 .n]s, others supply ὌΓΝΎΙΝ, cf. 1. 12. Renan says that the
last two letters of 1.17 are quite ‘dans la nuit,’ and that > nN
‘ garde toute sa probabilité” Against sya he objects the absence
of ns (contr. 1. 12), and the plural (contr. the sing. 1, 12),—18. ἘΠ
(if, as seems to be the case, the reading is correct) must be a case
of the independent pron. used as an accus., cf. Aram, 17 (Ezr. 4,
το etc.).—19. FD73¥1, 1, 6, he made it a post of occupation during
his war with Mesha‘.—niannena, or rather, perhaps, on the analogy
of the inf. of the Arab. VIII, nbANPTS : cf, the Heb. place-names
yionwy, Denwix, riba (provided yn) be masc.), 351) wii: Mesha‘
ΧΟΙΪ Appendix.
speaks of w5 in exactly the same terms which the Hebrew used
of mn, Dt. 33, 27. Jos. 24, 18.—20. JN, in Heb. DAND,—ARYN),
—21. nap? (Néld.) from 418°. Pointed irregularly by the Massorites
nod nob Nu. 32, 14. Is. 30, 1.—(Y%0 216 woods,—probably the
name of a place.—22. ANDAR, — 23. sb0 Nag Ki. £6, 18,—'ND3
either doth (N6ld.), cf. oh, NAK!, or possibly the locks or dams,
from the root ΝΟΣ, —p0b Jor water.—24. 13 cistern.—}%= Heb. PS
(Gen. 47,13).—25. Prob. 9023199 (or NA3N) a cutting (or cuttings)
of some sort: the special application must remain uncertain.— 25-6.
“IDNA — 26. nbpon= Heb. npDIN.—27. ΓΞ 3, probably the same
place as nyoa Nu. 21, 19; bys mp3 22, 41. Jos. 13, 17.--Π.
—/¥, Mic. 3, 12.28. Before δ, there is space for four or five
letters. After PY, ΠῚΠ (or ἢ ΠῚΠ, Is. τό, 4) suggests itself naturally
as the first word of 1.28. The conjecture ¥[71] has the support
of 1]. 20.—nypnwn, see p. 144 nole.—29. If maby 28-9 be correct
(the 3 is not quite certain), the next word must almost necessarily be
by: the two letters for which space still remains may be w (as exhi-
bited in the translation). Lines 28-29 will then describe the number
of chiefs, i.e. either heads of families, or warriors, over whom
Mesha‘ ruled in Daibon itself, and in the cities which he recovered.—
P32 22 the cities (Clermont-Ganneau, Smend and Socin): with what
follows, cf. the expression used of Yahaz ll. 20-21.— 30. 179, if the
restoration be correct, will allude to the persons engaged in cul-
tivating the breed of sheep, for which Moab was famous. It is the
word which is actually used of Mesha‘ himself in 2 Ki. 3, 4. But
the letters following 3 can only be regarded as conjectural’: ac-
cording to Renan, ‘l’endroit est entiérement désespéré..—32. Cf.
]. 14. With go down Clermont-Ganneau pertinently compares Jer.
48, 5 which speaks of the on 779 or descent to Horonaim.—
33. No doubt 720 as 1]. 8-9.—nbyy. According to uniform usage
in other parts of the Inscription, we should expect bys, snbyn,
if correct, will be an example of the perf. with simple waz, such as
occurs also occasionally in the OT. πον is the word that would
1 The 2 itself also may be ἃ Ὁ.
The Inscription of Mesha‘. XCili
naturally be used by Mesha‘ to describe his return from a place to
which he had previously gone dozun.
The language of Moab is far more closely akin to Hebrew than
any other Semitic language at present known (though it may be
conjectured that the languages spoken by Ammon and Edom were
approximately similar): in fact, it scarcely differs from it otherwise
than dialectically’. In syntax, form of sentence, and general mode
of expression, it is entirely in the style of the earlier narratives con-
tained in the historical books of the OT. The vocabulary, with two
or three exceptions, not more singular than many ἃ ἅπαξ εἰρημένον
occurring in the OT., is identical with that of Hebrew. In some
respects, the language of the Inscription even shares with Hebrew
distinctive features, as the waw conv. with the impf., ywrn Zo save,
mwy Zo make, D3, “ἃ AN, wr Zo fake in possession, ANN, snd, the dual
pany, onn Zo dan, wy, pa, and especially WN. It shares ἼΝ
with Hebrew and Phoenician, against Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic
(sax, LI, A).
The most noticeable dfferences, as compared with Hebrew, are
nxt npan (not ΓΝῚΠ as in Hebrew), the n of the fem. sg., and
the } of the dual (except in nwn¥? 15) and plural, the n and } of the
plural both occurring only sporadically in the OT.’, the conj. onndn,
p city, INN τα, 14 20 dake a city (Heb. 132) ; and the following
words, which, though they occur in the OT., are not the usual
prose terms, abn 6 10 succeed, yp115 of the dreak of dawn, [33
and N33 τό (in a context such as the present, the normal Hebrew
expression would be pw3x and pws), NOM 17.
The chief features of historical interest presented by the Inscrip-
By a happy instinct the truth was divined by Mr. (now Sir George) Grove,
six years before any Moabite document whatever was known, in his inter-
esting article MoaB, in the Dictionary of the Bible (p. 399%): ‘And from the
origin of the nation and other. considerations we may perhaps conjecture that
their language was more a dialect of Hebrew than a different tongue,
* Tf this be really a dual, and not a xomdnal form in Ὁ —,
* The } 25-6 times, mostly dialectically, or late (Ges. ὃ 87. 1* [add Lam. 4,
3 Kt., and, as the text stands, 2S. 21, 20]; Stade, § 323), 15 times being in Job,
but even there irregularly (}> 13 times, against 0°51 Io times),
xciv Appendix.
tion may be summarized as follows: (1) the re-conquest of Moab
by Omri; (2) the fact that Mesha‘’s revolt took place in the middle
of Ahab’s reign, not after his death (as stated, 2 Ki. 1, 1); (3) par-
ticulars of the war by which Moab regained its independence; (4)
the extent of country occupied and fortified by Mesha‘; (5) the
manner and terms in which the authority of Chémésh, the national
deity of Moab, is recognized by Mesha‘; (6) the existence of a
sanctuary of YanweH in Nebo’; (7) the state of civilization and
culture which had been reached by Moab at the end of the tenth
century B.c. Sir George Grove, in the article referred to on the
last page, writes (p. 396): ‘The nation appears’ from allusions in
the OT.? ‘as high-spirited, wealthy, populous, and even, to a certain
extent, civilized, enjoying a wide reputation and popularity ....
In its cities we discern a “great multitude” of people living in
“olory,’ and in the enjoyment of “great treasure,” crowding the
public squares, the house-tops, and the ascents and descents of the
numerous high-places and sanctuaries, where the “ priests and
princes” of Chemosh minister to the anxious devotees.... In
this case there can be no doubt that among the pastoral people of
Syria, Moab stood next to Israel in all matters of material wealth
and civilization.’ This conclusion is confirmed by the Inscription,
The length, and finished literary form, of the Inscription shew that
the Moabites, in the tenth century B.c., were not a nation that had
recently emerged from barbarism ; and Mesha’ reveals himself in it
as a monarch capable of organizing and consolidating his dominions
by means similar to those adopted by contemporary sovereigns in
the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
1 The reading 717° is quite certain; the letters can be read distinctly on the
plaster-cast of the stone in the British Museum,
2 Chiefly Is, 15-16; Jer. 48.
List of principal Abbreviations employed.
AV. = Authorized Version.
Bo. = Bottcher, Fr., Meue exeg.-krit. Achrenlese zum A. T. (above,
p. iil).
Sometimes also the Awsfiihrliches Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache, 1866,—a
gigantic Zhesaurus of grammatical forms, suitable for occasional refer-
ence, but for general purposes highly inconvenient.
CIS. = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Tom. I, Parisiis, 1881-
1887.
Tom. I contains Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions.
Ew. = Ewald, H., Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Sprache, ed. 7, 1863;
ed. 8, 1870.
The Syntax, indispensable to the advanced student, has been translated by
J. Kennedy, Edinburgh, 1881.
Ke. = Keil, C. F., Commentar iiber die Biicher Samuelis, ed. 2, 1875.
Klo. = Klostermann, Aug. (above, p. v).
Kon.= Konig, F. E., Astorisch-kritisches Lehrgebaude der Hebr.
Sprache, i. 1881.
Vol. ii, containing the treatment of the noun, and the syntax, has not yet
appeared. Especially useful on account of the discussions, with exhaus-
tive reference to previous authorities, of anomalous forms,
Kp. = Kirkpatrick, A. Ἐς, Commentary on 1-2 Samuel in the
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
MT.=Massoretic Text.
O].=Olshausen, Justus, Lehrbuch der Hebritschen Sprache, i. 1861.
A masterly work, containing, however, only the Laut-, Schrift-, and For-
men-Lehre. The author never completed the syntax. The chapter
devoted to the formation of Hebrew proper names is valuable,
Reinke= Reinke, Laur., Bettrdge zur Erklérung des A.T.’s, vol. vii.
Miinster, 1866.
On transcriptional errors in the Massoretic text, or presupposed by the
Ancient Versions, with many illustrations. The author is a Roman
Catholic, in his attitude towards the Massoretic text entirely free from
prejudice, and in fact not sufficiently discriminating in his criticism,
xcvi Abbreviations.
RV. = Revised Version.
Stade = Stade, Bernhard, Lehrbuch der Hebrétschen Grammatih, i.
1879.
On the lines of Olshausen. The most convenient book for those who desire
a grammar more comprehensive than that of Gesenius-Kautzsch, and
yet not so minute or elaborate as those of Olshausen or Konig. The
syntax has not yet appeared.
Th.= Thenius, Otto (above, p. iii).
We. = Wellhausen, Jul. (above, pp. ili-iv).
LATW.= Zeitschrift fiir die Alitestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited
by Bernhard Stade, 1881 ff.
ZDMG. = Zeiischryft der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft.
δ) = W259) and the rest =< ete.’
The readings of the Septuagint, when not otherwise stated, are
those of Cod. B, derived either from Dr. Swete’s edition (p.1), or
from Nestle’s collation (p. 201 mo/e). Lucian’s recension (p. 1) is
denoted by ‘ LXX (Luc.)’ or ‘Luc.’ The abbreviation ‘LXX’ is
construed with a plural or a singular verb, according as the reference
is more particularly to the translators themselves, or to the transla-
tion in the form in which we now have it.
The Peshitto and the Targum have been cited from the editions
of Lee and Lagarde, respectively.
The sign + following a series of references indicates that all
examples of the word or form in question, found in the OT., have
been quoted.
WOTEHS
ON
bins BOOKS ΘΕ SANE L;
1, 1—4, τᾶ, Lurth and youth of Samuel. Announcement of the
fall of Eh’s house.
1, I. INS WN] ‘INN is not represented in LXX. It has been
regarded as an indication of the comparatively late composition
of the section in which it occurs; and Thenius, in order to escape
this conclusion, supports its omission. But ἽΠΝ is met with occa-
sionally in the same sense ove man = aa particular or certain man
in other passages, presumably of early origin F ‘see not only τ Ki. 13,
11. 2 Ki. 4, 1 but also Jud. 9, 53. 13, 2 ΠΝ INN WN AN.
Day opin] very difficult, if indeed defensible, grammatically.
ὈΒῚΝ cannot be an adj. in apposition with oyna; for this,
being fem., would require nipiy (cf. ΠΥΘῪ Dy ψ. 18, /28 etc.),—
not to say MiB; nor can it, as Keil supposes, be a genzfive (!)
after o'no7n ‘the two heights of the Zophites'’ Rather might
it be an appositional adjunct, ‘the two heights, (the) Zophites ;’
cf, }PY* 3 MANA Dt. το, 6 (but see Gen. 26, 18); ΤΡ MY Gen.
14, 5 (Ol. p. 613”), though even then the construction would be
singularly unusual and hard, and not altogether analogous to the
parallels cited. LXX has, Σειῴφα͵ ἐξ ὄρους Ἔφραιμ, pointing to ‘BY
for. py’) the Ὁ of 77 having ‘been in MT. accidentally written
1 The reference to Ew. § 286° is inconclusive: the first word in the instances
there cited being in the construct state (or in 1 Ki. 4, 12 in apposition).
* Cf. the writer's Hebrew Tenses (ed. 2), Appendix, § 190, where, however,
some of the instances cited depend, no doubt, upon a faulty text.
5) and » are often interchanged in Hebrew and LXX: cf. 9, 5 Seup =F).
LXX must have read p18 as PIS: cf.’ABeooa 20, 6al., Ῥειβα 11 23, 29 (We.).
B
2 The First Book of Samuel,
twice, ‘a certain man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite of the hill-country
of Ephraim’ (so We. Klo.). Zuph) (5. τὸς τ Ch. 6, 20 Qn) GF
Zophai (2d. v. 11) was the name of an ancestor of Elqanah; and
the district in which Ramah lay was called ἢν Υ δ (ch. 9, 5 ff.), no
doubt, from the fact of its having been originally settled by the
family of Zuph (cf. 27, 10 xpnwn aid; 86; 14 abs 339).
ono} The dual itself in a pr. n. can be readily paralleled
(Ὁ ΠΡ, ONIN, etc.), and is supported in. this particular word by
poksos? 1 Mace. τι, 343 but the transition to the szzgudar in v. 19
is abrupt-and strange. In MT. the form occurs here alone,
Samuel’s home being elsewhere always ΠΡ Π. LXX has ‘Appadayp
not only here, but also wherever M10 occurs accidentally with Nn, in
consequence of the Π of motion being attached to it (AND), 1, 19.
ἢ. ΤΙ. 4,17. 8,4. 1%, 34. 16,13. τὸ, 18. 22, as well as foram
ge 1.126; 3: ih ἴθ; Yo. 22: 23: 20, x (AS ‘In Jud. 4, 5) ior meee
has ἐν ‘Paya. In 25,1. 28, 3 cod. A has ‘Paya: in this cod. there-
fore ΠΣ ῚΠ is consistently “Paya, OyNDIT and AND are consistently
‘Appaba. Probably, however, this is merely a correction of a kind
not unfrequent in cod. A, made with the view of assimilating the
Greek text more closely to the Hebrew, and not a part of the
original LXX. It is scarcely possible to frame an entirely satis-
factory explanation of the variations. It seems clear that in 2, 11 etc.
“Ἄρμαθαιμ is due to the presence of the ἢ in the form of the Hebrew
word there read by the translators: but it would be precarious to
conclude that this was actually oynow. From the abruptness of
the change in v. 19 to the sing., We. thinks it probable that the
original form of the name was the singular, which in the first
instance stood in the Hebrew text everywhere, but that the dual
form came into use subsequently, and was introduced as a cor-
rection in 1,1 in MT.; in LXX ‘Paya was originally the uniform
rendering, but in course of time an artificial distinction was drawn
between ADA and ANNAN, and when this was done it was introduced
into the text of LXX—in cod. B, however, in 19, 19—20, I only, in
1 Codd. AS corruptly Ῥαθαμειν : others Ῥαμαθεμ.
oS, 3
cod. A uniformly (‘Paya=fAMW: ‘Appaday=ANDN). Kilo. ingeni-
ously proposes to punctuate ΘΠ Θ᾽ ‘from the Ramathites,’ cf.
‘now τ Ch. 27, 27: but this is not the usual manner in which a
person’s native place is designated in the OT.
ὉΠ] LXX Ἰερεμεηλ, 1.6. DxOny Yerahme’el, perhaps rightly
(the name Yeroham occurs elsewhere). The pedigree of Samuel is
given twice besides, with variations similar to those which usually
occur in parallel passages in the OT.., especially in lists of names :—
τ Sam. 151 (Ux 38.56). (ERX 33-38)
Samuel 13 Samuel 18 Samuel
Elqanah 12 Elqanah 1g Elqanah
Yeroham Yeroham Yeroham
Elihu Eliab Eliel
Tohu 11 Nahath? Toah ὃ
Zuph Zophai 20 Qri Zuph *
ὙΠΒΝ] This word appears to represent Elqanah not merely as
resident in Ephraim (Q 58 79), but as an Lphrazmite; in τ (ἢ. 6
he is represented_as a Levzte, of the descendants of Qohath (Nu.
3, 27 etc.) The discrepancy is hard to reconcile. Jud. 17, 7 the
expression ‘ of the family of Judah,’ applied to a Levite, shews that
Levites settled in a particular ‘tribe may have been reckoned as
belonging to it (cf. Ew. A/zsv. ii. 421); but there the addition xm)
5 makes the double ‘relationship clear; (here the addition ΒΝ
seems to shew that. the narrator has no consciousness of Samuel's
Levitical descent,’ The explanation that the term designates El-
qanah as an Ephraimite, merely so far as his civil rights and standing
1 Thenius Ὁ Ὁ), on which We., De Gentibus et Familits Judaeis quae
1 Ch. 2. 4. numerantur (Gottingae, 1870), remarks justly (p. 27), ‘Dresdense
potius quam Hebraeum.
2 So Vulg. Pesh.; LXX Kawa. No doubt the 3 is an error for n, the two
letters being somewhat similar in the old character, though which of the three
forms is original cannot be definitely determined, probably Tohu. In any case
Keil’s explanation of the variation is untenable.
5. LXX Θοου, Vulg. Thohu, ie. Tohuas int, 1. Pesh. Kuh.
* So also LXX, Vulg.; Kt. Ziph.
B 2
4 The First Book of Samuel,
were concerned, makes it express nothing more than what is virtually
declared in v. ἃ, and moreover implies a limitation which is not, at
least, sustained by usage. It is a question whether the traditions
embodied in Ch. have been handed down uniformly in their original
form, and whether in some cases the genealogies have not been
artificially completed. The supposition that Samuel was really of
Ephraimite descent, and was only in later times reckoned as a
Levite, appears to be the simplest explanation of the divergence.
2. Dw ‘nw by] The order as 17, 12: 25, 2. Jud: 5. 10, εἰ:
nnx| The numeral, being definite in itself, may dispense with
the art.; cf. 13, 17-18; Nu, 28! 4: Ew. αὶ 20904. But inca cen-
nexion such as the present nNNA would be more classical (Gen. 2, 11.
4, 19. 10, 25 (all belonging to the Pentateuchal source J); Dt. 21,
15; II 4, 2), and ought probably to be restored.
‘nm | defore the plural pds, according to Ges. ὃ 1478; Ew. § 3162.
So not unfrequently: e.g. with the same verb Gen. 1, 14. 5, 23.
Jud. 20, 46. τ Ki. 13, 33 M92 7303 ΠῚ that ¢here might be priests
of the high places.
2h ndyr] The pf. with waw conv. has a frequentative force used
to go up; comp. 4>-72, where observe that it interchanges, not with
the bare perfect, the tense of simple narrative, but with the zmf/,
which likewise expresses habituation: see Zenses, § 120; and comp.
EX. 17,41. 18. 20. JUGs2) Tom. cues
mo’ nD] The same phrase, likewise with reference to the
observance of a pilgrimage or sacred season, 2, 19. Ex. 13, Io.
Jud. 11, 40. 21, 19 t. 2", lit. days, tends by usage to denote the
definite period of a year: cf. on 27, 7.
‘yn ovr] LXX by 23 Ὁ by De. Some zudependent notice of
Eli seems to be presupposed by v. 9: either, therefore (Th. Klo.),
νον has dropped out in MT., or (We.) the mention of Eli originally
preceded v. 3, perhaps in the course of some more comprehensive
narrative of the period, of which the life of Samuel which we still
possess formed but an episode: in this case, the reading of LXX
will be a correction, introduced for the purpose of supplying the
deficiency which thus arose in the narrative.
----πὔὖὔὖ ὅπ
“το ae FT PN τον
eee es rl eee Oe ΜΉ
i i ee ee eee
1. 2-5. 5
4. DYN] The same idiomatic expression recurs 14, 1. 2 Ki.
4, 8. 11. 18. Job 1,6. 13. 2, 1%. Is it, now, to be construed ‘ And
there fell a day, and..., or ‘And it fell on a day, and.. .’? (Ges.-
Kautzsch, ὃ 109. 3. 1¢: Hitzig and Delitzsch on Job 1, 6: We.)
Modern authority is in favour of the second of these alternatives:
but the fact that nym when used as an adverbial accusative signifies
regularly /o-day may authorize the inference that in this phrase it
was conceived as ἃ nominative, i.e. as the subject of 1m" (cf. 20, 24
wsnn ny). In either case, the definite article, where we should use
the indefinite, is in accordance with the Hebrew manner of thought:
in the mind of the Hebrew narrator, the day is connected in anti-
cipation with the events about to be described as happening upon
it, and is thus regarded as defined. Comp. 1507 Nu. 5, 23, Sana
Jos. 2, 15 “he scroll, the cord, defined in anticipation as those taken
for a particular purpose, where our idiom can only employ @- and
see on 6, 8. 10, 25. 19, 13. The rendering ‘and it came to pass
at that time’ (Ges. Thes. 584», Ew. § 277) is less probable.
in| 4>-72 is parenthetical, describing what Elqanah’s hadz? was
(see on v. 3): the narrative of the particular occasion 48 is resumed
in 7> naam.
ni] portions, viz. of the flesh partaken of at the sacrificial meal :
cf. 9, 23.
Notice here the position of the object at the ed, where it rounds
off the sentence and brings it to its close. ‘The English order, in
such a case, would produce a very weak sentence in Hebrew. For
two striking instances of the same order, see Jer. 13,13. Am. 6,14;
and comp. on II 14, 12.
5. ΞΕ] Many attempts have been made to find a meaning for
this word, at once defensible philologically, and suited to the con-
text. It has been rendered (1) ‘heavily.’ So, for instance, the
Vulgate (/r?s/s), several mediaeval authorities (e.g. the ‘Great’
Bible of 1539: ‘a portion with an heavy cheer’), and amongst
moderns, Bé6. Th, But for this sense of O°88 there is no support
in the known usage of the language: D!283 occurs with the mean-
ing ‘in anger’ in Dan, 11, 20; but that would be unsuitable here,
6 The First Book of Samuel,
and the expressions Ἴ25 1p) (Gen. 4, 6) and “ny nd yn xd mp
(below, v. 18) are not sufficient to justify the sense of a dejected
countenance being assigned to DDN. It has been rendered (2) in
connexion with NOX 31, one portion of two faces (=two persons),
i.e, a double portion. So Keil and even Gesenius. It is true that
the Syriac esl” corresponds generally in usage with the Hebrew
D5; but, to say nothing of the fact that a Syriasm is unexpected
in Samuel, and that even in late Hebrew O°DN does not occur with
the Aramazc sense of ‘ person,’ there is nothing in the use of the
Syriac word to suggest that the dwa/ would, in Hebrew, denote ‘wo
persons : εὐϑ (like 028) is used of ome person, the singular not
occurring. If D'S means /wo persons, it must be implied that the
singular 4X might denote ove person, which the meaning of the
word (zostrz//) obviously does not permit. Secondly, the construc-
tion, even if on lexical grounds this rendering were defensible,
would be unexampled. DSN evidently cannot be a genzfive after
mms mp: Ew. ὃ 287» (cited by Keil) combines together cases
of apposition and of the accusative of limitation; but the dis-
parity of idea (one portion and two persons) shews that OSX cannot
be in apposition with NNN 3D; it mzght be an accusative defining
the amount or measure of the ΠΠΝ A ( Zenses, App. ὃ 194): but
how unnaturally expressed! ‘one (emph.) portion’ immediately
defined as a portion suitable for /wo persons, i.e. as a double por-
tion, as in fact not ove portion at all, but “wo / Upon grammatical
grounds, hardly less decisively than upon lexical grounds, this ren-
dering must thus be pronounced inadmissible. (3) The rendering
of AV. a worthy portion is inherited from the Geneva Version of
1560, and is based ultimately upon the Targum, which has ἽΠ pdin
na, i.e. ‘one chorce portion.’ V2 choice corresponds in the Tar-
gum to the Hebrew D'5N; but it is clear that it is no translation of
it, nor can it be derived from it by any intelligible process. Kimchi,
in his Commentary and the Book of Roots, makes two attempts to
account for it—both unsuccessful. Evidently it is a mere conjec-
ture, designed to replace the untranslatable word by something that
will more or less harmonize with the context.
1. 5-6. 7
The Hebrew text does not admit of a defensible rendering. In
the LXX p‘SN is represented by πλήν, i.e, DDN. This reading at
once relieves the difficulty of the verse, and affords a consistent
and grammatical sense. ‘D DDN restricts or qualifies the preceding
clause, precisely as in Nu. 13, 28. ‘But unto Hannah he used
to give one portion:’ this, following the portions of v. 4, might
seem to imply that Elqanah felt less affection for her than for
Peninnah. To obviate such a misconception, the writer adds:
‘ Howbert he loved Hannah; but Jehovah had shut up her womb,’
the last clause assigning the reason why Hannah received but one
portion. This reading is followed by Reinke, We. and Stade
(Gesch. des V. Isr. i. 199), and is rightly represented on the margin
of RV.: the words decause she had no child, however, though found
in LXX, formed probably no part of the text used by the trans-
lators, but were added by them as an explanatory comment.
6. ΝΞ by... Anpya] ‘and... used fo vex her even with a
vexation,’ i.e. vexed her bitterly. DYS is not (as it is often ren-
dered) to provoke to anger, but fo vex,as DYD is vexation: it
always denotes the feeling aroused by some unmerited treatment ;
cf. Job 5, 2. 6, 2; Dt. 32, 19 the vexation caused to Jehovah by
the undutiful behaviour of His ‘sons and daughters,’ 27 ‘ vexation
from the enemy,’ i.e. the vexation which He would experience
from their triumph at Israel’s ruin.
py3| The abstr. subst., in place of the more common inf. abs.,
as Is. 21, 7 SWP dwpni; comp. also 22, 17 will hurl thee as a man
[or,O man] with a hurling, i.e. will hurl thee violently; 24, 16. 22
will be gathered, as captives, with a gathering; Ez. 25,12.15; 27;
35; Mic. 4,9; Hab. 3, 9; Job16,14; 27,12. Di occurs in the same
position before the inf. abs. Gen. 31, 15. 46, 4. Nu. 16, 13 T.
nny] ‘her reval- or fellow-wife:’ LXX (Luc.) ἡ ἀντίζηλος αὐτῆς,
Vulg. aemula eius, Pesh. oh3%. The meaning is certain. A com-
parison of Hebrew with the cognate languages, Arabic and Syriac,
shews that in old times, when polygamy was prevalent, a common
term was in use among the Semitic peoples to denote the idea of a
rival- or fellow-wife, derived from a TOOt jus to injure OY Vex, Viz.
8 The First Book of Samuel,
Arabic ipa darrat-un = Syriac Jas ‘arihd = Hebrew ΠΝ, The
variation in the initial letter shews that the term was not dorrowed
by one Semitic language from another, within historical times, but
that it was already in use at the time when the common ancestors
of the Hebrews, Aramaeans, and Arabs dwelt together in a common
home: after the three branches separated, the initial consonant in
process of time underwent a variation till it appeared finally as ¥ in
Hebrew, as ὃν in Aramaic, and as (2 in Arabic’. Foran example
of the Syriac word, see Ephrem Syrus, I. 65 D, where Hagar is
spoken of as the Jhas of Sarah: it is also used here in Pesh. to
represent My. For the Arabic, see Lane’s Arad. Lex., p. 1776,
and Zhe 1001 JVighis (Habicht), iii. 276, 8 (cf. Lane’s translation,
London, 1865, ii. 135), referred to by Lagarde (‘Budoor and
Hayat-en-Nufoos are both wives of Qamar-ez-Zeman, and the one
is #6 = ΠΝ to the other: compare 1 Samuel 1, 6 of the family of
Elqanah’): also Saadyah’s version of Lev. 18, 18 (in Le Jay’s or
Walton’s Polyglott)?. sny> in Lev. 18, 18 is a ‘denominative’
(Ges. § 38. 2°) from ΠΝ, as used here, having the sense of 20 /ake a
rival- or fellow-wife (LXX γυναῖκα ἐπ᾽ ἀδελφῇ αὐτῆς od λήψῃ ἀντί-
{ndov) *, just like the Arab. ΠῚ 2. In post-Biblical Hebrew my
occurs in the same sense in the Mishnah, Vedamoth, ch. it.
1 The variation is in accordance with rule: where Heb. Υὶ corresponds to
Arab. UF its representative in Aramaic is Ὧν, δ: e.g. pe= GU= eX, 123
PW=U2) (ea). pix. See Lagarde, Semztica, I. (1878), pp. 22-27, or the
list in the Appendix to the writer’s Hebrew Tenses (ed. 2), ὃ 178.
ape
? «And a woman with her sister thou shalt not take 373 Ὁ [Ξ that she
may be her fellow-wife.
3 Keil’s rendering of 1725, derived from Knobel, is not probable.
* See further on this word Lagarde, in his essay Whether Marriage with a
Deceased Wife's Sister is, or is not, prohibited in the Mosaic Writings, pub-
lished originally in the Gottingen Wachrichten, 1882, No. 13, and reprinted in
the volume entitled A/¢ttheilungen i. (1884), pp. 125-134. Substantially the
word was already correctly explained by Alb. Schultens in his Consessus Haririt
quartus quintus et sextus (Lugd. Bat. 1740), p.77: ‘ Sub * ) y-o Tegnat speciatim
ustis obtr ectandt et aemulanadi, contendendi ex Zelotypia, quae vocatur Re:
et μό. Hine ips | M3 est mulier quae cum alia communem habet maritum.
1. 6-9. 9
nmoy7t| On the anomalous Ἵ (with dagesh dirimens) see Ges.
ὃ 20. 2b; 22. 5> Rem.; Ew. § 28> (4); Stade, § 1388,
7. Mwy] Difficult. Keil: ‘So used he (Elqanah) to do (viz.
gave her a double portion), ...; so used she to vex her,’ i.e. the
more he shewed his affection for Hannah, the more Peninnah
vexed her: but, even apart from the untenable expl. ‘ double por-
tion, there is no analogy for this sense of the repeated 153: ‘the
more-.... the «mote jris4> > ov, ΝΘ (Ex: 1,12). Th, We. point
ny so was it done year by year ..., so (namely) did she vex
her:’ but this use of the passive AWY) is hardly a Hebrew idiom.
Probably we should read with Pesh. (Léa Jeax.), Vulg. (implicitly)
ΓΝ 12} ‘and so used she (Peninnah) Δ do year by year... , so
(namely) used she to vex her:’ in this case the second }2 is simply
resumptive of the first.
mows now] year for year, i.e. one year like another= yearly. So
elsewhere, aS 1 Ki. 10, 25.
andy] LXX, Vulg. any.
nzani| The narrative of the particular year, 42, is resumed here
with the historical tense, though of course the practice, described
4>—78, must be understood to apply to it as well.
boxn ΝΟ] More significant than the normal ἐ ΠΌΣΩΝ dy would
have been, and emphasizing the continual condition in which
Hannah was: see Zenses, δὲ 30, 42 8, 85 Obs. So naan v. rob.
8. 325 yw] Cf the yr 3d (sad heart) of Pr. 25, 20 and the
opposite 319 said of the heart ch. 25, 36 (where see note): also the
ΝΠ ὩΣ of Gen. 40, 7. Neh. 2, 2. LXX τύπτει σε for YT, 1.6. 33",
but unsuitably (see 24, 6. II 24, 10).
9. mbox] the inf. cstr. with the fem. termination, as regularly
with AN, ΠΩΣ, and with this word in Jer. 12, 9, the Priests’ Code,
and Ezekiel; also sporadically with other words? (cf. inyows Is. 30,
Sic 1 Sam. 1, 6:’ and he quotes the phrase ys ὧδ BES ducta fuit super
aemulatione, i.e. altert uxort fuit adtuncta, and refers also to \1735 in Lev.
18,18. (Similarly in the Anzmadversiones Philologicae et Criticae ad varia
loca V. T. (1709), on this passage: reprinted in the Opera Minora, 1769, p. 166.)
1 See Journal of Philology, ΧΙ. (1882), 235 f.
10 The First Book of Samuel,
10; mpd Dt. 11, 22): and with the suffix omitted, as also takes
place exceptionally (e.g. c#. 18, 19. Gen. 24, 30. 1 Ki. 20, 12). Deas
(so LXX) is, however, what would be naturally expected—the suffix
referring to the party generally, in spite of Hannah’s not joining
with them.
nh] Very anomalous, being the only example of an inf. abs.
after a preposition’: contrast 1 Ki. 13, 23 ‘"NN) ond wos sins
wminw. LXX for Anw “nxt has καὶ κατέστη ἐνώπιον Κυρίου, i.e.
um "pb ΝΠ (cf. 26. το, 19), which forms an excellent intro-
duction to what follows, and is preferred to MT. by Th. We. Klo.
K6nig also (p. 537) admits that the text is suspicious.
3] The ptcp. describes what Eli was doing at the time when
Hannah appeared where he was.
το. WE: nw] Cf. 2 Ki. 4, 27 nd ΠῚ nwEn: Job 27, 2 ἃ]. The
expression implies a state of mental embitterment, i.e. disappoint-
ment, dissatisfaction, discontent (Jud. 18, 25. ch. 22, 5).
by] for the more usual 5x, which is read here by several MSS.
There is a tendency, however, in these two books to use by and 5x
interchangeably: comp. v. 13. 2, 11. IL 19, 43: also 1 Ki. 9, 5».
20, 49. Is, 22; τῶ}; andisee Θ᾽) Γ΄» 19.
11. ANIN ANT ON] The expression of a condition is often em-
phasized by the addition of the inf. abs.: see on 20, 6; and exactly
as here, Nu. 21, 2.
ΓΦ] the pf. with waw conv. carrying on the impf. ANN,
according to Zenses, ὃ 115 s.v. ON. So Ex. 19, 5%. 23, 22° etc.
ynno| Here the pf. with waw conv. marks the apodosis: 10.
δ τοῦ So 20, 6; Ex. 19, 5. 25, 22). etc.
ym py 55 γ 0 ΛΠ] LXX has καὶ δώσω αὐτὸν ἐνώπιόν σου δοτὸν
ἕως ἡμέρας θανάτου αὐτοῦ" καὶ οἶνον καὶ μέθυσμα οὐ πίεται. This is
probably an amplification of the Hebrew text, by means of elements
1 It occurs, however, though even then rarely, as the object of another verb
(Ew. § 240*).—Ewald, in his explanation of this passage ὃ 339”, appears to
have read 52x (as some MSS. and Edd. do read, though against the Massorah).
On Ex. 32, 6, which might be thought, perhaps, to afford a parallel to the text,
see Ew. § 351°; and comp. below, ch. 25, 26. 33.
I, 10-14. 11
borrowed from Nu. 3, 9. 18, 6. 6, 3 designed with the view of
representing Samuel’s dedication as more complete.
12. mm] As a frequentative sense is here out of place, this
must be the perf. with simple waw, in place of the normal ‘7,
such as is met with occasionally, as 3, 13. 4, 19. 10,9. 17, 38.
48. 25, 20 (and more frequently in later Hebrew): see Zenses,
§ 133.
bbannd mnain] lit. dd much in respect of praying, i.e. prayed
long or much: cf. Is. 55, 7 mpd nay *3 = for he will abundantly
pardon, Ex. 36, 5. Ψ. 78, 38. So Sow mwpn thou hast done hardly
in respect of asking = thou hast asked a hard thing 2 Ki. 2, 10;
xy25 393m’ = come in stealthily II 19, 4; nad mean = fled secretly
Gen. 31, 27; nod swn xb = shall not come back τ Ki. 13, 173
mind nap Ferg, ras nid ἸΠΠΣῚΡ I was beforehand in fleeing =
I fled betimes Jon. 4, 2: Ges. § 142. 2.
"10w] observed, in the sense of marked—not a common use of
“vw, at least in prose: comp. Ψ. 17, 4. Job 39, 1. Zech. 11, 11.
13. Sn] For the pron. (which is unusual, as thus joined with
the indef. ptcp.) cf. Dt. 31, 3. Jos. 22, 22: Tenses, ὃ 199 note.
mad ὃν na] not, of course, as Is. 40, 2 al. in the sense of
consoling, but, the pron. being reflexzve, as snd bx nad in Gen. 24,
45=to speak /o oneself (where LXX likewise render by ἐν, so that
there is no ground for changing here by into 3). Comp. 125 Sy oN
(followed of course—the verb being "»X—by the words supposed
to be said) 27, 1. Gen. 8, 21 (We.). It is another instance of
by=OK.
your NO] not Yow xd, in agreement with the continuance ex-
pressed by the preceding ptcp. ΓΜ,
’5 awn] as Gen. 38, 15. Job 33, ro al.
14. »anwn] the } of the 2 fem. sing., retained regularly in Ara-
maic and Arabic, is found in Hebrew only seven times, viz. here,
Jer. 31, 22. Is. 45, 10. Ruth 2, 8. 21. 3, 4. 18 (Stade, § 553).
poyn] JSrom upon thee—the wine (in its effects) being conceived
as clinging to her, and weighing her down. Comp. for the idiom
(applied literally) 17, 39. Gen. 38, 19 al., and (metaphorically)
12 ~The First Book of Samuel,
Am. 5, 23: also Jud. 16, 19 yoy ind DY (in allusion to the hair
as the seat of Samson’s strength).
15. ΠῚ ΠΦΡ] The exact expression does not occur besides :
upon the analogy of ab WP Ez. 3, 7 it would denote hard-spirtted,
i.e. obstinate, unyielding. LXX ἡ σκληρὰ ἡμέρα, i.e. OF np, which
is supported by Job 30, 25 where O}' ‘wp is used in the sense which
is here desiderated, viz. ufortunate, lit. hard of day, i.e. one upon
whom times are hard (cf. δυσημερία). So Th. We. Hitzig (on Job /.c.).
wp3| 1.6. the emotions and desire, of which in Hebrew psycho-
logy the ‘soul’ is the seat: cf. ψ. 42, 5; also 102, 1. 142, 3 which
illustrate at the same time "MY v, τό.
16. byda-ma 50] “0 17) means 20 make ὑπίο, "3 Ind 10 treat as
(Gen. 42, 30. Ψ. 44, 12): "p> [ΠΣ means elsewhere 20 set before
(τ Ki. 9, 6) or fo give up before (Dt. 2, 31. 33)—neither sense,
however, being suitable here. If the text be correct, ΒΟ must
have the force of Ze, which it also appears to possess in Job 3, 24
(parallel with 3); 4, 19 (Ew. Del. Hitz.). LXX express simply
byba-nad.
ΠΣ] LXX ἐκτέτακα, paraphrasing.
17. Nw] for πον (unusual), Ges. ὃ 23. 3.
18. mp1] LXX adds καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ κατάλυμα αὐτῆς, 1.6. NO
doubt, as We. rightly perceived, M3297 NAM (see 9, 22)—LXX
having incorrectly treated the 7 Zocale as the suffix of the 3 pers.
sing. fem. The now) was a chamber near the mn 5597, as in 9, 22
near the ΠΣ, in which the sacrificial meals were held. In later
times the word denotes the chambers in the Temple Court in
which the priests lived: Jer. 35, 2. 4. Ez. 40, 17 etc.
ΓΒ] O25 of a vexed or discontented countenance, as Job 9, 27
ΠΩ) ‘ID ΠΕΙ͂Ν NY ANIWN OX ON. LXX understood the
word in its ordinary sense, reading (or paraphrasing) TW 58) nd
mp (Gen. 4, 6).
20. It is doubtful if the text is in its original form. We should
expect (cf. Gen. 30, 22 f.) the ‘remembering’ to be followed imme-
diately by the conception, and the date which in the text as it
stands fixes the time of the conception, to fix rather the time of
I. 15-20. 13
the birth. Hence Reifmann (Or Boger, Berlin, 1879, p. 28) sup-
poses a transposition to have taken place, and would restore the
words ΠῚ ANN) to the beginning of the verse: ‘And Hannah con-
ceived ; and it came to pass, at the coming round of the new year,
that she bare a son.’ So in effect LXX (καὶ συνέλαβεν, καὶ ἐγενήθη
τῷ καιρῷ τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν), but without the retention of man,
which is desiderated by Hebrew style (ΠῚ alone being too light
by the side of the long clause following).
ὉΠ nippnd] lit. at the comings round of the days, i,e. not (as
Th. Ke.) at the end of the period of gestation, but like A2wn naypn
Ex. 34, 22 at the coming round of the new year, when the Feast of
Ingathering (73.) was held, which is no doubt the occasion of the
pilgrimage alluded to in v. 21. DY" as vv. 3. 21. Ὁ of time as
ΠΡ τ τ ΚΊ 20, °225:26. 2. ΘΓ: 24, 259} 5) Π narpnd,
Sin] The current etymologies of this name cannot be accepted.
This is evident at once in the case of the old derivation, which still
lingers in the margin of AV., ‘that is, Asked of God, as if bw
were contracted from PNA) Ny: for such a contraction would be
altogether alien to the genius of the Hebrew language. What the
writer means to express must be (as often in the OT.) an asson-
ance, not an etymology, i. e. the name Seow recalled to his mind
the word Sw asked, though in no sense derived from it. So "ἢ or
nwt, for instance, recalled or suggested the verbs mp 20 ge/, and
mw Zo draw out, though the names do not themselves segnzfy
either ‘gotten’ or ‘drawn out. What, however, is the actual
meaning of the name Sxyow? When the explanation ‘asked of
God’ was seen to be untenable, an attempt was made to bring the
name into some sort of connexion with the text by the suggestion
that it was = Denny, and signified ‘heard of God.’ Had this,
however, been the writer’s intention, we should have expected the
word fear to occur somewhere in the narrative, which is not the
case. But there are even more serious objections to this derivation.
(1) Had this been the true account of the name, the δὲ rather than
the y would have been naturally the letter elided: an original
PN would have given rise to νεροῦ (on the analogy of DNyIOw)
14 The First Book of Samuel,
rather than to DNIOU 1, (2) Compound proper names in Hebrew
are constructed, for the most part, after particular types or models:
thus one large class consists of one of the sacred names followed by
a verb in the perfect tense (the last vowel only being lengthened,
after the analogy of substantives), as IIR, yn", YPN, VRAIN, ie.
£1 (or Fah) has given, El (or Fah) has known. Another class is
similarly compounded, but the verb stands first, as ()7930, bam,
Fah (or £l) has been gracious, (yraay, PNY, Yah (or El) has
helped. na third (less numerous) class the verb still stands first,
but is in the imperfect tense, as benny El hath mercy, (3) Tat Lah
hearkeneth. ‘There are, of course, other types, which need not
however be here considered. But numerous as are the proper
names compounded of one of the sacred names and a verb, ¢here
are none, or next to none, compounded with a passive participle.
Obvious as such a form as Jdlessed or helped or redeemed of Fah
might appear to be, it was uniformly discarded by the Hebrews.
In proper names, the passive participle is used only by itself. We
have 92 and ues for instance, but δ 53 or WRIT, not M312 ;
an, say or ΟΠ ΘΙ, not! MTT ; we have not only maby and mint
(or nm), but also ΘΟ) and ὍΝ not however byeon) ; we have
Qymynw and ON? (also ΠΝ but not dxyrow. There i is 20
name in the OT. formed analogously to a presumable Syn
heard of God*; and the fact that this type of compound name was
studiously avoided by the Hebrews is practically conclusive against
the proposed derivation.
The derivation suggested by Gesenius, basa = ‘Name of God,’
1 In ΝΣ) 1 Ch. 7, 6 al. even the x is not elided.
3. ἘΠῚΡ only possible exception would be DNA Gen. 4, 18, if this mean
‘smitten of God,’ which, however, is far from certain : following the Qri, we
may vocalize δ ἸΤῸ, which would agree with the LXX Μαιήλ, ie. ‘God is
a life-giver’ (Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, p. 128). But, in any case, an
archaic name such as this has no appreciable bearing upon the usage of the
language in historic times. With ac¢zve participles, there occur the compounds
G)avnbwn 1 Ch. 9, 21. 26, 1. 2. 9; and the Avamaic xan ‘God is a
deliverer? Neh. 3, 4al.; and "3 ΤῸ ‘God is a benefactor’ Neh. 6, το (in
Gen. 36, 39 the name borne by the wile of an Edomite king).
1. 20-23. 15
is as obvious as it is natural. It is suitable and appropriate in
itself’; and the form of compound which it implies is in exact
agreement with ΚΌΨΕΙ ‘Face of God,’ Dyan ‘Friend of God,’ as
well as (probably) Deana ‘Majesty of God,’ and bso « Warmth of
God.’ The ὦ is of course the old case-termination (Ges. ὃ go. 3),
retained as a binding-vowel, both in the instances cited, and also
occasionally besides: e.g. in novann ‘Man of the weapon,’ and
DNwANID 2 ‘Man who belongs to God.’ It is remarkable that Keil,
when the circumstances are so clear, should adhere to the inter-
pretation a Deo exauditus.
5] For the omission of sayzng cf. Gen. 4, 25. 32, 31. 41, 51-523
Ex, 8...
21. wn] Used similarly Gen. 19, 9. Ex. 11, 3. Nu. 12, 3.
Jud. τῇ; 5. 1 Wi. 12,28. Est. ὃ... 4s
nD nat] so 2, 19: also 20, 6 of an annual family festival.
22. δ) y] Cf. Jos. 6, το. Jud. τό, 2: also 11 το, 5 (Zenses, ὃ 115
5.0. “Ty).
3) ΠΝ] = 77 the presence of, aS 2, 11. 17.18; Ψ. 16, 10. 21, ἢ.
140, 14; Lev. 4, 6. 17 (7% front of the veil).
23. 127 ΠΝ] LXX, Pesh. express the second person NIT-NN—
in all probability, rightly. ‘There has been no mention in the pre-
ceding verses of any word or promise on the part of God: and
even in so far as it may be supposed to be involved in the wish
expressed by Eli in v. 17, that has been fulfilled already in the
birth of the child. ‘Establish thy word,’ i.e. give it effect, permit
it to be carried out. 35 oYpn is used especially of a person carry-
ing out a command or injunction laid upon him, as 15, 13. Jer. 35,
16; or of Jehovah gving effect 10 His own, or His prophet’s, word,
as 1 Ki. 12,15. Is. 44, 26. Jer. 33,14. LXX, rendering τὸ ἐξελθὸν
ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, use the more formal expression: see e. g.
Nu. 30, 13 ΠΕ ΝΥΝ 55. 32, 24 WYN DD|Y ΝΥ.
1 Comp. the similarly formed Phoenician name 5yanw.
? According to Lenormant, Les origines de [’ histoire (1880, p. 263), a forma-
tion definitely Assyrian, mn in the special sense Ausband is common in Ethio-
pic: in Hebrew, as a living language, it fell out of use, except in the plural,
4
16 The First Book of Samuel,
24. ποῦν omp3] LXX ἐν μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι, Pesh. πο Jos
= wowin Ba (see Gen. 15, 9): no doubt correctly, for (1) the order
nwbw pp is very unusual: (2) only one ἽΒ is spoken of in v. 25.
The change is really only one in the grouping of letters: for in the
older orthography O05 would be written regularly p75 (without "
and without the distinctive final form of the »: cf. on the Siloam
Inscription paynn = D°¥AT: there are also many indications that
the plena scriptio was not in use in the MSS, used by the LXX
translators. See further in the Introduction). For ΠῈΣ with one
term only of the enumeration cf. 16, 20. LXX add after w5wy pa
καὶ ἄρτοις = ond;— probably (We.) from Ex. 29, 23 f.
by] fo Shiloh—after the preceding verb of motion, not αὐ Shiloh
(see 2, 29 foot-note).
sy] Ἴ2Π} AV. RV. ‘and the child was young.’ But this ren-
dering implies that "y3 as predicate expresses more than it does as
subject, which cannot be the case. The words can only be ren-
dered ‘and the lad was a lad.’ It is just possible that this might
be understood—in accordance with the Semitic usage explained on
23, 13—as meaning ‘the lad was what he was—there is no occa-
sion to say more about him;’ but the case is barely parallel to the
other examples of the usage ; and this fact about Samuel would be
so obvious from the narrative in general that it would scarcely
deserve to be madg¢ the subject of a special remark. It is more
probable that the text is in error. LXX express O4¥ WIN: but
this is tautologous, following 248 MT. Τῇ, however, we may follow
LXX in 25>, and assume that the clause before us has been mis-
placed, we may, on the éas’s of LXX (though not expressing it
exactly), restore an intelligible text thus (after bw): "an ns one
may aya ‘by bse ayn ὮΝ Nam,
25. ἸΏ] The subject is not Hannah and Elqanah, but
D’pnwn (We.): see on 16, 4.
26. 3] LXX here and 10. Ὁ, τοῦτος τὸ 8: 1&3, 57-26
render unintelligibly by Ἔν ἐμοί, elsewhere (Pent. Jos.) correctly
by Δέομαι, Δεόμεθα.
ΓΝ} merely an orthographical variation for 3¥ (here only):
1. 24-28. 17
80 nab2 Ex. 15, τι dest; ΠΝ Nu. 22, 33+; MINS Ex. 29, 35 +;
naa Ex. 7, 29. Il 22, 30. p. 141, 8+; nab Gen. 27,97. 11 18,
οἷσι Is. 3, 6 t- f
by] with reference to, regarding (not for); as Is. 37, 21. 33.
28. ‘398 On] ‘et ego vicissim, Job 7, 11’ (Th. from Le Clerc),
cf. ch. 28, 22: IL 12, 13. The so-called ‘D3 correlativum.’
indswr] Smwn is to let a person ask (viz. successfully), i. e. to
grant him his request. So Ex. 12, 36 (the correlative of ask in 3,
22.11, 2, as of the same word here in vv. 17. 27). In the cognate
languages, however, the word by usage acquires definitely the sense
of lend: see Luke 11, 5 Pesh., where it stands for the Greek χρῆσον.
‘9 pyonrdy] ‘all the days for which he shall be (Vulg. fwertt ;
the fut. perf. as Gen. 48, 6: Zenses, § 17), he is granted to (lit.
asked for) Jehovah.’ It is possible that for mm we should read, with
LXX, Pesh. Targ. (though these, as AV., may indeed merely
paraphrase), °F (cf. Gen. 5, 5); but in any case ΝΠ is to be con-
strued with what follows, not (as by LXX) with what precedes.
bw] Cf. 2 Ki. 6, 5 Sixw sim (=Zen/).
The last words of v. 28 must be dealt with in connexion with 2,
118, LXX do not express 1, 28; on the other hand they have
in 2, 112 an addition to MT., which looks like a various recension
of the words not expressed by them in 1, 28>. The two texts may
be compared, by placing one above the other, as is done by We.:
MT. wmambse ΠΡΟ ΠΌΡΟΝ a5 ΠῚ ow annem
LXX Anon Jem min a5 pw sansmy
In the light of the context, LXX deserves the preference. For
in MT. Hannah alone is mentioned as coming up with Samuel to
Shiloh (wv. 24-288: so v. 22 ‘I,’ v. 23 ‘thou’); when the account of
the visit is ended, an unnamed ‘he’ appears as the subject of
wnnw, who finally (2, 118) is resolved into Elqanah. Had EI-
qanah, according to the conception of the writer, been present at
this visit to Shiloh, he would assuredly have been named explicitly
at an earlier stage of the narrative. There is the less ground for
supposing LXX altered arbitrarily the genders at the end, as in
their text Elqanah is already introduced in v. 24; so that the
c
18 The First Book of Samuel,
masc. in v. 28, had the translators had \nnw*) before them, would
have occasioned no difficulty, and given no occasion for a change.
On these grounds there is a strong probability that LXX have
here preserved the original text. Pesh. Vulg. render 1nnw by a
plural verb (as though the reading were ;nnw: comp. Gen. 27,
29. 43, 28>, where the punctuators direct 1nnw" itself to be read
as a plur.): Klo. suggests that nw may be a mutilated fragment
of bsp: but neither of these remedies relieves the real difficulty
of MT., that only Hannah is mentioned (not allusively merely,
but circumstantially) as coming up to Shiloh with Samuel, and only
Elqanah is mentioned (2, 11) as returning from Shiloh to Ramah.
If it be true that 1, 28> MT, is but a variant of 2, 118 LXX, it
will follow that Hannah’s Song is inserted in MT. and LXX in
a different place.
2,1. ΣΡ ΠΡ] The figure is that of an animal carrying its
head high, and proudly conscious of its strength: cf. y. 92, 11.
112, 9; and (in the Hifil) v. ro. Ψ. 75, 5. 6. 89, 18 al, On the
contrary, Jer. 48, 25 AND PIP ΠΡ).
mma (2)] several MSS. W982; so LXX, Vulg. The variation
in the parallel clause is an improvement: cf. ψ. 3, 8% 18, 74. Is.
40, 24°. 40, 5°.
5. "ΔΝ by ‘» am] For these words LXX seem to have read
Β ΔΝ ὃν ann, which may be preferable (We.): the thought
Jnywa ‘nnnw is rather parallel to clause ς (cf. a), than the ground
of it. For the figure Ὁ 3m, cf. ψ. 35; 21. Is. 57, 4—a gesture
of exultation and triumph.
2. Ve] Cf Dt. 32, 4. 18, 18.37; Is. 30; 20; Ζῶ: 2: oo sane
(where the thought also is similar) y. 18, 32; Is. 44, 8
3. natn wan bx] The force of bs extends over the follow-
ing and parallel clause, as Ψ. 35, 19. 38, 2. 75, 6: Nd ψ. 9; 19.
44, τὸ, Job 3, ro al. (Ges. § 152. 3; Ew. § 351°).
wasn yaIn]} the two verbs ἀσυνδέτως, the first verb expressing
a general relation, for which in English an adverb would commonly
be used, and the second, expressing the principal idea of the
sentence, being subordinated to the first for the purpose of
LIT, 1-5. 19
defining and limiting the range of its application: so Jer. 13, 18
yaw yawn shew lowliness sit down=sit down lowly, and frequently
in Hosea: 1, 6 DMIN ‘iy ADIN xd; ΒΡ, Τὶ son Sw hath taken
upon himself, hath walked =hath walked willingly; 6, 4=13, 3
ΡΠ D2wY; 9, 9 nny pnyn; Is. 7, 11 MT. etc. (Ges. ὃ 142. 3);
Ew. ὃ 285). An idiom more common in Syriac (Néld. Syr. Gr.
§ 337) than in Hebrew. In Hebrew the construction noticed on
1, 12 is generally preferred.
ἽΠΠΩ) Ana] ~The reduplication, as Dt. 2, 27 7793 713 in the
way, in the way (and not elsewhere) will I go; τό, 20 ΡῚΝ ΡῚΝ
77N justice, justice (and this alone) shalt thou follow; Qoh. 7, 24.
‘Do not let your words breathe ever (12), and emphatically
(AMA 7733), a spirit of haughtiness.’
pny] Ψ. 75, 6: also 31, 19. 94, 4%.
Tia» So* Job: 36,4 ch ΠΝ Pr. 28, 205 Hid Is. 27, Εἰ:
minan Is. 40, 14 al.; nipon . 49, 4 al.5 non Ψ. 76, 11. Pr. 22,
24. Poetic, amplificative plurals.
midsy yon) ny] No doubt the Qri yb) is here right. ub and
δ, being pronounced alike, were sometimes in error written one for
the other: and in certain cases (though not always), the correction
was made by the Massorah. ‘And by Him actions are /esfed or
estimated’ (viz. by the application of a measure {2 Ex. 5, 18. Ez.
45,11): The: epithet mia? JIA estimaler of hearts is applied to
Jehovah in Pr. 21, 2. 24, 12+, and Ninn f3F 73. τό, 2+; here it
is said that man’s actions are estimated by Him. The argument is:
Do not speak arrogantly: for Jehovah has full knowledge of what
you do, and your actions are thus all appraised by Him.
4. OFM] in the pl. by attraction to n33, because this is the
principal idea, and what the poet desires to express is not so much
that the bows, as that the warriors themselves, are broken. Cf. Is.
21, 17, and Ew. ὃ 3174.
bom ty] Ψ. 18, 33 Sn nn Syn.
5. “MN ἼΜ] lit. even fo the barren—she beareth seven=even the
barren beareth seven. ‘ty recurs in the same sense Job 25, 5 lo,
even the moon, it doth not shine. For TY aN, Reifm. Klo. would
C2
20 The First Book of Samuel,
read Tay 51 Π) cease to toil. ‘The v. is evidently related to Jer. 15, 9
nyayn ΠΡ.» nbdbor : though which is original cannot from a mere
comparison of the two passages be determined. bon as Dt. ἘΠῚ I.
68, Dt. 32, 39 FINN) MDN YN: OP. ψ. 30, 4.
by] continuing the ptcp., as Ψ. 34, 8. 65, 9 etc.: Zenses, ὃ 80.
8@, Hence (with variations) Ψ. 113, 7f—TIn clause @ the main
division is at p\iaN: the two clauses which follow are parallel, the
force of ndm.....9 being dependent on, and determined by,
aennd,—: to make them to sit with nobles, and he will (=and 20)
cause them to inherit,’ etc. So Is. 10, 28. 13, o>. 14, 25. 45, I.
v.05, 22. Prog, 2 alu: ich Lenses) (err.
8b. 1.6. because the earth is owned by Jehovah, and He can
dispose of it, as He will. LXX, however, omits 8», and in lieu of
g? reads διδοὺς εὐχὴν τῷ εὐχομένῳ" καὶ εὐλόγησεν ἔτη δικαίου --- ὙἼ8 yn
7D Opry nwa 42. Apparently this variation represents an
attempt to accommodate the Song more closely to Hannah's
position. But, as We. remarks, it is not in harmony with the
general tenor of the Song (which represents God as granting more
than the desires or expectations of His worshippers).
9. 17] Cf. Jer. 49, 26. 50, 30: also (in Qal) ψ. 31, 18 1127)
bieat,
Io. 99°) 3nn mn] LXX Κύριος ἀσθενῆ ποιήσει τὸν ἀντίδικον αὐτοῦ,
i.e. (cf. 48) Δ nm (cf. Is. 9, 3) for 12) 3AM, which Th. We.
Klo. would restore here. But the change is at least not a necessary
one; the casus pendens (Tenses, § 197. 2) is forcible and very
idiomatic: see p. 10, 5. 11, 4. 46, 5. 89, 3. 90, 10. Is. 34, 3.—
The existing text of LXX after this clause exhibits a long insertion
borrowed from Jer. 9, 23 f?.
bY] The suffix (if MT.13"V) is retained) is to be referred to
individual members of the class 13D, whom the poet, for the
moment, mentally particularizes.
ov... jn] (note the jussive, 07") ‘that he may give,’ etc.
Δ my im] Ψ. 29, τα [πὴ woyd ty”.
1 Comp. the insertion in y. 14, 3 from Romans 3, 13-18.
IT. 6-10. 21
202] So Ψ. 18, 51; bp Ψ. 2, 6.—It is plain that this verse,
at any rate, cannot have been spoken by Hannah, even grant-
ing that the allusion is to the zdeal king. The ideal itself, in a
case like the present, presupposes the actual (notice especially the
expression //7s anointed), and the thoughts of the prophets of
Israel can only have risen to the conception of an ideal king after
they had witnessed the establishment of the monarchy in their
midst. Far more probably, however, the reference is to the actual
king. And indeed in style and tone the Song throughout bears
the marks of a later age than that of Hannah. Nor do the
thoughts appear as the natural expression of one in Hannah’s
position: observe, for instance, the prominence given to ‘the bows
of the mighty are broken:’ and contrast in this respect the
Magnificat (Luke 1, 46-55), where though elements are Jorrowed
from this Song, they are subordinated to the plan of the whole,
and the first thought, after the opening expression of thankfulness,
is ‘For He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmatden’ The
presence of the Song here does not prove more than that it was
attribuled to Hannah at the time when the Books of Samuel were
compiled: indeed, as 115 position in LXX and MT. is not the
same, its insertion may even belong to a later period still. A
sober criticism, while not asserting categorically that the Song
cannot be by Hannah, will recognize that its specific character and
contents point to an occasion of a different kind as that upon
which it was composed. The central thought of the Song is the
abasement of the lofty and the elevation of the lowly, which the
poet illustrates in a series of studied and well-balanced contrasts,
vv. 4-8. On the ground of some humiliation which, as it seems,
has recently befallen his foes, he breaks out v. 1 in a tone of
triumphant exultation, and bids those whose sole thought was how
to magnify their own importance recollect that God’s all-seeing
eye was ever upon them, v. 3. He points vv. 4-8 to the instances
which experience affords of the proud being abased, and the
humble exalted. The poem ends vv, 9-11 with an expression of
confidence for the future. Human strength is no guarantee of
22 The First Book of Samuel,
success. Such as set themselves in opposition to Jehovah and
seek to thwart His purposes only come to ruin: those devoted to
Him are secure. Jehovah judges the earth, and in so doing
designs the triumph of His own anointed king. From the last
words it was inferred by Ewald’, that the poet is a king, who
alludes to himself in the third person. But the tone is national
rather than individual; and Smend? may be right in supposing
it to have been spoken originally in the name of the people, and
intended to depict Israel’s triumph over the heathen and the
ungodly. V. 2 interrupts the connexion; and may not be part
of the original poem: if it be removed, the song will consist of
four equal strophes, of eight lines each.
11. 5y] Several MSS. read 5x. See, however, on 1, 10.
nw» nn] was ministering (during the period with which the
narrative is about to deal): cf. Gen. 37, 2: Tenses, § 135. 5.
13-14. Is what is described here an abuse on the part of the
priests, or a rightful due? V. 15 f. clearly describe an abuse ; and
Di at the beginning, which expresses a climax, shews that v. 13 f.
must describe an abuse likewise (We.). own, therefore, in MT.
will denote merely custom, not right. Probably, however, we should
follow Vulg. in joining 13% to 12>, and LXX, Pesh. Targ. in reading
for DYN NX OAD, OYA ΠΝ jon (cf. on 1, 24): ‘they knew not
Jehovah, nor the right (i.e. the rightful due) of the priest from the
people: “comp: DE. τ. 5 (50 “Ph; We. Ke; Kle:);
WN 55] The constr. is unusual. ΠᾺΐ is to be regarded as a
ptcp. absolute (cf. II 23, 3. Job 41, 18), all men sacrificing =zf, or
whenever, a man sacrificed, etc.; the pred. is then introduced by the
pf. and waz conv. 813}, precisely as, in an analogous case, after DN
(Gen. 31, 8 yo... TDN) DN 27. ever he said... , then the flock
used to bear...: Tenses,§123 8). In other words, nat nar wx b>
is the syntactical equivalent of Mat nat OX wx. The constr. would
be more normal, if wx 59 were preceded by mm}: see Jud. 19, 30;
Ex. 33,7"
1 Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, I. 1 (1866), p. 157 ff.
2 ZATW. 1888, p. 144.
IT. 11-15. 23
bw] the implicit subject is W227: see on 16, 4 and comp.
EEA:
pwn why arom] lit. the prong, the three teeth—a case of appo-
sition ( Zenses, § 188). WY (not nwdw), jw being fem.: cf. wow
DA Nu. 35, 14; O89 Wow Lev. 25, 21. To be sure, in 14, δ
jw’ in the me/aph. sense is masc.; but it is not clear that this is
decisive as to Hebrew usage. IF it is, we must conclude wy to be
an error for nw>w.
14f. Observe how in these verses the tenses are throughout
frequentatives (continuing 13 N3)).
12] can only be rendered sherewith: the Versions express the
sense for himself, which is more suitable, but requires 5 to be read
instead of 12.
15. yup] The } is the original termination of 3 pl. impf.
preserved in classical Arabic (in the zzdzcative mood), Aramaic
(usually), Ethiopic, Phoenician *.
In the OT. it occurs sporadically (305 times altogether), though
the principle regulating its occurrence is difficult to determine. It
is not a mark of antiquity, for, though it occurs seldom in the latest
books, those in which it occurs with greatest comparative frequency
are not (upon any view) the most ancient (56 times in Dt., 37 in”
Isaiah, 15 in 1-2 Kings, 23 in Job, 12 in Genesis, 7 in Numbers,
15 in a single Psalm, 104). Further, while it sometimes abounds
in particular sections (e.g. Gen. 18, 28-32: Joel 2, 4-9), it is
absent from others belonging to the same narrative, or of a similar
character (e. g. 9 times in the Laws, Ex. 20-23, never in the Laws,
Lev. 17-26). From its frequency in Dt., Job, the Book of Isaiah,
and some of the Psalms, it may be inferred that it was felt to be a
fuller, more emphatic form than that in ordinary use, and hence
was sometimes preferred in an elevated or rhetorical style. In
1 Sam. it occurs 8 times—z2, 15. 16. 22 (475). 23. 9, 13 (dzs). 11, 9:
in 2 Sam. once only, not in the narrative, but in the Psalm 22, 39.
wai] LXX rightly ἤρχετο, The pf. with waw conv. appears
LOLS AS, Bua aes
24 The First Book of Samuel,
similarly after p02, though of reiteration in presen¢ time, in Ex. 1,
19> before the midwife comes to them 195% éhey are wont to bear.
16. 28] This should strictly be 128), in accordance with the
other tenses before and after: but Hebrew is sometimes negligent
in such cases to maintain the frequentative tense throughout: see
Jud.n2,5f.5 jer. 6, 27 ; and: Zemses,.§ xa ἢ.
adnan ova pyyp app] ‘Let them durn (emph.) the fat first, and
(then) take,’ etc. The inf. abs. strengthens the verb in a manner
which may often be represented in our idiom by the use of italics.
In o13, the consciousness of HO} is lost, and it is used as a mere
adverb of time, especially to express the present time, as contrasted —
with the future, i.e. (in our idiom) firs of all, first. So Gen. 25;
31 Ὁ ἼΠΣ3 NN ΡΞ WDD seli me first (before I give thee the
pottage) thy birthright, 33. 1 Ki. 22, 5 inquire, I pray, first at the
word of Jehovah. See Ges. Zhes. or Lex. s.v., and We. p. 37 note.
JUD) MNN WN] Similarly II 3, 21 Jwa. mxn Wwe d53, Dt. 14,
26 al. Both 738 (in Piel), and the subst. 738, are rarely used except
in conjunction with wp).
inn any 5 1» ἽΝ] ‘And he would say to him, “Thou shalt
give it me now.”’ With this reading, 15, standing before the direct
narration, is like ὅτι recifativum (e.g. Luke 4, 21), and ἘΣ 9 (con-
stantly), and cannot be represented in English except by inverted
commas: so1o,19 MT. Gen. 29, 33. Jos. 2,24. 1 Ki.1,13. 2 Ki.
8, 13 al. Several MSS., however, for 15 read xb? (so LXX) ‘ And
he would say, No; for (=but) thou shalt give it now’ (cf. 12, 12:
1116,18al.). The latter is more pointed, and deserves the preference.
Targ. here agrees with MT.; Pesh. Vulg. express o/h readings 3,
snmp] The dare perf. in the apod. is uncommon and emphatic:
Tenses, ὃ 136y: Nu. 32, 23. ‘And if not, I take it by force !’
17. ‘29882 93] ‘for the men (viz. Eli’s sons) contemned,’ etc. :
see Nu. 16, 302 ¥% nx ΠΌΝΠ owINT ἸΝΝ 5. OwINA (with the
1 Which is also suggested by the Massoretic note 71D x5: see on 12, 5.
? Similar variations occur in other passages: thus Jos. 5,14 MT. Vulg. Targ.
x5; LXX, Pesh. 15: 1 Ki. 11, 22 MT. Vulg. Targ. 85; LXX 15; Pesh. both.
11. 16-22, 25
art.) denotes men who have been in some manner specified (e. g.
6, το. Ex. 5, 9), not men in general.
19. nndbym... mwyn] ‘used to make... and bring up:’ Gen.
2, 6 ota Ὁ 55 ΠΝ Apwm ndyr ἽΝ.
20. 125M,.. WN)... TI] ‘and Eli would bless ..., and say
., and they would go to his place.’
Ὁ] LXX ἀποτίσαι, i.e. pew make good: cf. Ex. 21, 36 (likewise
followed by nnn). With MT. cf. Gen. 4, 25 (nw). 45, 7.
byw] Difficult syntactically. As the text stands, the subj. can
be only the implicit oxiia (see on 16, 4) ‘which he that asked
asked ’=which was asked: but the passage is not one in which
this impersonal construction would be naturally in place. Either,
with We., we must point as a ptcp. pass. ony (see-z, 28: the
masc. ad sensum, the ndxw being Samuel), or we must suppose that
Sxw is an error for APN (‘in lieu of the petition which she asked for
Jehovah’). The former gives the better sense, though "ws with a
bare ptcp. is not very common (Dt. 1, 4. 1 Ki.5,13). If the latter
be right, we must suppose the double reference of bxw to be played
upon: the ‘petition’ which was asked of Jehovah in 1, 17. 27
was also asked for Him. The Versions merely guess: LXX, Pesh.
Vulg. ‘which thou didst lend, unsuitably: Targ. very freely ‘which
was asked from before Jehovah.’
wrpnd 105m] ‘and ¢hey went to Azs place’ is not in accordance
with Hebrew style. LXX yorpnd wn ἼΡΠΙ : Pesh. nrpnd yabm.
Either of these readings may be original: but probably We. is right
in concluding yoypind sm to be the original reading: in MT. the
verb was read as a plur. and so became idm, LXX treated it as a
singular, and supplied ‘the man.’
21. ἽΡΞ ‘3| obviously cannot be right: the fact that Jehovah
visited Hannah cannot form the ground of what is related in v. 20.
Read, with LXX, Pesh. (and AV. implicitly) : IPE, 3 and } are
confused elsewhere: 6. ρ΄. Is. 39, Ὁ yow, for which LXX, Pesh.
and the parallel in 2 Ki. 20, 12 have rightly yow 3; and Jer. 37, 16
where δὲ 2 3 is evidently an error for NI" (LXX καὶ ἤλθεν).
22. yows] as 1,3: ‘and he heard from time to time’ (Dr. Weir).
26 The First Book of Samuel,
“ἢ own ΠΝ] See Ex. 38, 8. The entire clause (from ἼΩΝ ns)
15 not found in LXX, and is probably not part of the original text
(the context speaks of a 55m with doors, not of an ὈΠῸΝ : 1, 9.
3, 3. 15). ΓΊΝΣΝΠ, both here and in Ex., is paraphrased in Targ.
Pesh. who prayed (or who came to pray): Vulg. renders here guae
observabant, in Ex. quae excubabant. But Ny is used often pecu-
liarly in the ritual legislation of the Pent. (the ‘ Priests’ Code’) of
the service of the Levites about the Tent of Meeting; and Ex. 38, 8
and here expresses the performance of menial duties by the women.
In the fragments of a Targum published by Lagarde (Prophetae
Chaldaice, 1872, p. xiv) from the margin of the Cod. Reuchl., there
appears an endeavour to palliate the sin of Eli’s sons (as described
in the existing Hebrew text): x’w2 9229p mn’ yawns ny :[4]ns []ΒῸ
axbyd NNT [VII (delayed the women’s offerings). Comp. Bacher,
‘On the Targum to the Prophets, in the ZDM/G. 1874, p. 23.
ἽΝ bay] the Tent of Meeting. The sense in which typ was
understood is explained in Ex. 25, 22. 29, 42.
23. 1 we] ‘for that, in that (18, 15. 20, 42) I hear the ac-
counts of you (as) evil, from’ ete. on, not ny, like Ay ὉΠ
Gen. 37, 2; ΠῚ ΚΝ ΠῚ nat Nu. 14, 37; Noo pond iba» Ezek. 4, 13
(a ¢ertiary predicate). If the text be correct, we must suppose NN
Ὁ 05°93 to have been inserted by the writer in the relative clause
for greater definiteness: cf. 2 Ki. 23, 26 (188). Is. 54, 9 (uncom-
mon). But LXX do not express the words, and it is true that
the sense seems to be sufficiently plain without them.
nbs oyn 55 ΓΝ] ‘from all the people, (even) these” An un-
paralleled juxtaposition *, Why not ΠῚΠ oyn b> ΓΝ, as uniformly
elsewhere? LXX have πάντος τοῦ λαοῦ Kupiov, whence We., re-
marking that in a later time pds was apt to be substituted for
mm (e.g. 2 Ch. 10,15; 18, 5; 22,12; 23, 9 compared with 1 Ki.
12, 15. 22,6; 2 Ki. 11, 3. 10), would restore min’ oy 52 ΠΝ (cf.
1 The note in Ges. § 111. 2” is inexact and misleading: a student reading it
would have no reason to suppose that 75x Dyn->)—the noun with, the pron.
without, the art.—was not a common and perfectly permissible construction.
IT, 23-25. 27
v. 24 end). This, however, leaves the article in Oyn unexplained :
perhaps it is simpler to suppose that nbs (once, no doubt, written
bx, as still eight times in the Pent., and 1 Ch. 20, 8 and in Phoe-
nician ') has arisen by dittography from the following by.
24. ‘0. ἼΦΝ] ‘which I hear Jehovah’s people to be spreading.’
So already Rashi, comparing Ex. 36, 6 mInD3 Sip mvayy. Else-
where, it is true, where this idiom occurs, it is accompanied by an
indication of the locality 7 or ¢hrough which the proclamation is
‘made to pass’ (as Ex. /c¢.; 2 Ch. 30, 5 Synw boa; 36, 22 Ce
Hzr , ¥)} Ear: fo, 73 Neh. 8, 18: Lev. 25; 9 $55 Sew Wyn
noyoN): but the alternative rendering (AV. RV.) ‘(Ye) make the
people of Israel 10 ¢ransgress’ is doubly questionable: (1) BMX is
desiderated after n'y (see on 6, 3); (2) 7ay, when it signifies
to transgress, is always followed by an accus. of the law or precept
‘ overpast,’ e.g.” ἸῈ NN 15, 24. Nu. 14, 41; nn Is. 24, 5 (comp.
the Commentators on Ψ. 17, 30), and in the Hif. does not occur in
this sense at all. The case is one, however, in which the integrity
of the text is reasonably open to suspicion.
25. ‘If a man sinneth against a man, God will mediate for him: |
But if a man sin against Jehovah, who can intercede for him?’
I.e. For an offence of man against man, God may interpose and
arbitrate (viz. through His representative, the judge): for an offence
against Jehovah, there is no third party able to do this. For ὈΠῸΝ
as signifying, not the judge as such, but the judge as the mouthpiece
of a Divine sentence, see Ex. 21, 6. 22, ἢ ἴ. : and comp. 26. 18, τύ,
where the judicial decisions given by Moses are described as the
‘statutes and laws of God. Ideas parallel to this occur among
other ancient nations; comp. Sir Henry Maine’s Ancient Law,
ch. i, and the expression applied to judges in Homer: οἵτε θέμιστας
Πρὸς Διὸς eipvara (Il. 1. 239). The play between bbe fo mediate (see
Ψ. 106, 30 bp.) pnp Wy, where PBV. ‘and frayed’ is quite false),
and dbann vo tnterpose as mediator, specially by means of entreaty
1 (75. 3, 22 5x DwipT 02x these holy gods; 14,5 5x nim these offerings ;
93, 3 ΝΠ ΟΠ these images.
28 The First Book of Samuel,
(Gen. 20, 17), cannot be preserved in English. The idea of media-
tion or arbitration appears in other derivatives (rare) of bb; as
pbs Ex. 21, 22. Dt. 32, 31; nbvdp Is. 16, 3. In ipa the suffix
must have the force of a dative, for him (Ges. ὃ 121. 4; Ew.
§ 315»); but probably, with We., boas should be pointed: the plur.
would be in accordance with the construction of ods, as thus
applied, in Ex. 22, 8b.
The general sense is well expounded by We. (after Ew. ΔΖ 1. ii. 581
[Eng. Tr. 412]): For the settlement of ordinary cases arising
between man and man, there is a bbe (arbiter), viz. Elohim (speak-
ing through His representative, the judge): if, however, Jehovah is
the plaintiff, He cannot also (as Elohim) be the DBD, As the priest
in point of fact is the judge, this means—the play between ‘Jehovah’
and ‘Elohim’ being disregarded: ‘the sin of the priest against
God cannot be adjusted before the tribunal of the priest, but incurs
the direct vengeance of Heaven.’
wow ΝΟ] See on 1, 7.
1 yn 3] Cf. Jud. 13, 23. Grotius (quoted by Th.) illustrates
the thought from Aeschylus (a. Plato, Rep. ii. 380 A):
θεὸς μὲν αἰτίαν φύει βρότοις
Ὅταν κακῶσαι δῶμα παμπηδὴν θέλει.
26. ay da 95a] 113, 1 ody odin... prm ΡΥ (which shews
that 31D) 5) are the verbal adj. and adj. respectively): Ex. 19, 19.
py]. as 22>: cf. Luke 2, 52:
27. ΤΌ) ndaan] i.e. ‘Did I reveal (on v. 16) myself to the house
of thy father, or not, that ye, his descendants, have thus scorned
me?’ An impassioned question, not to be weakened by treating
as though it were = Non,
“ἢ ona] MT. ‘when they belonged in Egypt / the house of
Pharaoh. But this is unnatural; and it can hardly be doubted
that O'2Y has dropped out after A YD, corresponding to LXX
δούλων (cf. Targ. 5 paynwi). Comp. Lev. 26, 13..Dt. 6, 21.
28. WMD] Ges. ὃ 131. 42: Ew. ὃ 351°
mibyd] is naturally Qal (Sept. Pesh. Vulg. Ke. Klo.), though it
might be Hif. (Targ. Th.) for mibynd (comp. v. 33. II 19, 19 ~ayd;
IT, 26-29. 29
Ex..13, 21 onnad ; Nu. 5, 22 bay, may); Dt. 1343 nonwb : 26, 20
Ἵν) ; however, as the contraction is not common (about twenty
instances altogether in MT.*), and there is nothing here to suggest
or require the Hif., the latter is less probable. 70 go wp upon the
altar, i.e. upon a ledge beside it, as Ex. 20, 26; 1 Ki. 12, 33;
2 Ki. 16, 12 end; 23, 9: conversely, 11° is used of coming down
from it, Lev. 9, 22: cf. x Ki. 1, 53.
29. }\yd] jy Aadctation, except in the late passage 2 Ch. 36, 15,
hardly occurs in prose ; and the locative sense ‘ in my habitation’
would demand ‘3131232, B6. suggests ingeniously ἦν DNS, i.e.
(Why kick ye at..., which) I have commanded them, zzguifously ?
But the adverbial use of ἢν, though it might occur in poetry (Ew.
§ 279°), is not probable in prose. LXX, rendering yan ἐπέβλεψας
(i.e. (2.35), and py ἀναιδεῖ ὀφθαλμῷ, read evidently py (ἀναιδεῖ being
added for the purpose of explaining the sense in which ὀφθαλμῷ
was to be understood); but this has nothing to recommend it.
nyo does not admit of being construed in accordance with the
ordinary rules of Hebrew syntax: but the error is too deep-seated
for a restoration to be proposed with any confidence.
1 To those given in the text add II 18, 3 Kt. 1395; 2 Ki. 9, 15 Kt. 15;
Is. 3, 8 nb; 23, 11 7OWd; 29, 15 1NDd; 33, I (corrupt) N93; Jer. 27, 20
ynvoaa; 37,12 pod; 39, 7 8929; Am. 8, 4 maw); yp. 26, 7 yNw2; 73, 20 (Ὁ)
ὍΔ; 78, 17 nod. Pr. 31,3 n1m09; Dan. 11, 35 7399. Qoh. 5, 5 symm).
Neh. Io, 39 "ya. 2 Ch. 31, 10 Ν᾽). (In some of these instances the text
may be doubtful, or the punctuation as Hif. unnecessary.) Comp. in the Nif.
nip) Ex. το, 3. iowa Pr. 24, 17. nDya Lam. 2, 11. 13x} Job 33, 30; and (as
pointed) nixy) Ex. 34, 24. Dt. 31, 11. Is. 1, 12; also 1973 Ez. 26, 15.
* ma (absol.) never means ‘27 the house:’ by custom the use of the accus. to
express rest in a place is restricted to cases in which a oun in the genitive
Jollows, as PAR M1, TNT NI, Yona. 850 ΨΥ bax ΠῚ (z. 22), oN ΠῚ
(Ex. 33, 10) af the entrance of his tent: but αὖ the entrance (absolutely) would
be mp3, not mnpm simply. So ὍΝ ΠῚ, Dm>-n’a may denote ‘zz Bethel,’ ‘2
Bethlehem :’ but ‘in Gibeon,’ ‘in Dan’ must be expressed by })¥123, 712 (see
2 Ki. το, 29), Where a word like 15w, Ὁ ΟΥ̓ seems to denote σέ Shiloh, αὐ
Jerusalem, it will be found that a verb of motion always precedes, of which the
subst. expresses the goal: so e.g. 1, 24; II 20, 3; Dt. 3,1; Jud. 21, 12.
Hence wip ψ. 134, 2 is ‘Zo the sanctuary.” (Exceptions to what has been here
said may be found in MT., but they are very rare: e.g. 15, 16, 2. 2 Ch. 33, 20.)
30 The First Book of Samuel,
syd] This again cannot be right. ‘We might easily alter
syd Ssw to soy Sew, but the 5 appears also in ab of LXX’
(We.) Perhaps wd is the true reading ; it is accepted by Hitzig
(on Amos 2, 13).
30. ἸΌΝ WON] = “1 sazd’ (emph.). The intention, which had
afterwards to be abandoned, is emphasized by the inf. abs.
sp ydmn*] Persons are said to walk before God, i.e. to live freely
and undisturbed under His eye, when their manner of life is pleasing
in His sight. The phrase occurs in a neutral sense 12, 2: in
Gen. 14,1. 2 Ki. 20, 3 the thought of the moral condition attaching
to the ”% ‘225 ἼΡΠΠΠ predominates ; elsewhere, as here and v. 35,
Gen. 24, 40. 48, 15, it includes a reference both to the moral con-
dition, and to the prosperity which is its accompaniment. (The
expression is not so strong as pnonn ΠΝ yoann Gen. 5, 22. 24. 6, 9.)
31. “ay O°N2 OM" FIN] A formula occurring besides only 2 Ki. 20,
17 (=Is. 39, 6), and in the prophecies of Amos and Jeremiah.
qv ns ΠΝ] Cf. for the figure Jud. 21, 6 InN Daw DW yt
Syne and Jer. 48, 25 ΠΊΣΦΣ {yan aN Mp ny. LXX vocalized
Wt; but this by no means agrees so well as MT. 1 with the
figure implied in ‘ny33. Yt metaph. of s/rength, as Job 22, 8 YN)
yin yr; Ψ. ro, 15 yer yr aw; 83, 9.
32. piv ἽΝ] Another corrupt passage. RYV. ‘the affliction of
(my) habitation :’ but (1) the suffix (or article) cannot be dispensed
with except in a distinctively poetic style, (2) jy does not occur
absolutely of Jehovah’s dwelling-place until 2 Ch. 36,15; the ex-
pressions in use are JN) pyo Ψ. 26, 8, or (more usually) pyd
ΟΥΦῚΡ (so Dt. 26,15). Bé. suggests MY ἫΝ ‘and thou shalt look
for a rock of defence:’ but O35 with an accus. is not to look for
something non-existent, or not visible, but to look αὐ, or behold,
something actually in view.
ἜΦΝ 593] lit. ‘in the whole of (that,) as to which.. .’=‘in all
wherein...” “wy 553 is commonly followed by a verb of motion,
as 14, 47, in which case it = wherever.
ns ao] wo with a personal object is usually construed with
S or ny (Gen. 12, 16; 32, 10, 13 al.): the construction with an
IT. 30-35. 21
accus. is chiefly Deuteronomic (Dt. 8, 16. 28, 63. 30,5; so Jer. 18,
$0.32; 40. 41: also Zech, 8,15. y. 51,26).
33. ‘ Yet one I will not cut off belonging to thee from mine altar,’
etc. 9) is the dat. of reference, as often in similar phrases: 1 Ki.
Bo AiO ,sGs 14, 10. 21; 27 al.
4 nib] Cf. Lev. 26, 16 (certain diseases) ΠῚ Dy ἜΣ
wer; Dt. 28, 65 wea pasty Dy 055.
and] for and (on v. 28), from [34N]=3N4. A4N, however, is
not substantiated elsewhere, in either Hebrew or the cognate lan-
guages: it is probable therefore that δὲ is merely an error for ἢ],
and that WIT (corresponding to na in Lev. /.c.) should be
restored. Cf. Jer. 25, 3 D'DWN for D'Dwn.
qwp),.. Ty] The wx, no doubt, is Abiathar, who escaped the
massacre of the priests ch. 22, was David’s faithful attendant during
his lifetime, but was removed from the priesthood by Solomon, and
banished by him from Jerusalem, on account of the part taken by
him in the attempt of Adonijah to secure the throne (1 Ki. 2, 27).
If MT. be right, the reference must be to the father, supposed to be
conscious of the fortunes of his descendant, and suffering with him.
Such a sense, however, seems to be one which is scarcely likely to
have been in the writer’s mind (contrast Job 14, 21); LXX read
wp)... 2p, the pronouns referring to Abiathar himself, the end
of whose life was passed in disappointment and vexation, This
appears to be preferable (so We. Th. Klo.).
many] the zncrease (viz. generally, so far as none are specially
exempted). Or, perhaps, as 1 Ch. 12, 29, che greater part.
ΟΝ Ini] ‘will die as men’ (=in the flower of their age, AV.),
Dw3s being an (implicit) accus., defining their condition at the time
of dying. So Is. 65, 20 ny AW AND 13. will die as a man 100
years old; Lev. 20, 20 (Zenses, ὃ 161. 3). But, though the gram-
matical construction is unexceptionable, DWN does not signify
adul/s, in contradistinction to men of any other age; and LXX
has ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ ἀνδρῶν ; in all probability therefore a word has fallen
out in MT., and ΣΝ 373 should be restored.
35. Δ᾽ wN>] for the expression, cf. 14, 7. II 7, 3. 2 Ki, 10, 30.
32 The First Book of Samuel,
The clause is attached to what precedes somewhat abruptly ; but a
similar abruptness may be observed sometimes in the Books of
Samuel: e.g. 9, 67; 19, 5 NOWN) NN.
ΠΝ ΓΔ] Cf. 25, 28 (the hope expressed by Abigail).
35>. mw] The passage like 2, 10 presupposes the establish-
ment of the monarchy (5 mw: 16,6; 24, 7. τι etc.). The
original prophecy must have been re-cast by the narrator, and in
its new form coloured by the associations with which he was himself
familiar. The meaning is that the faithful priest will enjoy the
royal favour continually.
36. “a mn] lit. ‘and it shall be, as regards all that are left
(=whoever is left) in thy father’s house, he shall come’ etc. The
construction exactly resembles Dt. 20, 11; Il 15, 35: and. without
5, Nu. 17, 20 (cf. 06, 7); 1 Ki.19,a7. The force of $5 is similar
to that in v. 13. Instead of δὴ) the sentence might with equal
propriety have been resumed by the pf. and waw conv. 82): see
Nu. 21, 8; Jud. 11,31: the construction with the impf. is, however,
somewhat more flowing, and less formal.
ὩΓΒΌ] MAD is Zo affach: 26, 19. Is. 14,1 apy’ ma by ἸΠΒΌΝῚ:
Job 30, 7 Pu‘al (=to cling together).
The interpretation of the entire passage, from v. 31, is difficult.
In MT. two troubles are threatened to Eli, (1) a sudden disaster
311, 33, from which few will escape of his entire family (JAN ΠῚ
v. 31): (2) a permanent weakening of his family (32> ‘no old man
in thy house continually’). No doubt in 312. 33 the allusion is to
the massacre of the priests at Nob (22, 17-20): and Abiathar
himself is the one alluded to in 338, who escaped the massacre,
and so was not ‘cut off’ from the altar, continuing to hold the
office of priest under David, and only superseded by Zadoq (the
faithful priest of v. 35) upon the accession of Solomon. The
1 This sense of the figure seems to be demanded by the @mz¢tation which
follows in 33° (Yet one I will not cat off to thee from mine altar). V. 33"
cannot be a limitation to 32: for the sparing of a single individual, on a par-
ticular occasion, forms no exception to the permanent weakening of a family.
IT. 35, 36. 33
sign in v. 34 is of course the death of Hophni and Phinehas,
recorded in ch. 4.
But with reference to the passage as a whole, it is difficult to
resist We.’s argument. As the text stands, v. 32 expresses a
consequence Of 31: it deals, however, with something which Eli is to
witness himself: hence 31 must refer to something within Eli’s
own lifetime—which can only be the disaster of ch. 4, in which his
two sons perished. This implies that the survivor in 33 is Ahitub
(14, 3); and that 35 relates to Samuel (so Th.). But the ‘sign’
in 34 is also the disaster of ch. 4: consequently, upon this inter-
pretation, the death of Eli’s sons is a ‘sign,’ not of some occurrence
in the remoter future, but of itself! V.31 must thus refer to
something swbsequent to ch. 4, and so, subsequent also to Eli’s death
(the massacre at Nob, as explained above) : it follows that the text
of 324 cannot be correct,—as indeed was already surmised above,
upon independent grounds. LXX omits both 31 and 32; and
We. supposes that 31 and 32» are but two forms of one and the
same gloss, due originally to an (incorrect) application of 31 to
the disaster of ch. 4. Still, though it is true that 33%, expressing a
limitation of 31, would form a natural sequel to it, it would follow
it somewhat quickly and abruptly; and the omission in LXX is
open to the suspicion of being due to the recurrence of the same
words N°23 jpr in both 31» and 32>. What is really wanted in lieu
of the corrupt words at the beginning of 32 is something which
would lead on naturally to the notice of the permanent weakening
of Eli’s family—which is the point in which 32> advances beyond
31>. Did we possess 328 in its original form, it would yield, we
may suppose, a suitable sequence: 31 would refer to the mas-
sacre at Nob, 32 to the after-history of Eli’s family (comp. 36
yma Ani bs), and 33 would revert to the subject of 31 in order
to follow the fortunes of the survivor, Abiathar?.
1 The rendering of AV. ‘an enemy zz my habitation,’ on which Mr. (now
Professor) Kirkpatrick founds his interpretation of v. 32, is simply impossible,
as I am sure, if the Professor were writing a second edition of his Commentary,
D
34 The First Book of Samuel,
3, 1. ἼΡ᾽] precious = rare, as Is, 13, 12 THD WAIN WIN.
yp)| spread abroad = frequent: 2 Ch. 31, 5 7279 O52.
73) aay yy] From here to the end of v. 3 follow a series of
circumstantial clauses, describing the conditions which obtained at
the time when what is related in v. 4 took place.
nin3] fem. pl. from 793, an adj. of the form expressive of bodily
defects pbx, nds, Wy, van. Syntactically the adj. is to be con-
ceived here as an accusative, defining the aspect under which Eli’s
eyes ‘began:’ lit., therefore, ‘began as dim ones’=began to be dim.
Cf. Is. 33, 1 THY JON. when thou finishest as a devastator=when
thou finishest to devastate. See Ges. ὃ 142. 45 Tenses, § 161. 2,
and p. Xvi.
boy nb] expressing his continued inability more distinctly than
ell xd would have done: so Gen. 48, 10; Jos. 15, 63 Kt.
3b. Evidently Samuel was sleeping in close proximity to the
ark—perhaps, in a chamber contiguous to the Som in which it was,
if not, as the Hebrew taken strictly would imply, actually in the
bovn itself.
4. δον dx] LXX dxinw deny, no doubt rightly: cf z. το,
where we read ‘as defore/ime, Samuel, Samuel.’ In v. 6 LXX repeats
the name similarly. The repetition can hardly have been intro-
duced by LXX on the strength of v. 10, for there the name (both
times) is not expressed by them at all!—The only other similar
duplications in OT. are Gen. 22, 11. 46, 2. Ex. 3, 4
5. av aw] ‘return, lie down’= lie down again: cf. Is, 21, 12
WN 32M; and see on 2, 3.
yr) ὉΠ followed by a perfect is very rare: Gi enses, § 27 B vai
os the parallel nba makes it probable that the narrator himself
would have vocalized YT.
8. NIP] was calling: Gen. 42, 23.
to. ΔΨ] Cf. the description of a nocturnal revelation in
Job 4, 16.
he would now admit. yj yn ἋΣ may be rendered indifferently az adversary
or the adversity of (the) habitation: but in either case the expression impera-
tively requires }1p0 to be the odjec¢ of the hostility, or trouble, denoted by 12.
711. 1-73. 35
DYDA DYD3] So 20, 25. Jud. 16, 20. 20, 30. 31. Nu. 24,14;
ἘΞ ays ch. 18, tot; mwa mwd 2 Ki. 17, 4+. DYDD BOYD does
not occur alone; but (on the analogy of Awa ΠῸΦ 1, 7) would
mean one time like another=generally: hence, with 3 prefixed, as
generally, or, aS we may substitute in a case like the present, ‘as at’“~~-“
(other) times.’
11, MWY DIN MN] ‘Lo, 7 am doing=Lo, I am about to“do:’
the ‘futurum instans,’ as often in Divine announcements, 2. 13,
Gen. 6, 17. Ex. 9, 3. Dt. 1, 20. See Zenses, ᾧ 135. 3.
11>, The same figure 2 Ki. 21, 12. Jer. 19, 3 +. In both passages,
the form, from bby, is written more correctly mopyn, With the
form here, cf. 12°2Dh, ny ΡΠ,
12. Ὃν by] LXX ¢ ἐπί, Pesh. Targ. by, Vulg. adversum. Sx with
the force of by,
ina ὉΝ] with reference tohis house: 1, 27. 4, 19.
mp3} bn] ‘beginning and ending,’ i.e. effecting my purpose
mpletely. The expression occurs only here. Construction as
II 8, ΣῪ Ἐν. ὃ 2808, ~
13. 8 paw] Zenses,§ 135. 4) So Jer.1, 12. 38,14 al. In
Aramaic, the pronouns of 1 and 2 pers. coalesce with the ptcp. to
form a new tense with the force of a present: but in Hebrew the
two parts are still distinct, and the ptcp. receives some emphasis
from its position. ied
yr WR ἢ}8] hy is in the constr. state, because the following
relative clause is conceived as defining and limiting its meaning,
exactly as a noun in the genitive would do: Ges. ὃ 116. 2, Ew. § 332°.
ya ond Ὁ ΟΡ 5] The text hardly admits of being construed :
for S5p does not mean /o bring a curse upon any one, and is fol-
lowed not by a dative, but by an accusative. There can be little
doubt that LXX ὅτι κακολογοῦντες Θεὸν have preserved the true
reading, viz. 133 ὈΠῸΝ pddpn 5 (cf. Ex. 22, 27 Spn nd p'nby). If
the text be correct, pnd can only be construed as a reflexive dative
(Ew. ὃ 315%) ‘cursed for shemselves = at their pleasure :’ cf. ψ. 44,
trend; 80,7 125 1395; Job 6, 19 105 np. But this does not yield
a satisfactory sense.
36 The First Book of Samuel,
14. 138] LXX οὐδ᾽ οὕτως (attaching the words to Ὁ. 13), strangely
treating 109, as though contracted from rn. So elsewhere, as
Gen. 4, 15 (also Pesh. Vulg. here); 30, 15 (12? in these passages
has an idiomatic force: cf. on 28, 2). 1 Ki. 22; To: ΚΙ tno
21, 12. 23, 20al. With 14 cf. Is. 21, 14.
15. ‘In MT. 7733 03") (LXX) has been passed over after
Wan We.)
17. 3) Mwy’ 45] A form of imprecation peculiar to Ruth, Samuel,
and Kings: 14, 44. 20,13. 25,22. I1 3, 9.35. 19,14. Ruth 1, 17.
Τ Ki. 2, 23. 2 Ki. 6, 31, and with a 21. verb (in the mouth of
Jezebel and Benhadad) 1 Ki. 19, 2: 20, 10 t.
19. 0) bn nb] For the idiom, cf. (in Qal) Jos. 21, 43. 23, 14.
τ Ki. 8, 56. 2 Ki. το, ro ΠΥῚΝ YTD DEY ND 5, [Ὁ has ἃ parti-
tive force, with a negative=‘aught of:’ cf. Gen. 28, 11 etc.
20. “2 fON2] (was) one accredited or approved to be a prophet unto
Jehovah. (The ptcp., not the pf.)
95] as 1395 πο: Sra: sbnb 15 τον ὙΠ Σ wear
21. ANID] So Jud. 13, 21+, for the normal Nik: Stade, ὃ 6225."
4, 12, This should stand as the concluding clause of 3, 21. ὁ
4,1>—7,1. Defeat of Israel by the Philistines. Capture and
restoration of the Ark.
4, 1», LXX introduce this section by the words Καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν
ταῖς ἡμεραῖς ἐκείναις καὶ συναθροίζονται ἀλλόφυλοι εἰς πόλεμον ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ΞΞΞ
Sew ὃν vrndnd omydp wap onn p12 1. Something of this
sort is required, if only for the sake of explaining the following
nxnpd, though the clause (taken with what follows, in which the
same word occurs) would be the better for the omission of mondid.
ayn yan] yn is in apposction with jaxn. In 5, 1. 7, 12,
however, the form used is ἽΝ Π f3N.
2. won| Perhaps, ‘and spread το abroad’ cf. the Wf. in II 5,
18. 22. LXX ἔκλινεν, 1. 6. seemingly OF) ‘and the battle zzchned’
(viz. in a direction adverse to Israel).
19%] LXX, Pesh. Vulg. 325.
3-5. LXX omit (four times) ΠΥ before Ayn in accordance with
111]. r4—IV, το. 37
the general custom of MT. in Samuel (vz. 6. 11. 17-22; 3, 3;
ch. 5-6; 116 throughout; II 15, 24>. 25. 29 [v. 242 both texts have
it]). Perhaps it was introduced here into MT. at a time when the
expression was in more general use than it had always been.
4. ἘΦ] LXX, Vulg. omit nw—no doubt, rightly. The point is
not that Eli’s sons were at Shiloh, but that they came with the ark
into the camp (v.11). The word may have been introduced ac-
cidentally through a reminiscence of 1, 3 (We.).
5. paxnonny| 2 Ki. τ, 45 APM ann: Ruth τ, 19 Wyn DAM.
ἡ. MN] Not to be omitted (LXX). Though the speakers are
the same as in ἃ, the remark is of a different character: and in
such cases the repetition of "MN is a genuine Hebrew idiom
(We.):. e.g. 26, 9—x0. Il 17, 4-8.
nxta] LXX rovairy—a Hebraism: cf. y. 27, 14 μίαν ; 102, 19.
110, 50. 56 αὕτη ; τὴν μονογενῆ pou= NM Ψ. 22, 21 al.; also Jud.
7,143; Ψ. 32,6; 118, 23 (Matth. 21, 42), notwithstanding the fact
that in these cases there is a subst. in the Greek to which the fem.
might conceivably be referred.
8. ndxn ps7 | ods construed as a pl. in the mouth ofa heathen
(cf. 1 Ki. 19, 2), as also, sometimes, in converse with one, Gen. 20,
13 (Ew. ὃ 318% end). However, this limitation is not universal :
see Gen. 35, 7; Jos. 24, 19 NIT DNTP obs 5 (the plur. of
majesty), II 7, 23 (but see note); . 58, 12 (unless ombs here=
divine beings) ; and in the phrase ὮΝ Π ὈΠῸΝ Dt. 5, 23 al. (Is. 37,
4. 17 ‘NM pdN: in poetry also Ἢ by is used Hos. 2, 1 al.).
nn nbs] Gen. 25, 16 al.: Tenses, § 201. 3.
noo baa] ‘With every manner of smiting, Kp., excellently.
ΤΙΣ is not a ‘ plague,’ though it may be a πληγή, but rather denotes
slaughter, Ὁ. 10. 6, 19. 19, 8.
32702)| Probably #72735 (We.) should be read.
9. on)... 172yN 15] the impf. followed by the pf. with zwaw
cony. as Gen. 3, 22; Ex. 34, 15 f. etc.: see Zenses, ὃ 115.
το. yonnd Ὁ] The versions express yaxd: but in this phrase,
except Jud. 20, 8 (which is not altogether parallel), the plural is
regularly found.
38 The First Book of Samuel,
bay] the sing. as Jud. 12, 6P: cf. on 1, 2.
ban] construed with nox as a collective: so UN FDR, 133 AN, etc.
12. [23 2] = ὦ man of B.: Ew. ὃ 2904 (3).
13. MSD FT (Qri 1) Ὁ] The meaningless 7) is corrected by
the Massorites to 7: but though we have,,, ai 19, 3. ψ' 140, 6
Syms... 7 by II 15,2 7°90 J? by, Jobrr; τὰν es 1 bx
II 14, 30. 18, 4 "pwn bere ao by itself is not used to express
position (though such a use of it would not, it is true, be contrary
to analogy: see on 2, 29 fvot-note). The article also (the passage
being prose) is desiderated with 777: so (1) the smallest change
would be nay Jrtn wd (=Pesh.). (2) LXX has παρὰ τὴν πύλην
σκοπεύων THY ὁδὸν ΞΞ- ἽΠ ADD Ww “01 (cf. Pr. 8, 3 ΠΡΌ τιν and
Nah. 2, 2 ΠΥ ΠΕΝῚ : so We. (3) Targ. has N2D0 ΝΡ Ms was dy
exactly as II 15, 2 (and also 18, 4). This rendering agrees with
LXX in presupposing ‘ gate,’ and would point to ΠΡ Aw I ap)
as the original text. The supposition that sywn has fallen out
would most readily explain the absence of the art. with 777 in MT.
But perhaps the second of the suggested corrections is the best.
15. ΠΡ] wy being conceived as a collective is construed with
its predicate in the fem. szng.: so Dt. 21, 7 ADaw xd Ὧ)5' (Qri
needlessly 125). v.18, 35. 37, 31 TWN TON nd. 73: Σ. ΚΓ ier:
see Ew. ὃ 3172: Ges. ὃ 146.3. The Arabic ‘ broken’ or collective
plural is construed constantly in the same way: Wright, Ar. Gr.,
ii. §§ 144, 146. Dp recurs in the same sense 1 Ki. 14, 4 (of
Ahijah).
16. N37 5) Ν)] Not ‘I am come,’ but ‘I am he that ἐς come’ (ὁ
ἥκων LXX): surmising that Eli would expect some one with news,
the messenger replies that he is the man. Cf. Dt. 3, 21. 8, 18.
Is. 14, 27 (Tenses, § 135. 7).
17. warn] The original sense of the word has been forgotten,
and it is used for a bearer of tidings generally, even though, as
here, the tidings be bad ones.
' It is true that elsewhere LXX render compounds of 1) by ἀνὰ χεῖρα, or
ἐχόμενα : but absolute uniformity is hardly to be expected of them in such a
matter as this, even in one and the same book.
LV 12-21, 39
18. J Iya] LXX ἐχόμενος (cf. on v. 13). We. considers 4) and
ya to be different corruptions of an original 73: however, 1'3
does not occur elsewhere in a sense expressive of locality, like Ὁ,
+ by, 5x. Nor is it rendered probable by analogy: for in the
phrases on the right and left hand 5 and by (as also 2) are used,
but never 3 (not even Ψ. 16, r1—see RV.). Nevertheless, since no
definite position is described by 1ywn 3° (=“he space beside the gate),
it is difficult to understand what "pwr Ἵ" 5y3 can be intended to
denote. y3 55) is commonly 10 fall through 2 Ki. 1, 2 (lit. to fall
away from so as to leave the window or other opening behind).
Should we read simply sywn sya? the meaning will then be that
Eli fell backward through an opening in the gate.
1g. 779] fem. from [73], of the same form as 75°, 75%,
nbd] An isolated example of a contracted form of the inf. nub:
the original (An? becoming exceptionally nd instead of Mb, just as
[AIAN] the fem. of TMX becomes regularly NON and not [ΠΕ]:
Ges. ὃ 69. 2,1. The form, however, in the inf. of verbs 5 is
without parallel; so that in all probability it is a mere transcrip-
tional error for np, the usual form.
by] with reference to, aboul, as Ὁ. 21. Gen. 20, 2. p. 2, 7.
ni] the finite verb by Ges. ὃ 132. 3%. no is, however, the
tense that would be expected (cf. on 1, 12).
may mby y2an2] Dan. 10, τό.
20. ΠῚ AND Hyd)| The predicate, after a time-determination,
being introduced by “1, as happens occasionally: 17, 15. Gen. 19,
Oe. 27940097, 18 al. 5) Lenses, §. 127 8.
nad nnw] Ex. 7, 23. Il 13, 20 al., in the same sense of νοῦν
προσέχειν, animum altendere.
21. N39 'N] ‘Ns is the regular and ordinary negative in Ethiopic’,
and occurs with the same force once besides in Hebrew Job 22, 30.
ΠΝ, and the Zidonian Sony, may be words similarly formed: but
the derivation of these two names is obscure (Ol. p. 624).
Syawe aa mda 2] Cf. Hos. 10, 5 1301 ΠῸΣ "5 (of the 1123 of the
1 Also in Phoenician: see C/S. 3, 5. 165, 18. 167, 11,
40 The First Book of Samuel,
calf of Beth-el). ba is much more than ‘departed’ AV. (which
would represent 1D, as Nu. 14, 9 omy oby 1p. Am. 6,7 AMD “ΟῚ
nnd): it is an ominous word in Hebrew, and expresses ‘is gone
tnto exile. It is probable that this victory of the Philistines was
followed by that ‘desolation’ of Shiloh, of which, though the his-
torical books are silent, the recollection was still far from forgotten
in Jeremiah’s day (7, 12. 14. 26, 6), and to which a late Psalmist
alludes (y. 78, 60).
5, 2. ȴn] 20 sfation or stand an object (or person): Gen. 43,
9. 47, 2. Π 6, 17 (likewise of the ark). A more definite word
than Dy.
3. mann] ‘Though in v. 4 the purpose for which the Ashdod-
ites arose early is clear from what has preceded, and need not
therefore be specified expressly, the case in the present verse is
different : and no doubt }1}7 M3 383") must be inserted before 737)
with LXX.... It will be best also to accept the following 381 of
LXX at the same time, in order to follow throughout one andjthe
same recension’ (We.).
205] to fall on one’s own face, is always in Heb. either 25 Sy
(17, 49 and often), or else and (Gen. 48, 12 al.), or vax ὃν (II
14, 4 al.); hence We.’s remark: ‘ For yp here and Ὁ. 4, usage
requires either 2p Sy (LXX?) or wand’ It is for the purpose
of giving a rendering of the existing MT. in accordance with the
general usage of the language that RV. marg. has the alternative
‘before it, 22d being regarded as anticipatory of 5. ms ab. But
this, though defensible (comp. Jer. 41, 3. 48, 44. 51, 567; and see
note on 21, 14), is not probable in the present context.
4. Soy NW? PIT pI] ‘only Dagon was left upon him’ (upon
Dagon), which can scarcely be right. LXX πλὴν ἡ ῥάχις Δαγων
imedeip@n—reading probably nothing different from MT., but being
1 It is not, however, certain that LXX read 1935 ὃν rather than 18 5: the
latter is rendered by them equally ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ in 20, 41 and II
18, 28.
? As in Syrzac often : e.g: IT 11,3. 12. 5; 14, 5 Pesh.
V. 2-9. 41
led to ῥάχις by the similarity to the Hebrew po (We. compares δρέ-
mavov for 13 13, 21, παρατείνουσα for JANA ()Π 2) II 2, 29, ἐσχαρίτης for
ἼΕΣΝ (3 ), IL 6, 19; add δορὰ for NIN Gen. 25, 25; πηγαὶ for
D'PDN Ψ. 42, 2 al., τόκος for JA (oppression) 55, 12 al., τροφὴ for
AND III, 5, τοπάζιον for ἸΏ (gold) 119, 127). We. for fi would
read 137 (supposing the } to have arisen by dittography from “Nw9)
‘only his fishy part was left upon him.’ If this conjecture be not
adopted, a word must be supposed to have fallen out before }\35.
Haan therumpl,) ἈΞ ΤΠ 5.8: Gemi10;$ 9. 22, 984. Ste:;,€x-
pressing the custom.
mn oy sy] LXX add ὅτι ὑπερβαίνοντες ὑπερβαίνουσιν = ON 3
oT 7, This may be a gloss, derived from Zeph. 1, 9; but it
may also be a genuine part of the text.
6. by] by would be more usual.
oaw| LXX καὶ ἐπήγαγεν αὐτοῖς, reading Dow” (incorrectly) as
ppv: cf. Ex. 15, 26. Ez. 39, 21 (We.). LXX continue: καὶ
ἐξέζεσεν αὐτοῖς εἰς tas ναῦς, with a variant (in Lucian’s recension)
καὶ ἐξέβρασαν eis τὰς ναῦς αὐτῶν, on which see We.
moyar-ns) TIwWN ΠΝ] epexeg. of onN, but attached in a
manner unworthy of the best Hebrew style, and probably a
marginal gloss. LXX has instead καὶ μέσον τῆς χώρας αὐτῆς ἀνε-
φύησαν μύες, which may represent an original Jina ὉΣἼΞ9. oy
Ὠ (cf. Ex. 7, 29). On this, and other additions of LXX in
this chapter, see more fully at the end of ch. 6.
a. nese) - See’ ona, 12:
8. 3p’ ni] For the order, which gives brightness to the style,
Gh AK 2255) Oks 25 τὸ y05 Ann, 1 Ki. 2, 26 4b nnoy, Is. 23, 12.
Jer. 2, 10; also (where the position is emphatic) Jer. 20, 6. 32, 5.
At the end of the v. Ni (LXX εἰς Τεθθα) seems to be desiderated.
9. 1307 ns] WWE INN occurs frequently: ‘INN with a pf.
without "Ws only here and Lev. 25, 48. - ΠΝ standing alone is
elsewhere construed with an inf. constr.
MDM] confusion, panic, Ὁ. 11. 14, 20. Dt. 7, 23 (discomfiture).
ὙΠ] AV. follows the Jewish interpreters (Rashi n'a nop
ono: Kimchi D339 AND Oya onNNYA NID) in treating this
42 The First Book of Samuel,
as equivalent to NB"N1. There is no difficulty in supposing & to
be written for D: but the meaning assigned to the Vf is not
a possible one. In Arabic ,2% means 10 have inverted (or cracked)
eyeltds or lower lips: if the text, therefore, be correct, it is probable
that \nw is derived from a root signifying properly 10 cleave, and
applied in Hebrew and Arabic to different affections of the skin.
Render ‘and tumours drake out to them’ (Anglice ‘ upon them’)?.
pspyn] To be vocalized pays; the vowels of the text
refer, of course, to the marginal pina. The Massorites direct
ony to be read for o>py,—which must have been considered
a coarse or indecent word,—wherever it occurs (vv. 9. 12; 6, 4.5.
Dir 28, 27):
IO. by] to me, spoken in the name of the people as a whole.
So often: as Ex. 17, 3b. Nu. 20, 18. 19>. 21, 22. Jos. 9, 7 (‘per-
haps thou dwellest in my midst,’ said by Israel to the ambassadors
from Gibeon). 17, 14. Jud. 11, 17. 19 end; 12, 3%. 20, 23>, Hab.
3, 14 (‘to scatter me’). Comp. on 30, 22.
‘oy mS) somo | In the best Hebrew style this would be ex-
pressed ‘oy ΠΝῚ ὮΝ nvond (as v. 11; Ex. 17, 3; Π 14, 16). The
same combination occurs, however, eleven or twelve times in the
course of the OT.: Dt. 11, 6 (contrast Nu. 16, 32). 15, 16. Jos.
το, 30. 32. 33. 37. 39. 2 Kir 20, 6. Jer. 32; 29. Ez. 20, 4 (sem)
Zech: 5, 4. Est 2,0. Comp: Hitzicon Is: 20; 7.
Pop 223 onbyn bs onyw Symi—the only other passage
in which Ay w occurs in prose.
6,1. δ᾿ ΠῚ LXX adds καὶ ἐξέζεσεν ἡ γῆ αὐτῶν pias= DYN)
om22y ΠΥ (cf. Ex. 7, 28). See at the end of the chapter.
ae ppp] On adp as well as on the other principal words
used by the Hebrews to denote divination and magic, the study of
W. Robertson Smith in the Journal of Philology, xili. p. 273 ff.
xiv. p. 113 ff. should be consulted.
1 The same explanation is implied elsewhere: the passage is quoted in a
Massoretic list of eighteen words written once with in lieu of the normal Ὁ:
Mass. Magna on Hos. 7,6; see also Ochlah we-Ochlah, No. 191; and 20. p. 42.
Amongst the passages cited is Hos. 8, 4 γυ Ὁ τ τ Ὸπ (RV. marg.).
2 Pesh. has here a doublet: on the second rendering see PS. 7765. col. 2757.
2) 43
ΠῺΣ] wherewith ὃ as Mic. 6, 6 (Keil).
3. ΠΟ px] LXX, Pesh. DAN pnw DN, Analogy certainly
demands the insertion of the subject; see especially the similarly
framed sentences, Jud. 9, 15. 11, 9. Jer. 42, 13 (Zenses, § 137):
with the ptcp. the subject is omitted only when it is indefinite,
or when it has been mentioned just previously (2d. ὃ 135. 6).
wwn] return, render as a due (ἀποδοῦναι): Nu. 5, 7; Ψ. 72, 10
yw AMI; 2 Ki. 3, 4 (of Mesha’s annual tribute to Israel), etc.
ows] AV. srespass-offering, RV. guilt-offering (regularly, except
Is. 53, 10, where AV. is not altered, but the correct rendering is
given in the margin). On the nature of the OWN see Oehler,
Theol. of O.T.,§ 137, who shews that the cases in which the ‘ guilt-
offering’ is prescribed in the Priests’ Code always imply some
infringement of another’s rights,—either a positive injury done, or
some right or due withheld. Doubtless ὈΨῈ is used here in a
more popular and general sense ; still, the offering of the Philistines
is designed as a compensation for the wrong which they conceive
has been done to the ark whilst in their territory.
4. “ἢ EDD] ‘by, according /o, the number of, an accus. of
limitation or definition. Cf. v.18. Ex. τό, 16. Job 1, 5; also II
21, 20; and Ew. ὃ 204», 300¢; Ges. 118. 3.
5. NID...onn»] Jos. 7, 19: and differently, Jer. 13, 16.
p>dyp... Spr] bp is construed similarly 1 Ki. 12, το. Jon. 1, 5.
6. bby] So Ex. το, 2. Not ‘wrought wonderfully,’ but ‘made
a mock of’ (as RV. marg.); see on 31, 4.
pind +++ WI] So ΤΣ 8: see on 4, 20.
7. ΠΝ] The numeral has here a weaker sense than in 1, 1,
and is scarcely more than a: cf. Ex. 16, 33; ch. 7,9. 12. 1 Ki. το,
4°23, OF 2. ΚΊ ἢ, 8: 8, Os 12; 10:
8, 182] It is possible, of course, that an Ἰλδ may have
formed a regular appendage to an nday, in which case the art. will
be prefixed to it as denoting an object expected, under the circum-
stances named, to exist (so probably 2, 13 6 prong: 18, το" she
spear, almost = Azs spear: 25, 23 “ΠΠ; IL 13, 9 Mwon-ns,
etc.); but there are many passages to which this explanation will
44 The First Book of Samuel,
not apply, and the rendering ‘a chest’ is perfectly in accordance
with Hebrew idiom. See more fully on 1, 4 and 19, 13.
9. $32 NT NIT AIP] ‘it is an accident (which) hath befallen us.’
το. 155] from nba with the sense of NDB: see Ges. ὃ 75 Rem.
Pn CoN (ΟΣ "NPD sh aye nb} Gen; 23:46;
11. ‘And they set the ark of Jehovah upon the cart, avd also
the coffer, On this type of sentence, which is not uncommon
in Hebrew (e.g. Gen. 12, 17. 34, 29. 43, 15. Nu. 13, 23°. 26),
see a note by the present writer in Hedrazca, ii. (1885), p. 33:
12. mw] (a) The 3 pl. fem. with the prefix ", as Gen. 30, 38.
Dan. 8, 22+. In Hebrew, except in these three passages, the
form of the 3 pl. fem. is always M24nDn: in Arabic, on the other
hand, as also in Aramaic and Ethiopic, it is regularly yak‘wdna,
and the form /ak/ubna is noted only as a rare dialectical variety
(Stade, ὃ 5347, Ges. ὃ 47. 3°). The most original form would seem
certainly to be yak/ubna (2 pl. 1aNDN, WANIN: 3 pl. 121,2", 723N5):
taktubna appears to have been produced through the influence
of the 3 fem. sing. anan. The latter form, however, came to pre-
dominate in Hebrew, while in Arabic it only prevailed dialectically.
(6) ΠΣ Ὁ (with dagesh and short hireq) stands for a normal
mW"; cf. YP 1 Ki. 3, τῷ for ΤΡ: Stade, ὃ 121.
128, The main division is at wow ΓΔ (where the same dis-
tinctive accent is repeated, as zagef here, its firs¢ occurrence always
marks the greater break): what follows is a circumstantial clause,
attached ἀσυνδέτως, defining more particularly Zow the kine went
along (cf. τ Ki. 18, 6, and Zenses, § 163).
nn] is here emphatic: the kine went along ove highway with-
out attempting to deviate from it.
15. nb] LXX εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῆς --- ΠΝ, Though mind
is not ungrammatical, yet the pregnant construction in“7p> InDw
is so much more forcible and idiomatic (Jud. 19, 3 ΝΟ now:
also with other verbs, as 15, 4 ΠΝ ΡΟ ἈΝ; ch. 16, 4 TIN
ΝΡ; 21, 2) that it decidedly deserves the preference.
See Fleischer, A7etnere Schriften, i. 1 (1885), p. 99.
VI. 9-19. 45
14. ΟΦ ΤΠ] Formed according to the regular custom when
the gentile adj. or patronymic of a compound name is defined
by the art.: so ‘ondacma, ὌΝΟΣ (x Ki. τό, 34), δ ΠΣ,
O-PS.
18. ὈΣΩΠ nwand] delonging to the five princes: δ as 14, 16.
yy Vy] A similar delimitation in 2 Ki. 17, 9=18, ὃ θη
Aya Wy Ty OM. ΒΓ ΞΞ γ1ε71 of the open country: cf. Dt. 3, 5
M|N “My cities of the open country: Zech. 2, 8 pdyi awn mime
Jerusalem shall sit (metaph,= be inhabited) as open country
districts.
ndyain Sax sy] Sax meadow gives no sense here. We must
evidently read }3N (see v. 15) with LXX, Targ., and then for ἽΝ)
MY (see Jos. 24, 27. Gen. 31, 52): ‘and the great s/ome upon
which etc. is a wz/ness unto this day.’ The stone on which the
ark was set was still shewn in the field of Joshua at Beth-shemesh ;
and it is appealed to by the narrator as evidence of the facts which
he relates. Or on the analogy of Jud. 6, 24 it might be sufficient,
without altering the letters of ἽΝ), to vocalize 19) ‘and the great
stone etc. is s/#// to this day in the field of Joshua the Beth-
-shemeshite.’
mbsin jax] The use of the art. with the adj. when the subst.
is without it, is rare in classical Hebrew, being mostly restricted
to cases in which the subst. is a word which may be regarded
as defining itself (oO Gen. 1, 31. 2, 3. Ex. 20, roal., ayn x Ki. 7,
8.12. Ez. 40, 28; "pw Ez.9, 2. Zech. 14, 10), and even then being
exceptional. The instances have been analysed by the present
writer in the Journal of Philology, xi. (1882), p. 229 f. Examples
of a more exceptional type are ch. 12, 23. 16, 23. II] 12, 4. Jud,
21, 19. Jer. 6, 20. 17, 2. In fosf-Biblical Hebrew this construc-
tion became the prevalent one (Mishnah, fass¢m). It is probably
best to restore the art. (3) APITIA jANA [or TH] 73).
1g. In this verse as it stands in MT. there must be some error,
though it is not possible to restore the text with entire certainty.
(1) “3 ANT does not mean (ΑΝ) # look mnto (which would be
rather Jn bx mx), but 20 look on or af, sometimes with satisfaction
46 The First Book of Samuel,
and pleasure (. 27, 13), at other times with interest and attention
(Cant. 6, 11 to /ook upon the green plants of the valley: Ez. 21, 26
he looked αὐ the liver: Qoh. τι, 4 ὩΣ ANT he that looketh αἱ
the clouds: Gen. 34, 1: Jud. 16, 27 end): if, therefore, the ex-
pression be used here in a bad sense, it will signify fo gaze at,
viz. with an unbecoming interest (so We. Kp. Stade, Gesch. i. 204).
(2) The number of those smitten is incredible in itself; and the
juxtaposition of pwn without ἡ is another indication of error’.
It is true, both numbers are in LXX: but there they are even
more out of the question than in MT.; for LXX limits the
slaughter to the sons of Jechoniah (an3 for nya)! Josephus speaks
of the number smitten as only seventy; and modern scholars
generally (including Keil) reject wx ἫΝ ὈΝΦΨΏΠ as a gloss, though
how it found its way into the text must remain matter of specu-
lation.
(3) Instead of wow nia wana 74 LXX has the remarkable
reading kat οὐκ ἠσμένισαν ot υἱοὶ ᾿Ιεχονίου ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν Βαιθσαμυς,
the originality of which speaks strongly in its favour. Un-
fortunately ἀσμενίζω does not occur elsewhere in LXX, so that
it cannot be ascertained definitely what Hebrew word it may here
express. It is not probable that such an unusual word would
have been chosen to render a common term like now (which
indeed in v. 13 is represented by the ordinary εὐφραίνεσθαι). We.
suggests 1723" 3 ἢ) NP}, i.e. ‘And the sons of Jechoniah came
not off guiltless, were not unpunished, among the men of Beth-
shemesh, because they had gazed at the ark of Jehovah; and
he smote among them (nn for oyna, as LXX) seventy men.’
Klostermann suggests the rare 170 (Ex. 18, 9) for ἠσμένισαν : ‘ And
the sons of Jechoniah rejoiced not among the men of Beth-
shemesh, when (or because) they looked upon the ark of Je-
hovah?,’ etc. Whatever be the verb to which ἦσμ. corresponds,
1 These are some examples of the repetition of 72w, with similar ascending
numeration, Gen. 5, 8. 10. 13 al., but none without }.
2 Ew. Then. understand the passage similarly, though they read the less pro-
bable im >>.
ee
VI. 19-21. 47
the adoption of the LXX reading effects a material improvement
in the style of the verse: in MT. aya 4 follows awkwardly
upon ΟΣ WIXI 7, and is in fact tautologous, whereas 4)
nna of LXX refers naturally and consistently to the sons of
Jechoniah before mentioned. The first 7% in MT., on the other
hand, must be just the mutilated remnant of the clause preserved
in LXX.
20. dyn] more than \3019,—/rom upon us, from off us, 80 as to
felieve us»of its presence: cf. II 13, 14..20, 21. 22.. ἢ Ki, 16, 19,
aK. m2; 19>) τ, τὰ. ΝΙ 21, ἢ,
21. 117] Beth-shemesh was in an ΡΝ, v. 13 (a broad depres-
sion between hills; see Dean Stanley’s Sznaz and Palestine,
Appendix, § 1), Kiryath-ye‘arim, among the hills, eight or nine
miles to the N.E. of it. Topographical distinctions are always
carefully observed by the Hebrew writers.
In ch. 6, MT. presents two difficulties: (1) the abrupt mention
of the mice in v. 4: (2) the disagreement between vv. 4 and 18
in the number of images of mice—v. 18 speaking of an indefinite
number (one for each town and village), v. 4 only of five. At
first sight, LXX appears to remove these difficulties: for (1) the
mention of the mice in v. 4 is prepared by two notices describing
a plague of mice? in the country in 5, 6 (OYoN ἽΠ3 OM22y 100»)
and 6, τ (ὩΣ AYWw py N)): and (2) whereas in MT. 6, μὰ
is littlke more than a repetition of v. 4, in LXX v. 4 is confined
to the prdpy, v. 5 to the mice, not, however, limited to five, but
an unspecified number (4? καὶ εἶπαν, Kar’ ἀριθμὸν τῶν σατραπῶν τῶν
ἀλλοφύλων πέντε ἕδρας χρυσᾶς, ὅτι πταῖσμα ἕν ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν
ὑμῶν καὶ τῷ λαῷ, 5% καὶ μῦς χρυσοῦς ὁμοίωμα τῶν μυῶν τῶν διαφθειρόντων
τὴν γῆν). The additions οἵ LXX in 5, 6. 6, 1, and the redistribu-
tion of the ΡῈ and the mice in vz. 4-5, are accepted by
Thenius.
We. takes a different view. He argues with great force that
+ On the destructiveness of field-mice, see Arist. Hist. Nat. vi. 37, p. 580%,
15-20, who relates how they would sometimes in harvest time appear suddenly
in unspeakable numbers, and destroy a crop entirely in a single night.
48 The First Book of Samuel,
vv. 4-5 MT. is right: the last clause of v. 4, ‘for one plague was
on you all, and on your lords,’ he points out, is intended to
explain that, although only ¢hree districts (Ashdod, Gath, and
Eqron) were implicated in what had happened to the ark, αὐ had
suffered through the plague, and a// must accordingly share in
the nYx: the number five being thus chosen, as representing
Philistia as a whole, it was sufficient for the mice as well as for
the mbpy, and the cogency of the argument, ‘for one plague’
etc., would be just destroyed, if it were to be applied to the
number of the ovay alone. He concludes that vv. 4-5, as read
in LXX, have been corrected for the purpose of agreeing with
v.18; and accepting vv. 4-5 MT., rejects v. 18 (to pn), and
with it v. 17, as inconsistent with v. 4.
As regards the further point, the abrupt mention of the mice
in v. 4, he considers the difficulty as apparent merely: the mice,
he argues, are mentioned not because there had been a plague
of them, but as emblems of a pestilence?: the double ows, like
the double dream in Gen. 41, 25, relates to one and the same
object, viz. the plague of obpy: and the words in v. 5 oon‘nwon
yaxn-ns do not describe a fact that had recently occurred, but
characterize the kind of mice, of which images were to be made.
And accordingly he rejects the additions of LXX in 5, 6. 6, 1,
as made merely for the purpose of relieving the apparent diffi-
culty of vv. 4-5, on the theory that these verses pre-supposed
an actual plague of mice. He admits, however, justly, that if
this explanation of the ‘mice’ in vv. 4-5 be not accepted, there
is no alternative but to treat the additions in question as a genuine
part of the original text.
1 The attempt has been made to reconcile vv, 4 and 18 by supposing v. 4 to
relate the proposal of the priests, and v. 18 to describe what was actually done.
But had the proposal not been adopted as it was first made, it is natural to sup-
pose that this would have been in some manner indicated: as it is, the phrase
in v. 10 is And the men did so.
? Comp. the form in which the story of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army
reached Herodotus (2. 141): jie/d-mice gnawing the leathern thongs of the
soldiers’ bows and shields.
VI, 2t—VITI. 3. 49
7, 2-17. Samuel's judgeship. Defeat of Philistines at Eben-ezer.
te SO |) Gen. 538. 12:
7] Only here. ΠΠ) in Heb. means 70 mourn or lament (Ez. 32,
18): so, if the reading be correct, it will be most safely explained
as a pregn. constr. mourned or sighed after J.=went after Him
mourning or sighing (for the Nif. cf. maxx). It is doubtful if Ges.
is right in rendering were gathered. It is true that "ΠΝ occurs in
Targ.in a connexion which implies gathering, but it is always used
with reference to some re/zgzous object, being often followed by indypd
%, or” nbprd so that it is doubtful if it expresses /o be gathered
simply. Thus ch. 12, 14 ponds Y% yond ana... pnonm for
“> ΠΝ mn: Jer. 3, 17 1% wowd,, ma mdand pmo: 30, 21
somdipd pnday: 31, 22> ΝΠΣΉΝΩ pram Saw ΠΣ Koy: 33, 73
ΝΠ oo by soy pmny (for mam 1 Sy Amayn); Hos. 2, 17
0d jon pram, 18 vnbiad naan, similarly 3, 3. δ. The use of
ΓΝ Zo be called together is not parallel: for 7m) is not a synonym of
pyt. Probably the Targumic usage is merely based upon the
Hebrew word occurring in this passage, and the sense which it was
there presumed to have, and cannot therefore be regarded as
independent evidence of its meaning.
3. ἢ DN] The same phrase in Gen. 35, 2. 4; Jos. 24, 23;
Jud. ro, 16.
moinwyn] MAY is mentioned frequently in Phoenician inscrip-
tions, often by the side of Baal, Thus C/S. 3 (the Inscr. of Esh-
mun‘azar of Sidon), |. 14 f. ἸΏ NInwy mand nanwyos oN...
and my mother Am‘ashtoreth, priestess of ‘AshtGreth our lady .. .:
(. τ ἢ) nay yoy bys na py pos pya oy y5xd na ps ws ime
bya ow nanwyd and we are they who have built temples [0°72] to
the gods of the Sidonians in Sidon, the sea country, a temple [2]
1 So Ewald, Hist. ii. 602 (E. T. 427). Jow is cited by the Syriac lexico-
graphers (PS. col. 2294) with the meaning zzzgemuzt.
In Eth. the corresponding verb means recrear?, respirare, in the causative
conj. (II. 1) 20 console, in the reflexive (III. 3) 20 console oneself (sc. by con-
fession, as Ley. 16,.21): Dillm. col. 632.
E
50 The First Book of Samuel,
to Ba‘al of Sidon, and a temple to “Ashtoreth the name of Ba‘al; 4, 5;
11, 3 (from Kition in Cyprus) an image [ndpp]! erected by one
wa ninwyd nad to her lady, to ‘Ashtdreth; 132, 3 (from Gaulus)
nanwy na wspp the sanctuary of the temple of “Ashtoreth; 135, 1;
140, 1 [ny] na ΤῊΝ Manwy> to ‘Ashtdreth of Eryx?, an altar
of bronze; 255 (from Carthage) MANA ΠΟ Jay mpd tay
Abdmelgart, servant of ‘Ashtoreth the mighty; 263 (do.) nand nand
ΠΤ wx noya wx moinwyos [ὙΠ] ws pon dyad pd) bya yp
to the lady Tanith, the face [probably=revelation] of Baal, and to
the lord Baal Hamman, which [8] Am‘ashtoreth, who was in the
congregation of the men [8] of ‘Ashtoreth (i.e. among the people
attached to her temple), vowed. In Sidon ‘Ashtoreth appears to
have been the presiding goddess (cf. 1 Ki. 11, 5. 33 "πον nonwy
ΣΝ): in Tyre she was subordinated to Melqart (nap). On the
worship of ‘Ashtdreth among the Philistines, at Ashqelon, see on
31,10.
minwyn] Zhe ‘Ash/oreths will denote either images of ‘Ashtoreth,
or (preferably) the goddesses of that name which were worshipped
in different localities, just as mdyan v. 4 are the local or other special
Ba‘als; cf. ΓΝ bys just cited; nod by CTS. 5 NS bys 125, 1;
mn bys Baal of Tarsus on coins of that city, Gesenius, JZonu-
menta Phoenicia, Ὁ. 276f., and Plate 36 A,B; pow Syn Baal of
heaven CIS. 7, 1 and frequently; jon byn Baal the sun-god, con-
stantly on the Punic votive tablets from N. Africa; spn dy (appar-
ently) Baal the Healer, τό. 41 (from Kition); Βαλμαρκὼς or Βαλμάρκωδος,
i.e. IPI bys Baal of dances, in inscriptions from the site of an
ancient temple at Deir el Kal’a in the neighbourhood of Beyrout 5,
1 Heb. 50 (Ez. 8, 3. 5), often (masc. and fem.) on Phoenician inscrip-
tions: e.g. CZS. 88, 2.5; 91,1; comp. p. 27 ole.
2 «Erycina ridens,’ Hor. Carm. i. 2, 33.
3 C7G. 4536; Le Bas and Waddington, Voyage Archéologique, vol. iii. pt.
6 (Inscriptions de la Syrie), No. 1855 EiAaGi μοι, Βαλμαρκώς, κοίρανε κώμων ;
2b. 1857 Θεῷ Βαλμαρκῶδι ; Clermont-Ganneau, Recuerl a Archéologie Orientale
(Paris, 1885 ff.), p. 95 [Ku]piw [γ]ε[ν]ναίῳ Βαλμαρκῶδι ...; p. 103 Διονύσιος
Γοργίου, δευτεροστάτης θεοῦ Βαλμαρκώδου, ἀνέθηκε τὰ δύο...
VIT. 3-16. δὶ
And in the OT. itself, 115 bys, nn bys, a3} bys, and, as preserved
in names of places, Ἵ yn Baal of Fortune, pay bya, etc.
On the fosz/ion of nanwyn (separated from 7297 ‘nds, and after
p221n), cf. on 6, 11.
by] shat he may, or (Anglice) and he will. On the jussive,
see Zenses, ὃ 62.
8. OD wann by] pregn. ‘do not be deaf (turning) from us,’
cf. ψ. 28, 1. pyid so as not to cry etc.; cf. Is. 33, 15%.
9. INN] as v. 12, and 6, 7.
vb bb5 by] ‘as a burnt-sacrifice, (even) a whole offering,
unto Jehovah’ For 5 cf. Lev. 6,15 sTpPN bibs vb powy-pn “ἃ per-
petual due, unto Jehovah as a whole offering shall it be burnt,’ τό :
Dt. 13, 17. 33, 10. LXX σὺν παντὶ τῷ λαῷ is merely a paraphrase :
cf. Dt. 13, 17, where O65 = πανδημεὶ (We.).
το. πον Ssnw | The ptcp. marks the action 27: the course of
which the Philistines drew near: so e.g. 2 Ki. 6, 5. 26 (the new
subject in the principal clause following standing first for emphasis).
12. wn] We expect some known locality to be specified, cor-
responding to ApYNN, not ‘an unnamed crag of rock’ (We.).
LXX τῆς παλαιᾶς * (similarly Pesh, gas) points to such, viz. MIN,
or ΠῚ) (2 Ch. 13, 19).
16. “x ἽΡΠῚ] Observe the series of perfects with Ὁ conv., descrip-
tive of Samuel’s cus/om (see on 1, 3).
mwa mw 12] The same idiom—the idea of recurrency ex-
pressed by mwa Mw (1, 7) being strengthened by the addition of
‘s~—is found also Zech. 14, 16. 2 Ch. 24, 5+ (Is. 66, 23 is to be
explained differently: won ‘11 is there made more precise by the
addition of wna, on the analogy of ia oY 125 Ex. 5, 13 al.).
nbswn ninpon 55 ns] nw is very difficult. Grammatically, the
clause is most easily taken as epexeg. of Syw ns ‘he judged
1 The notices of the cult of both Baal and ‘Ashtoreth, as attested by inscrip-
tions and proper names, have been most recently collected and discussed by
Baethgen, Beztrige zur Semitischen Religtonsgeschichte (1888), pp. 17-29, 31-37,
to be compared with Nildeke’s review in the ZDA/G. 1888, p. 470 ff.
For the ¢rans/ation of an. pr. by LXX, see Jud. 1, 15.35. 4, 1%. 15, 17 al.
E 2
52 The First Book of Samuel,
Israel, even all these places’ (Keil): but ‘Israel’ denotes naturally
such a much wider whole than the three places named, that the
limitation implied in this construction is unnatural. If such were
the sense intended by the original narrator it would be best to treat
Synw ns as a gloss, introduced on the ground of v. 15 by one who
conceived Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah as too narrow a sphere for
Samuel’s judicial activity. The alternative construction is to treat
MN as the prep.=~zear, as in the geographical phrase ,,. MN WN:
Jud. 3, 19. 4, 11. 1 Ki. 9, 26. 2 Ki. 9, 27: the meaning will then
be that the place of judgment was not zz but wear or deszde the
cities mentioned. It is doubtful, however, if the passages cited
justify this rendering; for they are not parallel in form, and nN is
not construed in them with a verd. AV. zm is not defensible as a
rendering of MN: MN only (apparently) signifies 2” or through, when
it stands to mark the accusative after a verb of motion (Dt. 1, 19;
2,7). MN=4y stands peculiarly 1 Ki. Ὁ, 25.
17. D5Y] Why the pausal form stands here with a conjunctive
accent, it seems impossible to explain: cf. Ew. ὃ 1384 nove.
8. Introduction to second account (10, 17-27%) of Sauls appointment
as king. The people ask for a king in consequence of the mts-
conduct of Samuel's sons, acting as their father’s deputies.
8,2. “ὦ δ ἜἼ32Π| A comparison of τ Ch. 6, 13 is instructive, as
illustrating the manner in which errors have found their way into
MT.,—in this case, by letters having fallen out in the process of
transcription (Π3Ν ‘w[Ah [bs] W230).
3. INN 1] Cf. Ex. 23, 2 O27 NN mis; τ Ki. 2, 28.
5>. Cf. for the phraseology Dt. 17, 14 55 ἼΡ ὋΝ nowy NON}
ὟΣ WRN DN.
7». Notice the emphatic position of JnN and ‘nx. Cf. Is. 43, 22
apy) ΝΡ ons ΝΟῚ; 57, 11>; Ἴ61 1. τῇ 22 ἢ τὸ;
8. wy] ΤΙΧΧ adds ἐμοὶ τε δ, which seems indeed to be pre-
supposed by ἽΝ" (‘to thee also’) at the end of the verse
(Th. We.),
g. Ὁ JX] (only here) =‘ except shat’? ...: cf 3 DAN by the
VIT, 17—LX. 1. 53
side of DAN alone (Nu. 13, 28), 3 DION (Job 12, 2), "3 ΠῸΠ
(p. 128, 4), ἘΠῚ (II 9, ral.), ‘> θη (II 13, 28), ‘> xd oN
(DE 32; 30): |
ona yn tym] 3 ΝΠ is to protest, or to utter a solemn admoni-
tion against, especially in connexion with a threat: Gen. 43, 3
Seaway. Ex. 19, 216 © Ki, 2,.42.
rr. 2) 19 ow] ‘and will place for himself (ἃ Ki. 20, 34. Jos. 8, 2)
among his chariotry (collectively, as II 15, 1), and among his
horsemen.’
12. ow] ‘and will be for making them,’ etc.: an example
of the so-called ‘ periphrastic future,’ which occurs now and then
in simple prose: see Zenses, § 206; and cf. Lev. 10, 10. 11.
τό. ὩΞ ΠΣ] LXX 483 P3: no doubt, correctly. The ‘young
men’ have been dealt with implicitly already in v. 11 f. (09°23):
in this verse, the enumeration begins with s/aves, and continues
with asses. The corruption is perhaps to be explained from the
unusual plural (2 Ch. 4, 3. Neh. το, 37. Am. 6, 12 MT.+).
’3) nwyi] ‘and use them for his business:’ ΠΌΝΟ as Ez. rs, δ.
Ex, 538). 2η:
18. 029 onan] The reflexive dative is common with 1N3: e.g.
5: 2. 1. 40;-Geneas, ΕἸ. Jos 24; 7522
10. nb mK] So Gen. 19, 2: cf. 1b xb Hab. 1, 6. 2,6al. The
dagesh in these cases is probably designed for the purpose of
securing a distinct articulation of the consonant (Delitzsch on
Ψ. 94; 12). Comp. Spurrell’s note on Gen. Z.c.; and add to the
references there given Baer, Pref. to Leber Proverbiorum (rules of
Dagesh), p. xiv; and Kénig, Lehrgebdude der Hebr. Sprache
(188r), i. p. 59 (where the subject is treated at length),
9, 1—10, 16. First (and oldest) account. of Saul’s appointment
as king, Saul ts anointed king by Samuel for the purpose
of defending Israel against the Philistines (v. 16), and bidden
‘do as his hand may find’ when occasion arises,
9, 1. 19 wN7}a] ‘the son of a Benjaminite:’ the name of
Aphiah’s father was either not known, or unimportant. 3
54 The First Book of Samuel,
occurs elsewhere as the patronymic of 122) : v. 4. 22, 7 "IO" 23,
II 20, 1 ‘3% WN as here.
3} wp] the dative of relation: see v. 20; and 25, 7 (nn).
Ὁ) ἽΠΠΟΝ] snx is so closely joined to, and limited by,
Dyin that it lapses into the constr. st.: so frequently, as Gen.
3, 22 OD IONS, Jud. 17, rr Y33 TONS, etc. Respecting ns with
a word not strictly defined see Ew. 2774; and comp. Ex. 21, 29.
Nu. 21, 9. II 4, 11; and (with the same word as here) Nu. 16, 15
oD TANS.
4. The repeated change of number in this v. can hardly be
original, though parallels can be found in MT.: Nu. 13, 22 83%;
33, 7 aw. But it can scarcely be questioned that in all these
cases the pl. was designed throughout by the original writers. See
the Introduction.
py] Not mentioned elsewhere: perhaps an error for padyv,
which was in this neighbourhood (Jud. 1,35: Jos. 19, 42): cf. Ew.
Hast. ii. 28 (. 1. 19):
[S)) as is. 41, 77. ‘59, Tral.: ch pNw 145 1 Kiwd eae
5. ΩΝ SNe IND man} On this graphic and idiomatic
manner of expressing a synchronism in place of the more ordinary
Siw ON ANY ΝΣ ONIID ὙΠῚ, see Zevses, ὃ 169; and cf. 20, 36;
II 20, 8; Gen. 44, 3. 4; Jud. 15, 14: also below vz. 11 (with the
picp.). 145 17,235 2 ΚΙ 2. 27
Int] 10 be anxzous or concerned: Ψ. 38, 19 I am concerned on
account of my sin: Jos. 22, 24 MINT out of concern. The pf.
and waw conv. in continuation of tn }2: above on 4, 9.
6. my wabn wx] ‘on which we have sfarfed. 35 is conceived
here as including the goal: for of course they would not need to
be told the way they had already come. Gen. 24, 42 differently:
‘which I am going (Ah) upon.’
7. mm} ‘And lo, we shall come, and what shall we bring?’ etc.
= And if we come, what...? So Ex. 8, 22: cf. onl 18,15.
br] only here in prose, and only altogether five times in Hebrew,
mostly in the sense of going away, departing. The word is common
in Aramaic, being in the Targums the usual representative of
IX. 3-13. ἘΣ
45n (which is not used with the same constancy in Aram. as in Heb.):
e.g. in the Targ. of this chapter, vv. 3». 6. το.
mwn] only here: comp. the use of the cognate verb WW Is,
57,9. The passage may be illustrated from 2 Ki. 4, 42 (the gifts
offered to Elisha).
8. nn] Read ANN with LXX. Th. We. Kp.: the pf. with
waw conv. with the force of a precative or mild imperative, as Jud.
11, 8; ch. 20, 253 25, 27 al. ( Zenses, § 119 8).
g. An explanatory gloss, the proper place of which is evidently
after v. 11, where ANN first occurs in the narrative.
pnd] So Ruth 4, 7 (probably a similar gloss).
11. \N¥D MOM... oy non] Where, in this idiom (see z. 5),
the subject of the two verbs is the same, the pron. is repeated:
as Gen. 38, 25; Jud.18, 3. Hence 2 Ki. 10, 13 for Nin) read Nim,
12. OYA ND ANY Wp spond mn] LXX ἰδοὺ κατὰ πρόσωπον bya’ viv
διὰ τὴν ἡμέραν κιτιλ., Whence We., developing a suggestion of Lagarde’,
restores DV3 NAY D335? N37 “lo, he is before you: now, just at
present, he is come to the city,’ etc. In support of this restoration,
We. remarks (1) that the sémg. p> agrees ill with v. 12, in which
the pl. is used throughout: (2) against MT. nn», that no reason
appears why Saul should as/en, if Samuel had just come into the
city—not, as has been supposed, from some journey, but—from the
neighbouring m3 (where he had recently been, v. 23, and given
instructions— pox ‘NWN AwWN—to the cook). The superfluous 17
in MT. We. plausibly explains as a remnant of the ‘ explicit’ sub-
ject ANN, which had been inserted by a scribe as a subject for
ood. oyna will have the same force as in v. 13>, where it is
likewise rendered διὰ τὴν ἡμέραν by LXX. The expression recurs
Neh. 5, 11 and means at once, just now, the force of Di, as in HYD
2, 16, being forgotten.
13>, INN PXYON OWI WN] ‘for Azm just now—you will
find him,’ the first ἸΏΝ not being subordinated directly to the verb,
1 Anmerkungen zur Griech. Uebersetzung der Proverbien (1863), p. iii.
(ANT Ὁ3᾽285 for ὙΠῸ 7259).
56 The First Book of Samuel,
but being resumed in \nws at the end, which thus becomes the direct
accusative. ‘The case is but an extension of the principle which is
exemplified in Gen. 13, 13 7]NNN ab oe PINT b> AN 3 for all the
landix.-., to thee will I give it; 21,13; ck. 25, 29 and often
(Zenses, 197. 6). The resumption only happens to be rare when
the first object is a Aronoun: but see 2 Ki. 9, 27 N35 ἸΠδ ὩΣ Him
also, smite him! ‘To omit [as Th. would do] one of the two tnx
borders on barbarism’ (We.).
14. ὙΠ ἬΝ] The city itself then was on an elevation: and
the mma on a still higher elevation outside it (0 Anan mbdyd:
conversely, it is said, Ὁ. 25 yn mpand 97).
“yn pina] Probably this is an ancient error for “pwn na
‘in the middle of the ga/e:’ this agrees better both with v. 18 and
with the language of this verse (Saul and his servant were coming
zm, and Samuel was gozng out to meet them).
15. mo3.”] An example of the manner in which the pluperfect
tense is expressed in Hebrew. By the avoidance of the common
descriptive tense τ 5 (ice. lit. “and J. went on 10 uncover’) the
connexion with what precedes is severed, and the mind is left free
to throw back the time of nb3 to a period prior to the point which
the narrative itself has reached. So regularly, as 25, 21. 28, 33
II 18, 18 etc. (Zenses, § 76 Obs.),
16, WM) Hyd] ‘at the time to-morrow’=when to-morrow has
come. ‘The phrase occurs eight times in the historical books. Cf.
Gen, 18, ro. 14 1 NYD i.e. (probably) ‘at the time (as it is)
reviving ’=in the returning year. “N') must not in these phrases
be regarded as a genzfize, since NY¥D has the art. In full, they would
be ἽΠ NyA ΠΥ ΠΞ, WN ΠΝ Π ΤΥ ΠΞ (Hitzig on Job 39, 17).
13] ‘prince,’ lit. one 7% front, leader: used constantly in the
more elevated prose (especially in prophetic utterances) for the
chief ruler of Israel (10, 1. 13, 14. 25, 30. II 7, 8 al.)
τόν, ὍΝ} LXX ὯΝ ὩΣ ΠΠΝ (Ex. 3, 7): no doubt, rightly.
ANI Ξ Gen. 18, 21.
17. iy) my as Is. 14, 10.
PON ‘NON we] ‘as to whom I said unto thee, This one,’ etc.
IX. 14-24. a7
“yy’] here only in the sense of coercere mperio: cf. N8Y Jud. 18, 7.
18. ΟΝ ΠΝ] ‘drew near 20᾽ is evidently the sense that is intended,
which ns wz/h will scarcely express. Probably both here and Nu.
4, 19 (as Jud. 19, 18» after 75m) nx is merely an error for by. On
ch. 30, 21 see ad loc.
19. ὈΠΡ5Ν)] LXX καὶ φάγε, i.e. ROI (or AAP).
20. non nvdy on] ‘to-day, three days,’ i.e, for three days,
(Anglice) ¢hree days ago. Cf. 30, 13 nwow on, where pn is
omitted. The article in ὮΝ Π on account of the days being
definite ones,
Bia nas nnd] ond resumes mynxd upon exactly the same
principle as that explained in the case of the accus. on v. 13: cf.
Gen. 2, 17 (jp). Il 6, 23 (5): Tenses, ὃ 197 Obs. τ.
ἐν dy] Rightly rendered by LXX, Vulg. καὶ τίνι τὰ ὡραῖα τοῦ
Ἰσραηλ ; et cuius erunt optima quaeque Israel? RV. and for whom
is all that is desirable in Israel? mtn is used in the same concrete
sense as in Hag. 2, 7 ONIN b> nIdn ἸΝΔῚ (where noie the plural
verb) ‘and the desirable things (i.e. costly offerings: see Is. 60, 5
end) of all nations shall come,’ etc.
21, P22 AY 3p] »wpp should be logically Pp. The plural
may be due to the illogical attraction of ‘yaw (read as 3).
23 Ὁ32Φ] ‘Unquestionably an error for ‘2 DIY’ (Keil). How-
ever, curiously enough, the same expression occurs Jud. 20, 12
ΩΣ ‘MAY 933, We. Stade (p. 204) propose in both cases to point
ὍΣ Ν᾽, thinking that ‘perhaps the archaic form of the s/.c. (Ges.
90. 38) should be here restored.’ With the passage generally, cf.
Jud. 6, 15 where Gideon expresses, or affects, similar modesty.
22. mnaw>] See on 1, 18.
wna] αἱ the head or fop: 1 Ki. 21, 9.12. DNMNP=those snveled
to a feast, as 1 Ki. 1, 41. 49; cf. ΝῚΡ 2d. 0. 10.
23. m0] See on 1, 4.
24. mbyny] There are three cases in which 7 has apparently the
force of the relative; (1) with a verb, (4) where the construction
1 Comp. Ew. § 331” (1) and zo/e: more briefly, Ges. ὃ 109 Rem.
5 The First Book of Samuel,
depends upon the consonants. This is well substantiated for /afe
Hebrew (Ch. Ezr.), 1 Ch. 26, 28. 29, 8 al.: but the one example
in middle Hebrew, Jos. 10, 241, is so isolated that it rests probably
upon a textual corruption (n’25nn might easily be restored): (6)
where the construction depends solely upon the punctuation, chiefly
in the ptcp. fem. Qa/ (as 7830 Gen. 18, 21; 46, 27 mown Is. 51,
rob), or in the ptcp. Wf masc. (as in raw Gen. 21, 3; Aw
1 Ki. τι, 9). Whether this punctuation represents a genuine tra-
dition is extremely questionable: had m been in use in earlier
Hebrew with the force of a relative, it is strange that it should
appear once only with 3 pl.: its restriction to cases in which a
different accent (7817) or punctuation (7197, M837) would give rise
to the regular construction 5, and the fact that the Massorah itself
does not point consistently (see e.g. nan Gen. 46, 26 al.; ANIA
Gen. 12, 7. 35, 1), make it highly probable that the anomaly in
these cases is not original, and that in fact 7 asa relative is unknown
to classical Hebrew. (2) Before a preposition—as in the Gk. idiom
τὸ ἐπ᾽ avtjs—it occurs here alone in the OT., though combinations
of the type πον ~we are of constant occurrence. The usage here
is thus doubly exceptional, and entirely unsupported by precedent
or parallel. Under the circumstances it can scarcely be doubted
that Geiger (Urschrift, p. 380) is right in reading mOsm and the fat
fail (Ex. 29, 22 and elsewhere in the ritual laws of P). The mx
is the fat tail of certain breeds of sheep * (commonly known as
‘Cape sheep’) and is still esteemed a delicacy in the East: when
dressed and served at table it much resembles marrow (the writer
has seen and tasted it in Syria). The allusion in the v. will thus be
to certain choice pieces reserved specially (v. 23) for those honoured
with a place DNPA WN72.
1 For Jer. 5,13 (Hitzig, Graf, Keil) is very uncertain: see rather Ew. ὃ 1562.
? See, e.g. Is. 51, 9 naxmnn; Gen. 48, 5 19 Ὁ 191). And so in Ez. 26, 17
mom read as ΤΡ may be the ptcp. Pz‘a/ without Ὁ, like 538 Ex. 3, 2 etc.
(Ew. 8 1694: it is implied wrongly in Ges. ὃ 52 Rem. 6 that 1917 as ἐξ stands
exemplifies the aphaeresis of 19).
* Comp. the notice in Hdt. 3. 13.
IX, 24—X. 1. 59
“xy syd 3] ‘because unto the appointed time hath it been kept
for thee, saying, I will invite the people.’ xd is construed with
“nw freely, κατὰ σύνεσιν : cf. Ex. 5, 14 (where the subject of the
preceding verb is not that implied in ἼΩΝ). The sense thus
obtained, however, is not good: and it is not improbable that some
corruption underlies the words ΝΡ oyn snd).
25-26. ἸΏ) 330 by Siw py Tat] LXX καὶ διέστρωσαν τῷ
Σαουλ ἐπὶ τῷ δώματι, καὶ ἐκοιμήθη ΞΕ (ῬΓ. 7, 16) 40 by ΣΝ way"
ἘΞ, The sequence in MT. is so bad (139% and y'sw both
being premature, when ’3) N7p% follows) that there can be little
doubt that this is the true reading: ‘And they spread a couch for
Saul on the house-top, and he lay down,’ to which Samuel’s calling
fo Saul on the house-top in the morning (v. 26 4) °N") forms now
a natural and suitable sequel.
27. DvD] = αὐ this time, at once.
10, 1. 5 Nid] “15 it not that?’= Hath not? is shewn by II 13,
28 to be a good Hebrew expression: but the long addition pre-
served in LXX and Vulg. has every appearance of being original.
The insertion would read in Hebrew thus: 7222 ve anv] Nien
TAN PINS TD BY wIN AN) Y DyA ἽΝ OAS) Dyer dy ὙΡΡ ΟΡ
aad andma by δ nw "5 [ninn. The circumstantiality of the
account is here not out of place: the express mention of the signs
1 Ew. on the basis of LXX παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους suggested for ὌΠ 10N),
DY NW =‘ above the rest of the people (whom) I have invited,’ which We.
is disposed to acquiesce in, though it is true that 1Nw is not a word found
elsewhere in the best Hebrew /rose style (Ch. Ezr. Neh. Est., and of course
in Zsaiah); and the omission of \wx before Dy7 is questionable (on 14, 21). LXX
for ΠΝ have ἀπόκνιζε nip off (=pon Lev. 1,15: azp 2 Ki. 6, 6: RP Ez.
17, 4. 21), whence Th. suggests xa"y1p cut off! (Anglice Help yourself!), cf.
Job 33,68 Da ΞΡ ὙΠῸ, But it is not probable that a word so rare in
Heb. as yp (and usually occurring in a different application—j»y ὙΞ 0.) would
have been used in this sense. It must however be admitted that in post-Bibl.
Hebrew yp is used of cutting up food into pieces: see Levy, VHWB. s. v.
LXX εἰς μαρτύριον of course presupposes nothing different from Ἵν}, which
the translators elsewhere connected wrongly with 11»: cf. σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου
for 1y10 ὉΠ,
60 The First Book of Samuel,
at an earlier stage of the instructions to Saul than v. 7, is what
might be expected : and the omission of the clause in MT. may be
readily explained by the supposition that a transcriber’s eye passed
from the first min’ JnwD to the second. So Dr. Weir.
2. DYy|=close fo, near: Gen. 25, 11. 35, 4. IL 19, 38 al. The men-
tion of ‘ Rachel’s. grave’ here appears to shew that it must have
been situated on the N. border of Benjamin, at no great distance
from Bethel (cf. also Jer. 31,15). In Gen. 35, 20. 48, 7, therefore,
either the identification of Ephrath with Bethlehem (ond ΓΔ Nin) is a
gloss (so Dillmann and most commentators), or the narrative em-
bodies a different tradition as to the site of the grave (so Delitzsch,
Neuer Comm. tiber die Genesis, 1887, p. 423).
nybya] The word arouses suspicion. The locality intended
seems to be so accurately defined by bm nap oy, that we are
surprised at a closer definition following, especially in such an
obscure form; for, as ny>¥ possesses no meaning, it cannot desig-
nate any particular spot near Rachel’s grave, at which the men
were to be met. LXX have ἁλλομένους μεγάλα. ᾿Αλλομένους = ὈΠῸΝ
(see v. 6): but though dy nby may be rendered (metaph.) leap
upon, Mo¥ absolutely cannot express the idea of /eaping. μεγάλα does
not occur elsewhere in LXX in an adverbial sense (We.); so pro-
bably here it is nothing but a Hebrew word written in Greek letters,
and transformed into something significant in Greek '. Many MSS.
after Bewapew insert ἐν Σηλω (= n¥Sy2) ἐν Βακαλαθ; Lucian’s recen-
sion after Βενιαμιν and before ἀλλ. pey. adds μεσημβρίας [as though
ny Syna=7n umbra sereni: hence Vulg. merddie|. All these are evi-
dently different attempts to render or represent the five consonants
which stand now as nydya: but they throw no light either upon
the word itself or upon the original reading which may underlie it.
nynNA 739 nN] = “he matters = the concern of the asses: cf. by
o3125 Dt. 4, 21. Comp. Delitzsch or Cheyne on y. 65, 4.
3. Aon] To pass along quickly, hasten on. Only elsewhere in
1 Cf,1 Ki. 18, 32 θάλασσαν from ndyn; Am. 3, 12 ἱερεῖς from wry (as Jerome,
cited by Field, points out); Jer. 8, 7 ἀγροῦ ; 34, 5 ἕως ἅδον κλαύσονται.
X. 2-5. 61
poetry, usually of swift or impetuous motion, as Job 9, 26,
ΤΕ ΘΝ ae ae
pnb nis nvdw] nzs though in form fem. retains the gender
of the sing. 195 (cf. Jud. 3, 16 np ‘nw, Zech. τι, 7), and is hence
construed according to rule with nwby (lit. a triad of... ).
4. ΠΡ nw] ‘nw should be Δ) by analogy, pnd being elsewhere
treated as a masc. (amd Mwy: so DWIN TWy, DWN WY).
5. 3.)}] LXX, Pesh. Vulg. express a singular ; and, as the sing.
occurs also 13, 3. 4, 2°¥) should in all probability be read accord-
ingly here. The accidental transposition of two contiguous letters
is not unfrequent in MT.: in the Ochlah we-Ochlah, § 91, there is a
list of sixty-two such transpositions which have been corrected by
the Massorah. Some few of the corrections may be questioned : but
the majority are certainly authorised (e. g. won) Jud. τό, 26; pow
Jer. 17, 23; ΠΝ Ez. 40, 15; mbm Pr. 31, 27 cannot be original
readings). As to the meaning, 3's) has the sense of fz//ar in Gen.
19, 26, of prefect or depuly in II 8, 14. 1 Ki. 4, 19; possibly also
it might be used to denote a fos or garrison, like ἈΝ 13, 23.
Which of these senses it has here, it is difficult to say; versions
and commentators are equally divided. (α) LXX here (one render-
ing ') has ἀνάστεμα, i. 6. prob. a pellar erected as a symbol or trophy
of Philistine domination: so (prob.) Pesh., and amongst moderns
Th. B6. We. (ὁ) Vulg. has s/afo, i. e. a military post, or garrison:
so Ge. Ke. (c) Targ. has ΟΝ (i.e. στρατηγοὶ) both here and
13, 3. 4 (likewise in the Z/ur.): similarly Ew. Gr., only reading as a
sing. 3°¥) (prefect, officer). On the whole, in the light of 13, 3. 4
(the sense s/a/o being not otherwise substantiated), (4) deserves
perhaps the preference (M3n as Am. 9, 1).
| ‘and let ct be, when....’ The jussive is unexpected :
but appears similarly II 5, 24. Ruth 3, 4. It must be understood
as having a permissive force (comp. the jussive in 2 Ki. 2, 10):
Jenses, &' 121. Obs. 3.
p’NaIn»d AN] a circumstantial clause, describing the condition
1 In the other rend. the word is simply transliterated Νασειβ, as in 13, 3. 4.
62 The First Book of Samuel,
in which the prophets would be as they came down from the ΠΩΣ:
cf. Jer. 38, 22 nok FIN) = δεν saying.
The word, which is in the reflexive conj. and a denominative,
denotes 20 play or act the prophet, viz. by manifestations of physical
excitement—not unlike those exhibited by the dervishes of the
present day in the East’—such as are more evidently described,
on the second occasion when Saul is seized by the contagious
frenzy, 19, 20 ff. So 1 Ki. 22, ro Ahaz and Jehoshaphat were sitting
in the gate of Samaria ond pysaonD ova bay: comp. (of the
prophets of Baal) 2. 18, 29. From this peculiarity, the prophet is
sometimes described mockingly as yawn 2 Ki. Ὁ, τσ Hos, ΩΣ ἡ:
ef. Jer. 29, 26.
6. nnby)] the same word v. 10; Jud.14,6.19.15, 14 (of Samson); ch.
11, 6; τό, 13 (David); also 18, το, where the subject is ὈΠῸΝ nin, but
the direction in which the inspired activity displays itself is different.
7. ΠΝ... AM] MAY would be resumed normally by nwyy, or
mwyn (the latter less usual in ordinary prose). ‘The uncommon
imper. was chosen, no doubt, as more forcible: cf. Dt. 6, ro—122.
Ja Nyon Ws] The same idiom in ch. 25, 8. Jud. 9, 33. Qoh. 9,10.
8. Introduction to first account of Saul’s rejection (13, 1}--τ 58}.
‘And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal ; and, behold, Iam
coming down to thee to sacrifice. ..: seven days shalt thou wait,
until I come to thee, and declare to thee what thou shalt do.’
++» 9M) is a circumstantial clause (cf. Jud. 9, 33) and subordinate
to NI, 799 throwing the idea which it introduces into relief, and
giving it greater prominence than it would otherwise have: then ὁ
is supplementary to a, defining more closely what Saul is to do
at Gilgal until Samuel meets him there *.
1 Comp. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (ed. 5, 1871),
ii. 151-154, 174 f., 179 f.; W. R. Smith, Zhe Prophets of Israel, pp. 86, 390 f.
2 Keil’s construction of this verse is illegitimate. The verse refers evidently
to 13, 8-14, whereas, in the Book of Samuel as we have it, Samuel and Saul
appear together at Gilgal ear/zer, viz. on the occasion 11, 14f. Keil therefore,
seeking to exclude a reference to this occasion, and to interpret the verse as
referring only to the subsequent one, presses the circumstantial clause introduced
XX 6-12. 63
9. ΠῚ] See on1,12. Here perhaps due to a scribe, who judged
in error, from the tense of the preceding verses, that another future
was still to follow: ὙΠ} is the tense which ough/ to be used.
ἼΞΠ] for the constr., cf. Zeph. 3, 9.
10. ΠΕ ὁ... Π)ΠῚ] So (without a verb) 111, 32; 1 Ki. 18,7;
Pry Hi 10.
TORY) τον WW bs m4] Exactly so, II 2, 23>; and analo-
gously, with mM, of future time, Nu. 21, ὃ al., and of reiteration in
the past, Jud. 19, 30.
mn mary] What, now, has happened to ...? At strengthens
and gives point to 719; so Gen. 27, 20. Jud. 18, 24 al.; similarly
in mr, arms. Comp. in Arabic 4.222 [5 La: and see especially
Fleischer, K/ecnere Schriften, i. 355 f. (who adduces from Arabic
usage reasons in support of this explanation of the idiom); Lane,
Arab. Lex., s.v. \3, p. 948. Briefer explanations will be found in
Ges. ὃ 122. 2 Rem.; Ew. ὃ 1838, 3258.
12. DIN 2] ‘But who is ¢heir father?’ i.e. is ¢he’r father
more likely than Qish to have had a son a prophet? Prophetic
inspiration is no hereditary possession ; and it is not more remark-
able in the case of Saul, than in the case of any other member of
the troop of prophets. Against the apparently easier, but weak,
reading of LXX, Pesh, ἸΠ δ, see We.
by 1), saying that this presupposes that the preceding words ‘And thou shalt
go down before me’ express merely a condztion, in view of which, when it is
satisfied, Samuel instructs Saul how to act. He construes, therefore: ‘ And if
thou goest down before me to Gilgal, and lo, I come down to thee, etc., then
thou shalt wait seven days until I come to thee,’ etc. 1127), however, cannot
influence the sense of what precedes; and (what is more important) ΠῚ
followed by 5myn cannot express a condition. Had n°) expressed a (virtual)
condition, it must have been followed by nomi (so regularly, as 19, 3; Num.
14, 15 etc.: Zenses, § 149): ὙΠῪΠ Ὁ 2) Nyaw being attached ἀσυνδέτως, shews
that the preceding clause is complete in ztse/f, i.e. that N11) expresses a positive
command, and not a condition. The clause ‘21 ΠΤ expresses what is to be
done by Saul not necessarily immediately after 7°, but as soon after it as
is convenient. The collision with 11, 14f. arises from the fact that this part
of the Books of Samuel is composed of sources originally distinct: 10, 8 and
13, 7'-15® are thus related to one another, but stand out of connexion with
WT, 14'f
64 The First Book of Samuel,
13. M123n] The company was to meet Saul (Ὁ. 5) as it came down
from the Bamah, and the conversation with his uncle in v. 4 is
more readily conceived as having taken place in a private house,
than on the Bamah; hence Ana37 is probably an error for *7N’3n
(We.). The emendation is favoured by the verb 82%: with AMAA
we should have expected 0} or ὄν.
16. ΣΝ] 3n] See on 20, 6.
10, 17-27%. Saul chosen by lot as king (sequel 10 8).
18. ‘338] emphatic, as II 12, 7.
prynbp] construed with a aa a (Ew. § 3182).
19. O25 penn xin “ws ‘who is a saviour to you.’ Nin after the
relative sign, before a ptcp. or adj., as Gen. 9, 3 °N NIN WN.
Nu. 9, 13. 14, 8. 27. 35, 31. Dt. 20, 20 NYY NN WRK, Jer. 27, 9
Hag. 1, 9. Ruth 4, 15: similarly Ez. 43,19. So also in Aramaic,
pax Dan. 7,17; andin Targg., as II 20, 19. 24,17. Is. 42, 181.
5 ἢ ynpNM)] 5 with the direct narration, as 2, 16 MT. (where
see note). Several MSS. LXX, Pesh. Vulg. express nd (as 8, 19
MT., 12, 12 MT.). Either reading is admissible.
v/s syd yaynn] Cf. Jos. 24, 1
21. “ypn}] LXX adds καὶ προσάγουσι τὴν φυλὴν Ματταρι εἰς ἄνδρας
ine: pax “DDT nnavioens ΞΡ (see Jos. 7, 17), which is re;
quired by the sense.
22. u~ oon ἫΝ Nan] ‘Is there still (i. 6. besides ourselves) any
one come hither?’ The people are in despair; and they inquire
whether there is yet any one amongst them, of whom they are not
aware. LXX, however, have Ei ἔρχεται ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐνταῦθα ; and it is true,
as We. remarks, that the answer ‘Lo, ἦε is hidden,’ etc., agrees
better with the question, ‘Is “ze man come hither?’ wenn nbn xan
than with ‘Is there still a man come hither?’ Of course, with wn,
“ὮΝ must be omitted. There are several cases in MT. of an article
having accidentally dropped out, some (e.g. 14, 32) being already
1 Comp. in Phoenician C/S. 93, 2...nw Ἀπ wx (ΞΡ... ΠΣ NT WY).
And so also in Arabic (Qor. 2, 58. 43, 51) and Ethiopic (Gen. 5, 32. 14, 2 etc.).
A, 73—XT, 2. 65
noted by the Massorah (Ochlah we-Ochlah, No. 165; or the Mass.
Magna on II 23, 9).
22. p%9n 5x] 5x, on account of the motion implied in san:
‘he hath hidden himself 2” among the baggage.’ Cf. Jer. 4, 3).
24. on'san] When on's’ is coupled with the 7 zzéerrog., the Ἢ is
regularly doubled (as signified by the dagesh dirimens): so 17, 25.
2 Ki. 6, 32. Ges. § 22 end.
sbnn ὙΠ] The same formula as 11 τό, 16. 1 Ki. 1, 25 al.
25. ἼΞ93] = ‘in a roll,’ in accordance with the principle ex-
plained on 1, 4. So, with the same word, Ex. 17, 14; Nu. 5, 23;
Jer. 32, τὸ. Job τὸ, 23. Comp..on 19, 13.
“ἢ nom] Ex. τό, 33 7 29 INN MIM, 54.
26. Onn] LXX υἱοὶ δυνάμεων i. 6. ΜΝ 2 = the men of valour
(see Jud. 21, ro). ‘23 has accidentally fallen out: 5m means not
a mere ‘band of men’ (AV.), but a military host—a sense that
is not here appropriate. 5m ‘x2 denotes not merely men of valour,
but men morally brave, loyal, and honest: here the Sym sy and the
ἀν 53 of Ὁ. 27 stand in evident contrast to one another.
27. Mt] contemphm: cf. 21, 16. 1 Ki. 22, 27.
mn] of presents offered to a superior, as Jud. 3, 15. 2 Ki. 8, 8f.
10, 27>—11, 13.(14.) 15. Saul ‘does as his hand finds’ (9, 7), wins
a success against the Ammonites, and ts made king at Gilgal
by the people with acclamation (sequel fo 9, 1—10, 16).
27>, ΠΣ ὙΠ] MT. may to a certain extent be defended by
the use of ‘9 im in Gen. τῷ, 44°. 27, oe. Nu. τα, τ. IL 4, τὸ,
though it is found mostly in connexion with ‘»y3, which justifies
and explains the 3. LXX join the words to 11, 1, rendering καὶ
ἐγενήθη ὡς μετὰ μῆνα i.e. YINDI MM, This is preferable to MT.
The combination of 5 with a prep. is most uncommon (see on 14,
14): but it occurs with } in a phrase so remarkably similar to the
present one as fully to justify it here: Gen. 38, 24 wows ny
pwn and it came to pass a/ver about three months.
11, 2. nNxta] pointing forwards to "pya: ‘On condition of this
will I conclude a covenant with you, on condition of the boring
F
66 The First Book of Samuel,
Gutto you,’ etc. so Gen. 34, 22. 42; 15. 33. Ex. 7, 17. ΒΞ ΣΤ
The 5 of reference, as Gen. 17, 10. 34, 22; Dt. 23, 3%. 4b; 1 Ki.
14, 13 (comp. on 2, 33).
ny2x] m3 being understood, as 20, 16. 22, 8.
3. DMN pw px oni] The ptcp. in the protasis, as Gen. 24,
yet; Jud; 11, 9/al.(Zenses, § 137);
pox TINS") | Sx xy’ of going out to surrender, as Is. 36, τό IN¥
by. 2 Ki. 24, 12 (with ὃν = 5y).
ἡ. Jud. 19, 29 Sew» 12) 553 Ande... osyd anno. nna is
to divide by joints, esp. for sacrifice, Lev, 1, 6. 1 Ki. 18, 23.
v9 ΠΕ] the awe or terror of Jehovah: cf. Gen. 35, 5 (Ὁ ΠῸΝ NNN).
wy) | LXX ἐβόησαν, a mistranslation of PPS": so Jud. 7, 23. 24.
12,1; and even for npyr 18, 23: cf. ἀνεβόησαν 2 Ki. 3, 213 ἀνέβη-
σαν (corrupted from ἀνεβόησαν), ch. 13, 4. Jud. 10, 17; ἀνέβη (cod.
Al. ἀνεβόησεν) for ΜΝ 14, 20.
8. ANN wi] ΦῸΝ construed collectively, as often in this and
similar phrases, 6. g. 9%. 13, 6. 14, 22. 17, 2 etc.
9. ΠΡ] relief, deliverance: see on 14, 45 (My).
11. poy] LXX, Pesh. express ΟΝ 23, in agreement with the
all but universal custom of the OT. writers?. Except once in poetry
(ψ. 83, 8), the Ammonites are always known either as fy 323, or
(rarely, and mostly late) pyyy. On the other hand, 3x 337,
DON 3, ΡΟΝ 3 never occur.
WSN oOMNwIT ὙΠ] ‘And it came to pass, as regards those
that were left, that they were scattered.’ An unusual construction:
cf. however 10, 11: Zenses, ὃ 78 nole (p. 108).
12. DWINT UN...» WNT 5] ‘Who is he that saith, Shall
Saul reign over us? give up the men that we may slay them,” A
particular case of the idiom which may be most simply illustrated
by Jud. 7, 3 20% 77n) SW) Who is fearful and trembling? let
him return etc. = Whoso is fearful and trembling, let him return
etc. In this idiom ‘ invites attention to a person of a particular
1 Noldeke, ZDM/G. 1886, p. 171.
2 Except once in late Hebrew, 2 Ch. 20, 1.
AG, faa TM 67
character, in order afterwards to prescribe what he is to do (or
what is to be done to him), or to state how he will fare. As in the
example quoted, by a slight change of form in the sentence, "Ὁ
may be represented by whoso; but it is really a more expressive,
less ordinary usage than that of whoso, whosoever in English.
Other examples: Ex. 24, 14; 32, 33; Dt. 20, 5.6.7.8; Jud, 10, 18;
Is. 50, 8 dzs; Jer. 49, 19; and followed by an imperative, Ex. 32,
24 tprann ant 2b Who has gold? Strip it off you! cf. 26 mind Ὁ
4x Who is for Jehovah? (Come) to me! Ψ. 34, 13 fi!
andy qb» bixw] The sense of the words is indicated by the
tone in which they are uttered—either affirmatively, in a tone of
irony, or, more probably, interrogatively, So not unfrequently in
Hebrew, as Gen. 27, 24 92 ΠῚ ANN; 1 Ki. 1, 24; 21,7 ANY ANN
baw by mobo awy: ch. 27,16. 22,4. Il 16,17. Compron rong
Be ttiand [ltr zx,
13>, II 19, 23.
15. pyoby m’nat] So Ex. 24, 5. The words are in apposition
the second having the effect of speccalizing the sense expressed by
the first ; Zenses, Appendix, § 188. 1,
12. Samuel's farewell to the people (sequel to '7, 2-17; 8;
10, 17-27).
12, 1. Cf. for the phrases, 8, 7. 22. It is evident that two
accounts of the appointment of Saul as king, written from different
points of view, though fitted together so as to supplement one
another, have been combined in our present book of Samuel.
9, I—10, 16 (in which nothing is said of the unwillingness of
Jehovah to grant a king) is continued by 10, 27> (LXX), 11,
I-13. 15 (note in particular the connexion between 10, 7 do that
which thine hand shall find and 11, 5 ff.) and ch. 13: the sequel of
1 Not to be confused (as is done by Delitzsch on y. 25, 12) with the use of
iny. 15,1. 24, 8.10. Is. 33,14. 63, 1 where the answer to 1 is a substantive,
not a verb, and describes the character of the person asked about. This usage
is a figure peculiar to poetry, which, as the examples shew, is not the case with
that explained in the text.
F 2
68 The First Book of Samuel,
ch. 8 on the other hand is το, 17-27% and ch. 12. The former
narrative, with its greater abundance of details, is the earlier and
more original: the latter in its main elements exhibits literary
affinities with the Hexateuchal source E’, but it has probably in
parts been expanded by a subsequent writer, whose style and point
of view resemble those of the redaction of the Book of Judges, and
to whom may be attributed, for instance, parts of ch. 12, especially
the allusion in v. 12 to ch. 11 (which is in fact a contradiction, for
the attack of Nahash was not the occasion of the people’s asking
for a king). The verse 11, 14, in the form in which it now appears,
seems intended to harmonize the two accounts, by representing the
ceremony at Gilgal as a renewal of Saul’s appointment as king.
The differences in style between the two narratives are very
noticeable.
2. povad yoann] used here in a neutral sense: see on 2, 30.
3. ΤΟΝ κὸν ΠΡ] The two words appear often in parallelism,
as Dt. 28, 33. Am. 4,1. pwWy is ¢o oppress, in particular by de-
frauding a labourer or dependent of his due.
13,..769] 159 is properly az expzation, in particular the expiation
paid in atonement for a murder, or the equivalent of a life (a ransom).
The imposition of a 153 is permitted in the oldest legislation (Ex.
21-23) in a particular case of homicide (21, 30); but as compen-
sation for a murder (the Gk. ποινή), the payment of it is (in the
Priests’ Code) strictly prohibited (Nu. 35, 31 wao> 159 inpn dy
mod yun xin awe yin). In the sense of an equivalent for a life
conceived as forfeited, it occurs Ψ. 49, 8. Is. 43, 3. In Am. 5,
12 the nobles of Samaria are denounced as 153 ‘np. This being
the uniform usage of the word, it follows that what Samuel here
repudiates is that he has ever as judge taken a money payment on
condition of acquitting a murderer brought before him for justice.
12 oY ΡΝ] ‘that I might hide my eyes in it.’ The sense of
the metaphor is obvious: comp. the ὯΝ) niD2 in Gen. 20, τό.
1 Budde, ZA 7IV. 1888, p. 231 ff. (who, however—see the last paragraph on
p- 248—does not claim to shew that the writer is 2¢etzca/ with that of E).
ATT, 2-5. 69
LXX, however, has ἐξίλασμα καὶ ὑπόδημα ; ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ
ἀποδώσω ὑμῖν, i.e. "3 BY DYDD, The ‘pair of shoes’ is chosen
by Amos (2, 6. 8, 6) as an example of a paltry article, for the sake
of which the Israelite of his day would ‘sell the poor:’ and Sir. 46,
1g (in the praise of Samuel, with plain allusion to this passage) καὶ
πρὸ καιροῦ κοιμήσεως αἰῶνος ἐπεμαρτύρατο ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ χριστοῦ Χρήματα
καὶ ἕως ὑποδημάτων ἀπὸ πάσης σαρκὸς οὐκ εἴληφα" καὶ οὐκ ἐνεκάλεσεν
αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπος, has been held to shew (as the author—see the
Prologue—wrote in Hebrew and was conversant with the OT. in
Hebrew) that the reading existed in his day not merely in the
LXX, but in the Hebrew text of Samuel. The objection to this
view is that 1p and ovSys do not agree very well together, and the
sense required is ‘or even a pair of shoes’ (so Th.: und (waren
es auch nur) ez Paar Schuhe ?), which is hardly expressed by the
simple copula: it may be questioned also whether a pair of shoes
(which is mentioned by Amos as something insignificant) would
be a bribe likely to be offered to a judge. Nor is it clear that the
translator of Sirach has not accommodated his rendering to the
LXX: the Syriac version (which is not dependent on the Greek)
has βϑϑαρο ἴωσιν, which does not point to an original pvdys,
nb wx] must mean, ‘and I will restore it to you:’ for ‘and
I will answer you’ (We.) the classical expression would be WN)
725 Dans (e.g. Nu, 22, 8), with an accus, of the person, and omis-
sion of 135 only in poetry (as Job 13, 22), and in the late passage
2 Ch. το, 16 (contrast the original in 1 Ki. 12, 16). In another
late book bx 3wn occurs in the same sense: Est. 4, 12. 15.
5. WON] sc. WNT (on τό, 4). LXX would hardly render other-
wise than εἶπαν, even though they read the verb in the singular:
still the sing. is unusual: hence the note 3D WON", 1.6, TWIN zs
thought or conjectured. The note 3D occurs on some 200 passages in
the OT. According to the common opinion it points to a conjectural
1 Only a selection of these are noted in ordinary editions of the Hebrew
Bible. The full Massoretic apparatus (on other matters as well as on this) is
contained only in the large Rabbinical Bibles, References to the places where
70 The First Book of Samuel,
reading ! which might be expected, from analogy, or from the con-
text, to occur, but does not occur actually in the Massoretic text:
but some scholars” are of opinion that these notes refer to the
readings of actual MSS., not indeed agreeing with the MT., but
preferred by the author (or authors) of the notes in question. The
two explanations are not inconsistent with each other: but if the
latter be true, the value of the notes will be the greater, as they will
then embody evidence as to the readings of the Codices now no
longer extant. Its probability, however, can only be tested by a
systematic examination of all the "2D that occur, and estimate of
their value in individual cases. The Versions not unfrequently agree
with the reading suggested by a 3D: but this is not proof that
manuscript authority is actually referred to by it. Examples: on
Ex, 26, 31 Mwy’ (in the Rabbinical Bibles) occurs the note } 3D ’3
nwyn, i.e. twice NWYN would be expected for Fwy’, and a reference
is added to Ex. 25, 39. In both passages, the context would
favour the second person; and this is read by LXX, Sam. Pesh.
But each case must be examined upon its own merits: the correc-
tion suggested by the note is not always supported by the Versions,
nor is it always in itself necessary*®. The note in many cases
relates to the number of a verb: thus, where MT. has 3%, the
pl. Na") is eight times suggested, where it has N13, Na) is fourteen
times suggested*. DN") for WON, as here, is suggested eleven
times besides (see the Rabb. Bibles on Jud. 11, 15): viz. Ex. 14,
the pat may be found are given in Frensdorff’s Massoretisches Worterbuch
(1876), p. 369 ff.
τ See e.g. Elias Levita’s Massoreth ha-Massoreth (1538), in Dr. Ginsburg’s
edition (text and translation), London, 1867, pp. 225-7.
2 Ginsburg in the Zransactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1877,
Ρ- 138: Gratz, Die Psalmen (1882), pp. 115-117; comp. Geiger, Urschrift
(1857), Ρ- 253f
3 In some cases certainly the correction rests upon a false exegesis, as when
ma for 12 is suggested in Ex. 4,17; Dt. 24, 7: in other passages the opinions
of commentators differ; Ez. 2, 9, for instance, Cornill accepts m3, Hitzig and
Smend defend 43,
* See, on the passages, Frensdorff’s note, p. 370 f.
ATT, 5-8. 71
5 ΝΝΠ5.52: 25.) || 8. Gt, τὴ ch τό. 4. 19, 22 v Κι 26; 3.
2.Ki. 6, 11. Hos. 12, ὃ: Zech. 6, 7*.. The reader may .examine
these passages and consider in which of them the correction
appears to him to be necessary’, The 3D must be carefully
distinguished from the 1p: in no case does it direct the suggested
alternative to be substituted in reading for that which is written in
the text.
6. mM] LXX Maprus Kipws="" Ἵν), certainly rightly.
mwy] A difficult and anomalous use of nvy. The explanation
which is best in accordance with the general use of the verb is that
of Keil: made Moses and Aaron to be what they were as leaders
of men, the word being used not in a physical sense, but morally, of
the position taken by them in history. (Ges. rendered constitutt,
appointed; but AWy only has this sense when it is followed by
a word implying office or function, as 20 make priests, 1 Ki. 12,
31; fo make (or se¢ up) DPI TN 2 Ki. 21, 6: similarly 11 15, 1
to establish chariots and horses.)
7. ΤΡῚΣ 53 ΠΝ] LXX prefixes καὶ ἀπαγγελῶ ὑμῖντ-- D329 ADIN.
paw) is construed with an accus. in Ez. 17, 20 OW imMN ΘΒ)
Δ byn wwe ibyn. But though a person’s own fault might be con-
ceived as a cogn. acc. to ΞΖ), it is doubtful if the ΠΡῚΝ of another
could be so represented: it is better therefore to supply the words
expressed by LXX.
8. PUM, , , WRI] as 6, 6b.
oy | LXX add καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτοὺς Αἴγυπτος = DMS) pay")
(not DY22" Th. We.: see Ex. 1, 12. Dt. 26, 6. II ἢ, τὸ Hebrew
and LXX). The words are needed on account of the following
ΡΣ a copyist’s eye passed from the first HY to the second.
1 Only eleven passages are cited, though the number (elsewhere, as well as
on Jud. 11, 15) is stated as ¢we/ve, It is thought that Jud. 11, 19 may be the
omitted passage: see Frensdorff, /.c. p. 370, In the lists in Ginsburg’s J/as-
sorah, ii. pp. 325, 328, the twelfth passage is given as Jos, 24, 21.
2 Comp. also the notes on 2, 16; II 14, 19; 17, 19; 18, 29.—On I 27, 6 it
is said 2D y2N in Jer. 5, 2 for 735: so, probably rightly, 16 MSS., the St.
Petersburg cod. of A, Ὁ. 916, and Pesh,
72 The First Book of Samuel,
naw] expresses just what Moses and Aaron did not do. LXX
κατῴκισεν, Pesh. eho/, Vulg. collocavit = 02" (the subject being
God). The unpointed p3w has been filled in wrongly in MT.
9. 120] This figure is used first in the ‘Song of Moses,’
Dt. 32, 30: and adopted thence by the Deuteronomic redactor
of the Book of Judges, who uses it often in the frame-work into
which he fits the narratives incorporated by him in his Book (Jud.
2,14. 3, 8. 4, 2. το, 7 [rather differently in the older narrative 4, 9]).
Chapters 7, 8, 12 of 1 Sam. have affinities in style with the redac-
tional elements of the Book of Judges. ᾿
ayn Nay ww] LXX express wn 75d pa xay ww, which is
more in accordance with Hebrew usage.
το. WN] Here, where \pym closely precedes, the sing. is cor-
rected by the Massorah into the plural (’P 19x").
11. [12] No judge or deliverer of this name is elsewhere men-
tioned. Ewald regarded jt as an abbreviation of jay Jud. 12,
13 ff.: but some better known hero is likely to have been referred
to. LXX, Pesh. have 3; Baraq, it is true, is mentioned in
Judges before Gideon; but between Gideon and Jephthah no
suitable name can be suggested: and the order in v. g is not
chronological. Targ. and Jews explain of Samson, treating j13
fancifully ἃ 8 ΞΞ 7 13.
Syyow ΠΝ] Pesh. and Lucian ΔΨ ΤΙΝῚ: probably a correction.
The passage, of course, does not report the zpszssema verba of
Samuel: the speech is the work of the narrator, and indeed, in this
part, appears to have been expanded by a later editor, who has
forgotten that it is Samuel himself who is speaking. The allusion
is to the success narrated in ch. 7.
12. % mann) | LXX, Pesh. omit δ, 5 Νο = Nay, but as 2, τό
On; IL 16,423.24, 24.1.
13. onoNw AWN onan we] Cf. 8,18: dxw is used of the
request for a king in 8, ro. Nevertheless pnbxw ἼΩΝ appears
here to be superfluous, and is probably to be omitted with LXX.
14. The whole verse consists of the protasis, ending with an
aposiopesis. (or INN) NN AR=/0 follow after, as Ex. 23, 2. 11 2,
ATT, 9-21. 73
10. 1 Ki, 12, 20. 16, 21. 22. Thenius is bold enough to affirm
that InN mn is ‘not Hebrew,’ and accordingly would insert p57
before nN after LXX: not only, however, is this needless in
itself, but, as We. remarks, the fosztion of πορευόμενοι in the
Greek shews that it merely represents a corruption of ponby.
15. OMNI] Since ‘and against your fathers’ gives an un-
suitable sense, and the passages in which 1 means, or appears
to mean, as* are dissimilar, there is no alternative but to accept
LXX p57) in place of ὩΣ Ν Δ: the mention together of
‘you’ and ‘ your king’ agrees both with v.14 and v. 25%. MT. will
be a dapsus calamz, perhaps due to a reminiscence of vv. 6-8.
16. NYY] ‘is about to do.’ The fws. instans (on 3, 11).
17. mp] ‘voices,’ viz. of Jehovah, in accordance with the Hebrew
conception of a thunderstorm (. 18, 11-14): so Ex. 9, 23. 28 al.:
cf. y. 29 throughout.
20. DMN] emphatic: ‘ye, indeed, have done this evil: only (qx),
do not go further, and turn aside from Jehovah into idolatry.’
21. 8] Intrusive and meaningless: cf. the similar untranslat-
able ‘3 in 2 Ch. 22, 6 (2 Ki. 8, 29 rightly jp). The word is not
represented in LXX.
wnn} prop. a darren waste (Gen. 1, 2), then applied to what
is unremunerative and worthless (Is. 59, 4); here of false gods.
Cf. Is. 41, 29 a breath and worfhlessness are their molten images :
44, 9: also 45, 9 where Jehovah, speaking of Himself in contrast
with heathen gods, says, ‘I said not to the seed of Jacob, ‘wpa nn,
“Seek me as a barren waste,”’ i.e. to no purpose, resultlessly.
1 In the formulation of proverbs, where the relation from which the com-
parison is deduced stands in the second place (rare): Job 5, 7 For manis born
to trouble avd sparks fly upwards (i.e. both effects happen similarly); 12, 11.
More commonly the opposite order is employed: Pr. 25, 25 Cold waters to a
thirsty soul azd good news from a far country; 26, 3. 9. 14 A door turns upon
its hinges avd a sluggard upon his bed; 27, 21: cf. y. 19, 5 MT. Even
supposing that the passage could, on other grounds, be treated as an example
of the first of these usages, the same verb w7// de must obviously govern both
clauses: the substitution of z¢ was in the second clause destroys entirely the
parallelism of tdea wpon which the idiom itself essentially depends.
74 The First Book of Samuel,
ΡΝ xd “ws | Jeremiah’s expressions are similar: 2, 8 INN
ἸΣῸΠῚ yy xb; τό, το Sy oa pay dan.
22. dyn ww] Jos. 7, 9: also Jer. 44, 26. Ez. 36, 23.
23. ‘DIN| The casus -endens: cf. Gen. 24, 24. Is. 45, E22.
ΝΠ] The inf. afte. »9 nbvsn, expressing the act deprecated, is
regularly construed with 2, Gen. 18, 25. 44, 7. ch. 26, 11: not
‘Away with it from me that I should sin!’ but ‘Away with it for
me! so that I should net sin.’ 999 is parallel with NOM), and
dependent like it upon "Ὁ ndvbn.
mayor WW] Comp. 2 Ki. 20, 13 3WwA pow (but Is. 39, 2 OWA
ayn); Jer. 6, 20 2197 mp. See above on 6, 18.
24. 81] for INV, as Jos. 24, 14. ψ. 34, IO.
13; 14. Zhe Philistines in the heart of the Israelitish country:
Saul and Jonathan's successes against them: concluding summary
of Saul’s other wars, and notice of his family (sequel to 9, 1—
10, 16; 10, 275—11 15),
13, τ. Sys maw 12] mew 15 in accordance with Hebrew idiom
can mean only @ year old (Ex. 12, 5 and often). And so Lucian’s
recension of LXX vids ἐνιαυτοῦ Σαουλ}; Symm. (with an explanatory
ws) vids ὡς ἐνιαύσιος ; ‘Targ. apse) Ἴ5 Syinw pain ina m5 soy a5 as a
child a year old who has no sins, was Saul when he became
king (ἢ).
In form, the verse is of the type followed regularly by the
compiler of the Book of Kings in stating the age of a king at
his accession, and the length of his reign (e.g. 1 Ki, 14, 21. τό,
11. 22, 42, etc.: similarly II 2, 10. 5, 4): no doubt therefore the
1 Explained by Theodoret (quoted in Field’s Hexap/a, ad loc.) in the sense
of Symm. and the Targ.: Πῶς νοητέον τὸ, vids ἐνιαυτοῦ Σαουλ ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν
αὐτόν ; Ὃ Σύμμαχος οὕτως ἐξέδωκεν" vids ὧν (al. ws) ἐνιαύσιος ἐν τῷ βασιλεύειν
αὐτόν. Δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο τὴν ἁπλότητα τῆς ψυχῆς ἣν εἶχεν ὃ Σαουλ ἡνίκα τῆς
βασιλείας τὴν χειροτονίαν ἐδέξατο. Ταύτῃ δὲ οὐκ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἐχρήσατο, K.T.A.
On the version of Symmachus as exhibiting the influence of current Jewish
exegesis, see especially Geiger’s essay on this translator in the /vidische Zeit-
schrift, i, (Breslau, 1862), p. 49 ff.
ATT, 22—X I. 3. 45
number denoting Saul’s age was originally intended to have a place
between }3 and 72, although, for some reason, the text as it stands
is deficient 1. In clause 4, also, it is doubtful if pw ‘nw is correct :
though, if with Keil we suppose 1?pD"Wy te‘lhave fallen out, the form
of these two words must be supposed to hz.¥* been altered, and we
must restore, in accordance with usage, 72¥ DAWA OMWY, The
entire verse is not represented in LXX, and it is quite possible that
it is only a late insertion in the Hebrew text,—originally perhaps a
marginal note due to one who desiderated in the case of Saul
a record similar to that found in the case of subsequent kings.
2. Syawn nrabs nov] ‘LXX, Syr. express men after 3000.
Perhaps ws has dropped out after orbs on account of its resem-
blance to ‘w in δε (Dr. Weir).
3. 2°83] See on ro, ἢ:
omayn 1.20] Let the Hebrews hear! viz. the news, and the
order, implied in the proclamation, to come and join Saul in the
war, which of course must now follow. V. 4 then describes how
1 Three or four MSS. of LXX read vids τριάκοντα ἐτῶν : but in view of the
age at which Jonathan, almost immediately after Saul’s accession, appears, a
higher figure seems to be required,
2 Not, as Keil writes, 2. ‘There is no ground for supposing (as is sometimes
done) that in ancient times numerals were represented in Hebrew MSS, éy the
letters of the alphabet. If the numerals were not written in full, but expressed by
symbols, the ancient Hebrews, it is reasonable to suppose, would have adopted
a system similar to that in use amongst their neighbours, formed equally upon
Phoenician, Palmyrene, Nabataean, and Old Aramaic inscriptions, and used
also in Syriac. This system may be seen exemplified in detail in Euting’s
Nabatiische Inschriften aus Arabien (1885), p. οὐ f., or in the Table attached
to Plate LX XIV of the Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions (Oriental
Series), published by the Palaeographical Society under the editorship of
Professor W. Wright (London, 1875-83). The Tables shew in what manner
symbols which at first sight appear distinct, are in reality connected with one
another by intermediate links. lh first ten umerals in Phoenician are
!, WN, WN, NOM, ON, I, NII, I, IAI, 5 20 is ΞΞ or H;
21 is {= orf; 30is ~H/; 40is ΠΗ͂; 90 is >HHHH, etc. The notation
by means of letters of the alphabet is found on Phoenician cozvs (but not the
earliest), on the coins of Simon Maccabaeus, and since mediaeval times has
been in general, though not universal, use (not, for example, in the Epigraph of
the St, Petersburg MS. of A.D. 916, or in the Epigraphs of many other MSS.).
"6 The First Book of Samuel,
the report spread among the people, and induced them to respond
to Saul’s invitation. But oy ayn is strange in Sau/’s mouth: and
LXX express Oayn wea ἽΝ. «saying, The Hebrews have
revolted’ (2 Ki. 1, 1). This, if correct, will be in its proper place
after oxnwbp qyow in a, and γι ΝΠ 592 maw yen diwen will
connect, and connect well, with v. 4 (see Jud. 6, 34>). So sub-
stantially We., who, however, instead of assuming a transposition
of the words from clause a, regards their incorrect position as
indicating that originally they were a marginal gloss. (Against
Th.’s Dyn ww, see We.)
i nowy] The number of chariots is disproportionately large :
no doubt O¥¥ is an error for MY3¥ (so LXX (Luc.) and Pesh.).
Ὧν bins] Jos. 11, 4. Jud. 7, 12.
fis m3] somewhat to the east of Sema (Jos: 7,72):
6. omni] Zhesiles (2 Ki. 14, 9) are unsuitable : read with Ewald
(Hisz. iii. 44 [E. T. 31]), Th. We. ON, as 14, 11.
onyx] Only besides, in Jud. 9, 46. 49, of some part of the
temple of ΠΥ 5x, in which the Shechemites took refuge, and
which was burnt upon them, though what part precisely is not
clear. In Arabic oe means a /ower or lofty building (Qor. 40,
38), A 35 (with 4) @ french or excavation’: the former suggests
an idea which is here not probable; but a sense akin to that
expressed by = 36, Viz. underground vault or chamber, is suitable
both here and in Judges, and may reasonably be adopted.
qb-15%. First rejection of Saul at Gilgal (comp. 10, 8).
7. /nN] We. conjectured plausibly MON, which is actually
expressed in Lucian’s recension (ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ): trembled from
after him = forsook him trembling: cf. 8».
1 Also used specially in the Nabataean Inscriptions found at Madain-Salih
by Mr. Doughty (No. 8, lines 4, 5), and (re-)edited by Euting, Mabatdtsche
Inschriften (1885), ofa sepulchral chamber: see No. 15, lines 4-5 }} ΠΠ ΠΟΘ ΟΝ
NOTIN NTTIVD NTI YO APT NMI NDI yo pn ‘and to Arisoxe belong
two-thirds of the tomb, and the sefulchral chamber, and her share in the graves
is the east side, with the graves there,’ etc.; with Noldeke’s note, p. 55.
ATLTI. s5-r5. 77
8. dn] The Kt. is bn} (W77.) as Gen. 8, 12 (not the Pze/ bn,
which is confined to poetry). The Qri is oni (172), as το, 8;
11 18; La:
bey we] Swtosaas is good Aramaic, but xy WN is not
good Hebrew, in the sense ‘of Samuel.’ A verb has dropped out.
TW or TY! (see II 20, 5) is suggested by Ges. (Zg. p. 851) and
Keil: 13% (Gen. 21, 2) or TON (ib. 22, 2»), the latter of which
might easily fall out after WWN, is expressed by LXX, Targ.: but
the word which might drop out most readily is D¥ (see Ex. 9, 5)
before Syn, which is also preferred by Dr. Weir. Comp. Ew.
ὃ 292} nofe-—With poy yb) comp. 2 Ki. 25, 5 pyro YW,
11. "5] recefativum : see on 2, 16.
ΦΏΞΩ] not af Michmash (on 1, 24), but 20 Michmash, oSDx)
implying motion.
13. Any %3] Any 5. as a rule introduces the apodosis after "δ
(e.g. Nu. 22, 29: Zenses, § 144), ANy having the force of zz that
case: and hence Hitzig, We. would point here ΡΨ N? (so II 18,
12; 19, 7) for nyow xd. Still, it is perhaps too much to maintain
that ANY may not refer to a condition zmp/ed, without being ac-
tually expressed. Cf. Ex. 9, 15 where, though the context is
differently worded, Any equally refers to a condition which must
be inferred from v. 14: ‘For 22 that case (viz. if such had not been
my purpose), I should have put forth my hand, and smitten thee
and thy people,’ etc.; and Job 3, 13.
by] = by, which would be more usual: comp. 2, 34. 3, 12. 5,
4.6. 6,15. 14, 34 (contrast 33). 16, 13 (contrast 10, 6). 23 (16 by).
£759.52, 18, 10. Τὸ; 9. 16, 20, 25 (by the side of by). 52, .13
(8 ὃν). 27, τὸ (ΟΝ after ὃν twice). II 2, 9 (thrice 5x followed by
thrice Sy in the same sentence). 6, 3. 8, 7 etc.: 20, 235 (23b and
8, 16 by), 24, 4. So sometimes in other books, esp. in Jeremiah.
by where 5x would be more usual is less common: but see on
x, 10 and add II 14, 1. 14, 11.
14. 92255 wx] So Jer. 3, 15+ of the ideal rulers of the future
sad3 py 9d nnn.
15. Something appears here to have dropped out of the narrative,
78 The First Book of Samuel,
In v. 4 Saul is at Gz?gal, and remains there during the scene 9-14;
in v. τό he appears suddenly abiding (Awy) at Gzdeah, A clause
describing his departure from Gilgal and arrival at Gibeah is thus
desiderated. LXX has such a clause, continuing, viz. after baba jd
1 καὶ τὸ κατάλιμμα τοῦ λαοῦ ἀνέβη ὀπίσω Σαουλ εἰς
E: eis ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ
ἀπάντησιν ὀπίσω τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ πολεμίστου. αὐτῶν παραγενομένων ἐκ Ταλγά-
λων] els TaBaa Βενιαμειν, κιτιλ, ‘This may be accepted in substance,
though not quite in the form in which it here appears. (1) yond
following, as it would do Sy, would give rise to a phrase not in
use (19995 95 is always said). (2) εἰς ἀπάντησιν ὀπίσω represents
a non-Hebraic combination (though adopted, without misgiving,
by ΤῊ. 1). (3) αὐτῶν παραγ., if it represents, as it seems to do, D832 OF
must be followed by ἽΡΘ dyxw, not as MT, by Syxw spay (so
always: see Zenses, § 169). The following text will satisfy the
conditions of Hebrew style: ΕἸΣῚ 12] babanmin yy Sey op
Ὁ INO" ΠΌΠΟΙ [or WIR] DY? ΠΝ ΟΝ vans ΠῸΝ nya om
9) ova nya [2239, The omission in MT. is evidently due to
the recurrence of Obani.
17. mNwan] probably a technical expression, denoting the plun-
dering band of an army. Ew. 7770). iii. ἢ. 47 (E. T. 33) xole
compares the Arabic eesti (comp. Qor. 100, 3).
pws ΠΟ] as three columns, an accus. defining the manner
in which n'nwnn issued forth: Ew. § 279% Cf. 2 Ki. 5, 2 DIN
ns) INN) came out as marauding bands.
nx] the numeral without the art., being definite in itself (on 1, 2).
m25'| the impf. describing their general practice.
18. 529] We should in all probability read with LXX y239,
which is both more conformable to 9pw3n (thai leans out over:
see Nu. 21, 20, 23, 28), and agrees better with the direction
1 These words do not stand in Tisch.’s text, but they form part of the text of
B, and are printed in Dr. Swete’s edition. We.’s conjecture, therefore (made
in 1871), that ‘ εἰς ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ has probably fallen out,’ is entirely confirmed.
2 momdon (or w3N) DY is a phrase that occurs in Joshua, but not elsewhere
in I-II Sam, This, however, is not decisive against its originality here.
ASTI, 17-21. 79
ΓΔ Π than the ‘border ’—whether the north or south border of
Benjamin be the one meant (We.).
19. N¥ID] frequentative, just as (e.g.) Gen. 31, 39.
+++ JD WN 9] the same idiom, implying always that steps are
taken to prevent what is feared from taking place, 27, 11. Gen. 31,
autcomp.:267 τὴ: 412; 4: Ex. 13; 19... 38) 17 al.
sox] Qri nN. See Ochlah we-Ochlah, No. 1191, where
eighteen cases of an omitted } at the end of a word are enumerated,
several (e.g. Jud. 21, 20, 1 Ki. 12, 7) similar to this. See further
in the Introduction.
20, onwdan] ‘LXX εἰς γῆν ἀλλοφύλων. Ought we not to read 5x
before osnwban (from Sy) or possibly 1398?’ (Dr. Weir.)
InwAND | LXX render this by δρέπανον, Pesh. by fico caso
(ox-goad), both words being used in v. 21 to represent }3957.
Probably, therefore, 1229 should be read here for in¥1N2, The
two verses will then agree in the implements enumerated; and the
repetition of almost the same word (iNY N92, inv/Nd) in one and
the same verse will be avoided.
21. O') Ayan] These words are hopelessly corrupt. They are
rendered conventionally J/uniness of edges: but (1) the plur. of ΠΘ
is elsewhere nD; (2) the meaning d/un/ness, viewed in the light of
the sense which the root ἽΝ elsewhere expresses, is extremely
doubtful*; (3) the construction is grammatically inexplicable
(AYySn for ΝΒ). DBO YSDN (inf. 2717. with the force of a noun—
rather VWS50, Ew. ὃ 156°), suggested by Keil, would lessen the
grammatical anomaly, but does not really remove the difficulty
which the words present. LXX ὁ τρυγητὸς for AWYDN presupposes
almost the same word (ΝΠ): but their rendering of the clause
? Or (in the Rabbinical Bibles) the Mass. magna on 1 Ki. 1, 1, or the Final
Massorah, letter 1, No. 18.
+ The combination of ἼΞΒ with yes to cleave, hence as applied to a sword,
to hack, “U3 ἜΡΗΣ ὦ a hacked i.e. blunted sword (Schultens, ΟΖ. Min.,
p. 168), is altogether questionable, the interchange of consonants being against
rule (12) should correspond to an Arabic 7h, not p33 3 see the list of
examples in 7 7565, Appendix, § 178).
80 The First Book of Samuel,
καὶ ἦν ὁ τρυγητὸς ἕτοιμος τοῦ θερίζειν supplies no basis for a satisfactory
restoration of the text. AV. ji/e is derived immediately from the
Jewish commentators, Rashi, and David Kimchi: its ultimate source
is merely the conjectural rendering of Targ. Pesh. (S2*D1).
nwdp wow] Another crux. yyw>p occurs in the Targ. of Qoh.
12, τι (= Heb. nN"): but possibly it may be only borrowed
from the present passage: it is not cited as occurring elsewhere
in Aramaic, or post-Bibl. Hebrew. Still the root (see Levy) has in
Aramaic the sense of being thin (hence Nu. 7, 13 Ps.-Jon. a silver
charger wp wt5-05 of én plate), so there remains the possibility
that nwdp may have been in use to denote a fine poznt. In that case
nwop why will be a sort of compound = /ridens. But such a
compound in Hebrew is by no means free of suspicion; and we
expect naturally to find a reference to the same implements that
are named in v. 20. LXX saw in the words the high price which
the Philistines exacted for sharpening the tools of the Hebrews:
τὰ δὲ σκεύη (= DMN in v. 20) ἦν τρεῖς σίκλοι εἰς τὸν ὀδόντα, 1. 6.
ww Ὀὐορυ nvidbvia, This reading will of course presuppose that the
corrupt words O'S ΠΥ ΞΠ expressed originally the idea of sharpen-
ing :—‘ And sharpening used to be obtained for the mattocks and
for the coulters at three shekels a tooth, etc. But O'nN and nywans
are not constructed with teeth: and the price stated appears to be
incredibly high. (Th. attaches arbitrary senses to AW¥DF and jw.)
j2777] On 3 (not 3) see Ol. p. 404; Stade, ὃ 528; and comp.
i? gorbhan Ez. 40, 43 (Baer); [138 Est. 8, 6.
23. AyD] LXX ὑπόστασις, attempting, no doubt, to render ety-
mologically. However, ὑπόστασις was used by Sophocles in the
sense of ἐνέδρα (Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, p. 88).
14, τ. own 4] See on 1, 4.
ὑπ] 14,26; 20. ΤΟΥ Χ : Jud. Ὁ; 20; King, 55 en, τῇ: ΠΕ
2.95; Danes. τὸ - Ch nbn Gen. 24,65 > 37,10 1 oA Ez. 36, 35 1.
4. “ἢ VapmD] Tay = szde, as Ὁ. 40. Ex. 32, 15 OMY wD on
their two sides. j}, as constantly, in defining position, lit. of,
in our idiom, from a different point of view, oz. md... nM the
repetition has the effect of placing the two identical words in
ATT, 23—XT1IV, 9. 81
contrast with each other: hence they acquire the sense ‘off here
«»» Off there.’ So. often, as 17, 3; 23,26; Nu. 22,24 .,. ΠΝ ΠῚ
md 94); and similarly (in Ezekiel only) 75 ,,, ΠΞ (Ez. 40, 10 al.) ;
and in other analogous expressions (e.g. At... t= Ac... dle).
Render therefore, ‘on the side, off here ..., on the side, off there’
= ‘on the one side ..., on the other side.’
5. LXX ὁδὸς can only be a corruption of ὀδοὺς (cf. in τ. 4 the
second version καὶ ὀδοὺς πέτρας ἐκ τούτου): hence the Gk. text here
must have sustained a double corruption ; first, ὀδοὺς must have been
changed (by accident or design) into ὁδός, and then the genders
must have been altered designedly to agree with it.
pis] was fixed firmly, or was a pillar (2, 8). But the word
seems superfluous (contrast clause >); and it is probably only a
corrupt anticipation of Dy.
by] 2 front of, on the same side with: Jos. 8, 33 7 front of the
two mountains; Ex. 18, 19 2” front of God, i.e. representing Him.
See W. A. Wright, in the Journal of Philology, xiii. 117-120.
6 resumes Φ. 1, after the intervening parenthetical particulars.
ἜΝ] Not as ἽΝ 9,17; but in the sense of copstraznt, difficulty:
‘ There is no difficulty to Jehovah, to save (either) with many or with
few.’ Cf. for the thought 2 Ch. 14, το. 1 Macc. 3, 18 (cited by Th.).
ἡ. 7b nx] The reflexive 75, as elsewhere (e.g. Dt. 1, 7. 40),
with verbs of motion. A difficulty in MT. arises however from
the use of ΠΏΣ; for in II 2, 21 Joxnw dy ow qo ὃν 95 ΠῺΣ it
preserves its usual force of ἡγε, which here seems not to be
suitable. LXX express 0 m3 y225 wwe 55 mwy do all unto which
thine heart zmclines: cf. maa with 25 Jud. 9, 3. 1 Ki. τι, 9.
yaaa] Cf. y. 20, 5 qaabs 35 in’. But here also a phrase,
which in this connexion is more idiomatic, is suggested by LXX
ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μετὰ σοῦ, ὡς ἣ καρδία σοῦ καρδία μοῦ, i.e. 330 72393 (so
Ew. Th. We.),
9. ΤΟΝ AD ON] The 73, pointing onwards, is idiomatic: see
Gen. 31, 8. Il 15, 26. oT and Spy are synonyms, as Jos. 10,
13 Toy Mm) wown om (cf. 12> Ὁ).
wnnn] idiomatically = 7 our place, where we are: as Jos. 6, 5
G
82 The First Book of Samuel,
mann yA non ada. will fall 2 c/s place: Jud. 7, 21 we Dy
nnn and they stood each zz his place: Hab. 3, 16 S98 “nnn =
and I tremble where I stand.
10. ὩΣ) well have given them: 20, 22; II 5, 24.
13. 15" | LXX 135% (cf. Jud. 20, 42). Against this, see We.
nny] intensive, as 17, 51. Π 1, 9. The Philistines fell down,
smitten by Jonathan’s sword ; and his armour-bearer, as he went
along, despatched them after him. The ptcp. represents vividly the
armour-bearer’s activity on the occasion.
14. ‘3) *¥na3] ‘as it were within half a furrow, (of) an acre of
field’ ‘wy as Is. 5, 10. If the text be correct, we must imagine
the narrator to be thinking of a field, of a size such as the ex-
pression ΠῚΦΨ ἼΩΝ would suggest: he says, then, that in a space
equal to about half the distance across it, the twenty men were
slain. Mw ἼΩΝ defines in effect the measure of the ΠΩ, and is
hence construed in apposition with it (on the principle explained in
Tenses, § 192: cf. NOX QD WY FOI ‘a veil, twenty cubits’). Never-
theless the MT. excites suspicion, if only by the combination of 5
and 3 in ‘yna5’. LXX has ἐν βολίσι 2 καὶ κόχλαξιν τοῦ πεδίου =
1 Which elsewhere occurs ov/y in the expression 713) (five times), and in
mrad once (Is. 1, 26), in parallelism with ΠΣ Ὁ Ν 25. 73 occurs (including
10, 27) three times (the third passage is 197 528) Ley. 26, 37). As an
ordinary rule, such combinations are avoided in classical Hebrew. Even 5y3=
as upon occurs only in the latest Hebrew, ψ. 119, 14; 2 Ch. 32,19 (in a different
sense, as a strengthened 5, Is. 59, 18; 63, 77).
2 Tisch.’s text adds καὶ ἐν πετροβόλοις. But on this We.’s acute note, written
in 1871, deserves to be transcribed. Comparing LXX with MT., he wrote:
‘The first letter of MT. 5 is not expressed in LXX, the following five agree, but
are combined to form one word (ps7) : at the end of the verse LXX agrees
also in πὸ. It remains to refer, if possible, 1O¥ πὸν and καὶ ἐν πετροβόλοις
καὶ ἐν κόχλαξι to a common source. When the six letters on the one side
and the six words on the other are compared, and when further the meanings of
the two principal words in the Greek are taken into account, it is natural
to suppose ἐν πετροβόλοις (= ἢ» 9218 Job 41, 20) to be a gloss explanatory
of κόχλαξιν pebbles (1 Macc. 10, 73), which appear here strangely as a weapon.’
We.’s reasoning was sound: ἐν πετροβόλοις, as is now known (see Nestle’s col-
lation of Tisch.’s text with A, B, S, published in 1879, or Dr. Swete’s edition),
forms no part of the text of either A or B,
XIV. 10-18. 83
mown 23) oyna. However, if the words contain some notice of
the weapons used by Jonathan, they are certainly out of place at
the end of v. 14; nor under the circumstances do pebbles, at any
rate, appear likely to have been employed. It is possible, as We.
suggests, that the words area gloss, belonging properly to the end
of v. 19, made by one who recollected the statement in 13, 22
and thought it necessary to specify the weapons which he supposed
the armour-bearer (not Jonathan) must have used on the occasion.
15. Δ) MIMD] ‘in the camp on the field, and also among all the
people,’ i.e. in the principal camp, as well as among the men
occupying posts in different parts of the pass: even the garrison
and the plundering band trembled as well.
’y) My] ‘and it became a trembling of God,’ i.e. the affair
resulted in a general panic. ods nonin denotes a terror without
adequate apparent cause, and therefore attributed to the direct
influence of God. Comp. the later Greek use of πανικὸν (from Πάν :
see Liddell and Scott, s.v.). Cf. 2 Ki. 7, 6; Ez. 38, 21 (reading
with LXX in @ 77707535 for ann vn 555).
16. ody 75% 3103 MINNA mm] O57) is untranslateable. AV.
‘and they went on deating down’ connects the word with nba to
hammer (so Targ.): but besides the word being unsuitable, and one
never used in such a connexion, the construction is an impossible
one (the inf. ads. would be required: pony pa 1”). LXX has
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ παρεμβολὴ τεταραγμένη ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν, i.e. NDI ANON AIM
pon pon, which yields a thoroughly satisfactory sense. 5" is a
corruption of nbn: and the meaning is that the camp melted away,
i.e. dispersed in alarm!’ (Jos. 2, 9 from Ex. 15, 15), Aether and thither,
i.e. in every direction.
18. ὈΠῸΝ js ΠΡ Π] We must certainly read, with LXX,
TINT NWF, cf. v. 3, and especially 23, 9 TIBNN MwA. 30, 7
1 Unless, indeed, as We. suggests, 11123 has here the sense of ae in ae
(Ex. 15, 15 oa Qor. 18, 99 and we shall leave them on that day roan,
ea ust oon part of them surging upon the other: 10, 23; 24, 40 al. e-
waves), Viz. swaying or surging as the waves of the sea.
G2
84 The First Book of Samuel,
ΒΝ °S ΝΟΣ ΝΠ (so also Dr. Weir). The ephod, not the ark,
was the organ of divination; and, as the passages cited shew,
wim is the word properly applied to bringing the ephod into
use.
Sew oa... es TON ΠΝ mn] See 0) is here un-
translateable, Ὁ never having the force of a preposition such as Dy,
so as to be capable of forming the predicate to mn. Read, after
LXX, 5ynwy 2a ad yan ova SHaNT Nb’ TT tam 1D (yw sad
alone at the end is bald, and against the usage of Heb. prose).
19. 154] ‘1, the subject having preceded, as 17, 24. Gen. 30, 30.
Ex. Ὁ, 21 al. \(Zenses,'§' 127 a).
=a son 154] Gen. 26, 13; Jud. 4, 24; Π| 10; τ 252) aaa
the parallels shew, is an ad).
20, INYII w'N In] viz. in consequence of the panic: cf. Jud.
7, 22. Ez, 38, 21> (especially with the reading noticed above,
on v. 15).
21. nnd ADA Ν᾽ 2.25] On this passage, see Zenses, ὃ 206 Obs.
nnd is defensible grammatically (‘now the Hebrews had been to
the Philistines as aforetime, in that they went up with them to the
camp round about; but they also were for derng,’ etc., 1. 6. they
accompanied the Philistines into the camp, but afterwards prepared
to desert), though this would be the one passage in which the inf.
with 5 would be used of asf time in early Hebrew ; and the verse
appears to describe a /ac/, rather than an zn/ention (mynd). LXX,
Vulg. for nA OH 33D have ἐπεστράφησαν καὶ αὐτοί, reversi sunt ut
essent, i.e, 7107 ὯΔ 133D: ‘Now the Hebrews, who were to the
Philistines as before, δεν also furned to be with Israel” So Th. We.
Gritz, Klo. and Dr. Weir. If this reading be adopted, however,
it is almost necessary to suppose that "ws has fallen out after
may): the omission 7 prose of the relative (except indeed by
the Chronicler, whose style is peculiar to himself) is exceedingly
1 αὐτὸς LXX. In the causal sentence, the subject of the verb is slightly
emphatic; and hence the explicit pron. is suitable, if not desiderated: see 9, 13;
Gen. 3, 20; Jos. 17, 1; 24, 27; Jud. 14, 3 she (and not another); Jer. 5, 5.
ALV. 19-26. 85
rare; and the few passages in which it is omitted’ read so strangely
that it is questionable if the omission is not due to textual error
(Gen. 39, 4 wb-wn-b>, contrast vz. BSP? Ex 4 Ssaws ΡΜ ;
13, 8; 18, 20; [4, 13 is different]; Jer. 52, 12: Ew. § 333%).
22. PAM] in Hf: Ges. 53. 3 Rem. 4: KGnig, p. 210.
24. Simm ova wi ΝΘ wy] Whatever be the precise force of
wi), it is difficult to understand how the condition expressed by it
would be relieved by Saul’s measure 3) x. (The rendering of
AV. ‘had adjured, is contrary to Hebrew grammar.) LXX has
here a remarkable variant, which has every mark of originality, and
agrees well with the context. For the words quoted it reads: καὶ πᾶς ὁ
λαὸς ἦν μετὰ Σαουλ ws δέκα χιλιάδες ἀνδρῶν" καὶ ἢν ὁ πόλεμος διεσπαρμένος
εἰς ὅλην πόλιν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ "Edpaip. Καὶ Σαουλ ἠγνόησεν ἄγνοιαν
μεγαλὴν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἀρᾶται k.T.d., 1. 6. (85 We. rightly restores)
ἽΠΞ ΤΙΧΒ2 ΠΌΠΟΙ Ὁ ‘AY wre DYEDN ΓΞ Saw ὮΝ ma pyn-b>1
san Dia ποῖ maw maw ὈΥΝΦῚ :DM_N, εἰς ὅλην πόλιν is doubtless
a doublet of ἐν τῷ ὄρει: for 77 ἐπ τὰ with y see Jos. 15, 10°;
2 Ki. 23, 16; 2 Ch. 21, 11; Is. 66, 20(Trommius): édny is merely
amplificatory. M¥i52 is applied similarly to a battle in II 18, 8:
maw is found in ch. 26, 21.
ON] from pbs (for byt) : Ges. ὃ 76. 2°; more fully in Konig,
p. 5181.
ΩΡ] in continuation of Ayn Ip: Tenses, § 115, similarly
Jud. 6, 18, Is. 5, ὃ
25. 182] Comp. II 15, 23 D312 ΝΠ b3y,
25-26%. 264% merely repeats 25%, though the verses stand too
closely together for a resumption to be probable. LXX has καὶ
Ἰααλ δρυμὸς ἢν μελισσῶνος κατὰ πρόσωπον Tod ἀγροῦ" καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ λαὸς
εἰς τὸν μελισσῶνα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπορεύετο λαλῶν. We.’s restoration is
1 Conjunctional phrases such as ty, Ὁ» Ξε Ὁ Ν τον, Dia IT 22, 1 being ex-
cepted. The relative is also omitted regularly after 7117 ΠῚ ΝΟ I Ki. 13, 12.
2 Ki. 3,8. 2 Ch. 18, 23. Job 38, 19. 24. And comp. below, on ch. 25, 15 (᾽ Ὁ).
2 Comp. also Jud. 8, 1. 20,15". ch. 6, 9. 26, 14.
3 Though here LXX may have paraphrased, treating D1? 17 as=DID)? Np.
86 The First Book of Samuel,
remarkably clever: ‘’IaaA and δρυμὸς are doublets, each corre-
sponding to the Heb. 1p’. To the same word, however, corresponds
in v. 26 μελισσών, so that we have here in fact a triplet. Through
V. 26, καὶ ἦν μελισσὼν (Or καὶ μελισσὼν Hv) is confirmed as the genuine
rendering of LXX, Ἰααλ was added to μελισσών, and was afterwards
explained by δρυμός, μελισσὼν being in consequence changed into
the genitive, in order to produce a sentence out of the words καὶ
Ἴααλ δρυμὸς μελισσών. The text of LXX, as thus restored, would
read in Hebrew 71¥0 28 Oy m7 19. In Ὁ. 26a, LXX agree
with MT., except in expressing 125 for wa. The connexion
leads us in 135 to recognize dees, and (observing the } in }>s}) to
read 34 bn mm, vocalizing haleku deboréw or more probably
halak deboré [its bees had left it*]. From the text thus presupposed
by LXX, MT. arose as follows. Ὅν, which was ambiguous, was
first of all explained by wa v. 25; afterwards, however, it was
forgotten that wa7 was only intended to explain Ἵν, and 7, ren-
dered superfluous by the explanatory was, and understood in its
common sense as wood, was detached from its original connexion,
and united with the fragments of the variant of 24 end, preserved in
LXX [καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἠρίστα--- ΓΙῸ ΝΘ Υ ΝΠ 551] In view of the
beginning of v. 26, the sentence was thus formed which stands now
in MT. as v, 25% wast for 135 v. 26 is no doubt an accidental
corruption, though the fact that 125 as a collective term ὅ does not
occur elsewhere in the OT., might contribute to the mistran-
scription.’
yo Sy pen psi] ΔΤ is Zo overtake, reach, oblain ; with
Ἵ as subject, it occurs often in the Priests’ Code (e. g. Lev. 14, 21)
to express the idea of ‘he means of a person sufficing to meet some
expense. Here Klost. is undoubtedly right in restoring 2wn:
np 5x 7) awn is the usual Heb. phrase for the sense required:
see v. 27 and Pr. 19, 24. Dr. Weir makes the same suggestion,
1 Ν᾽ = flowing honey, as Ct. 5, 1 "ὩΔῚ OY 15».
* The sense stream postulated by MT. for 77 is unsupported by analogy.
* D127 in the Z/ural occurs Dt. 1, 44 al.
ALV, 26-32. 87
?
remarking ‘ LXX ἐπιστρέφων as in the next verse:
ann.
27. MN IM] Kt. WW and his eyes saw: Qri HINA and his
eyes were enlightened (as v. 29), i.e. he was refreshed, revived; a
metaphor from the eyes brightening after fatigue or faintness: cf.
Ψ. 13, 4; 19,9 OY ΠΝ (ie. invigorating). The Qri is here
the more forcible reading, and preferable to the Ktib.
29. \2y| An ominous word in OT., used of the trouble brought
by Achan upon Israel (Jos. 7, 25 ΠῚΠ OYA AIM Py ΠΣ AN),
and by the daughter of Jephthah upon her father (Jud. 11, 25
‘22 nn nN), and retorted by Elijah upon Ahab (τ Ki. 18, 17 f.).
mn wat pyp| mim does not belong to way (as accents)—for
it could not in that case have the art.—but to the definite pyn
was ‘this little honey:’ cf. 15, 14 ΠῚΠ jwyn-yp (‘ 2 bleating of the
sheep’—jx¥ is construed as a plur., II 24,17); Dt. 29, 20 5D
mn munn ¢hzs book of the law; 2 Ki. 6, 32 AM myWwA 3 2
son of a murderer.
30. 5 ἢΝ] ἮΝ = cndeed... .: with reference to a preceding
sentence, a fortiori, the more then...! (e.g. Job 4, 19). In
‘3 IN, 3. merely strengthens δ, “Ws zndeed that...! Here ‘3 ἢν
is prefixed (unusually) to the protasis of a hypothetical sentence :
‘ The more, then, if the people had eaten,..... [would they have
been refreshed likewise]: for now (ANY = as things are, as Job 16,
7) there hath been no great slaughter among the Philistines.’ In
LXX clause ὁ, however, is conformed to the usual type of sentences
introduced by Any "3 (Gen. 31, 42. 43, 10: Zenses, § 140), xb
being omitted: the sentence will then read: ‘The more, then, if
the people had eaten ...., would there indeed in that case (Any
= as things might have been, as usually in this connexion) have been
so also Targ.
great slaughter among the Philistines.’
32. wy] Evidently the Qri py") is correct: see 15, 19.
own by ny Sox] A practice, as the present passage shews,
regarded with strong disfavour by the Hebrews: forbidden in the
‘Code of Sanctity’’ (Lev. 17-26), Lev. 19, 26 ὩἽΠ by sdoxn νοὶ,
1 Cf. Gen. 9, 4. Lev. 7, 26. 17, 10. Dt. 12, 16. 23.
88 The First Book of Samuel,
and censured by Ezekiel (33, 25). Sy in this connexion is idiomatic,
and has the force of /ogether with: so Ex. 12, ὃ waxy ov by :
Nu. 9; II ymdoe" pny nisi dy. It is remarkable how Th., on
the strength of LXX σύν, could propose to replace by by nk,
which in this connexion would be un-Hebraic.
33. DNDN] for D'NDA, the weak letter δὲ quiescing: Ges. § 23. 2.
bay] in respect of eating, Anglice, ‘7m eating. So above, Sw
12,17.19,and frequently. For on LXX has Dn: probably rightly.
34. OI by | a clear example of 5x with the force of ὃν.
wa Mw ws] Some, however, it is natural to suppose, would
only have a mY to bring, in accordance with the option permitted
by the terms of the invitation : read accordingly with LXX WS UW'S
ya each ¢hat which was in his hand, which is altogether preferable.
For 112 cf. Gen. 32, 14; 43, 26 O13 WN ANON.
nd] = ‘that night,—a questionable usage: nbn adverbially
elsewhere is always either dy nzght, or to-night, or once (15, 16)
last night. LXX omits.
35. The stone was made into an extemporized altar, and the
slain animals being consecrated by presentation at it, their flesh
could be eaten. See W. R. Smith, Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish
Church, p. 237. Clause 6 implies that Saul built subsequently
other altars to Jehovah.
36. M32] for 7332 Ges. ὃ 67 Rem. 11.
TINY ΝΟ] The jussive is unusual. See, however, Gen. 24, 8;
ΠΠ{Ὸ ΤῊ ΤῊ; 18/14: Temes s Go a (᾽ν.
37. DINNA... NN] The repeated question, as in the similar
inquines, 25, 11>" 59. 8: Tier Τῇ
38. ΓΒ] corners, hence metaph. of princes, the stay and support
of their people: so Jud. 20, 2. Is. 19, 13, where Gesenius compares
ἘΠ corner-stone or corner-pillar (e.g. Eph. 2, 20), used Qor. 51, 39
of Pharaoh’s nobles.
ΓΞ} wherein,—as Mal. 1, 6 ‘wherein have we despised Thy
name?’ Vulg. expresses ‘93, which is preferred by Th. We., and is
certainly more pointed. V. 39 shews that Saul has a ferson in
his mind. In the old character » might easily be corrupted to 7.
XIV. 33-41. 89
39. 9 .,.%9] The first 5 introduces the terms of the oath ;
the second ‘3 is merely resumptive of the first, after the inter-
vening hypothetical clause. So often, as II 3, 9. Gen. 22, 16 f.
41. oven nan] AV. ‘Give a perfect (lot) :’ RV. ‘ Shew the right:’
Keil, ‘Give innocence’ (of disposition, i.e. truth). All these sug-
gested renderings of D%n are without support. on is ‘ perfect,’
i.e.in a physical sense, of an animal, unblemished; in a moral sense,
innocent!, blameless. on 735 might mean ‘give one who is
perfect :’ but that is not the sense which is here required: Saul
does not ask for one who is perfect to be produced; and though
he might ask for the one who is in the right to be declared, this
would be expressed by pty (Dt. 25, 1; 1 Ki. 8, 32), not by pan.
LXX has for the two words: Ti ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σή-
μερον ; ἢ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ιωναθαν τῷ υἱῷ pov ἡ ἀδικία ; Κύριε 6 Θεὸς Ἰσραηλ,
δὸς δήλους" καὶ ἐὰν τάδε εἴπῃ, δὸς δὴ τῷ λαῷ σου ᾿Ισραηλ, δὸς δὴ ὁσιότητα,
whence the following text may be restored: FIPS My N? nip
Das 737 Dey DN ve mya piv ‘a jn. is aw ἘΝ oN
:oven Aan Dxnk’y Fava iv DN}, The text thus obtained is both
satisfactory in itself, and at once removes the obscurity and
abruptness attaching to MT. The first clause corresponds with
LXX exactly: in the second clause ἐὰν τάδε εἴπῃ δὸς δὴ cannot
be followed; but δὸς δὴ (omitted in A) seems to be merely a
rhetorical anticipation of the dds δὴ following, and considering that
LXX render 13 in v. 39 by a verb (ἀποκριθῇ), there is nothing
arbitrary in supposing that rade εἴπῃ may represent 13v” here.
For ὑμβ 5 ὍΣ DX cf. 20, 8. Δῆλοι stands for OMAN ch, 28, 6 and Nu.
27, 21 (as δήλωσις, in Ex. 28, 26. Lev. 8, 8). The cause of the
omission in MT. lies evidently in the occurrence of the same word
Ssw before both xb nod and non nan. The restored text (which
is accepted, amongst others, by Dr. Weir) shews (what has often
been surmised independently) that the Dann) DNA DAWN was a
mode of casting lots: cf. pn v. 42, and note that 725 which
immediately follows in v. 41 (but which in MT. stands unexplained)
is the word regularly used of taking by lot, 10, 20 f. Jos. 7, 14.16.
1 Innocent, that is, not of a particular offence, but generally.
go The First Book of Samuel,
43. ΤΩΝ py] I /asted (emph.) = I just tasted, I did nothing
more.
44. ΠΝ" na] LXX adds Ὁ, which at least is a correct explanation
of the phrase; the curse being invoked naturally upon Azmself.
Possibly, however, this was understood ; at least, the phrase recurs
1 Ki. 19, 2 without 5 (where LXX similarly poi). The oath
followed by "3, as II 3, 9. 35. 1 Ki. 2, 23. 19, 2.
45. ΠΡ] The passage illustrates the mazerial sense of the
word: so Ex. 14, 13; Il 10, 11; and Aywn? (the more common
word in prose), as Jud. 15, 18; ch. 11, 9. 13. 19, 5 al. The root
yu, as Arabic shews, means properly fo be wide, capactous, ample
(e.g. Qor. 29, 56 azwl, ean wl behold, My earth is droad ;
Matt. 7, 13 (Lagarde) eas = πλατεῖα; 2 Cor. 6, τι (Erpenius)
izwl) Ξεπεπλάτυνται ; Gen. 26, 22; Ex. 34, 24 Saad. e3= ann):
hence ywin is properly Ὁ gzve width and freedom to (opp. 781), and
myw" is ‘safety’ in the sense of space fo move in, freedom from
enemies or constraint (opp. ἢ narrowness, angustiae). Etymo-
logically, then, the idea of the root would be best expressed by
deliver, deliverance ; and in a passage such as 11, 9 MAN AND
mywn od this sense appears to be clearly distinguishable. By the
Prophets and Psalmists, however, the idea of deliverance or freedom
which Ayw, AYwN connote, is enlarged, so as to include sprrdiual
as well as maverzal blessings. These words seldom, if ever, express
a spiritual state exclusively: their common theological sense in
Hebrew is that of a mavertal deliverance attended by spiritual blessings
(e.g. Is. 12, 2; 45, 17). In some passages, the temporal element
in the deliverance is very evident, e.g. p. 3, 9 (RV. marg. ‘Or,
Victory :’ see Ὁ. 8); 20, 6 (cf. 7); 28, 8 (note ty and ny); 62, 3
(note the parallel figures “Wy, '23w); 74, 12, etc. The margins
in RV. on several of the passages quoted (including those in the
historical books) serve as a clue to the manner: in which the
* Formed as though from a root ὦ on the ground, probably, of a false
analogy. Similarly npypn, nixwn, mp1IN as though from [AAp, xi, FI],
though the verbs actually in use are ἢΡ2, Tw, NB. Comp. Ol. p. 401;
Stade, ὃ 266°.
ALV. 43-47. gI
Hebrew words represented by the English ‘salvation’ acquired
gradually a higher and fuller meaning.
wR ΓΦ bay ox] ‘If there shall fall even a single hair of
his head to the ground!’ miyw is a single hair, see Jud. 20, 16
seam ΝΟῚ mmyennds ana ybrp ar do: the fem. being the so-called
‘nomen unitatis,’ Ew. ὃ 176%. So 28 ἃ fleet, MIN a ship (Jon. 1, 3).
Ὁ is to be understood here as in TON TAX Dt. 15, 7: lit. ‘ starting
from one of thy brethren’’=even one of thy brethren. This use
of 39 is elucidated by Arabic: see Ges. Thes. or Lex. s.v. (where
illustrations are cited); Ew. ὃ 2784: also Ewald, Gr. Arad. ὃ 5773
Wright, Arad. Gr. ii. § 48.4. Comp. Qor. 6, 39 ὦ» bind Lj
15 Ἷ 43), even a single leaf (nom. unit.) falleth not without
His knowing it—The proverbial expression itself recurs II 14, 11,
and with xd for px τ Ki. τ, 52.
ΝΞ ἦγ conjunction with, atded by (uncommon): cf. Dan. 11, 39.
wp] redeemed: literally, by the substitution of another
(Ew. 1711. iii. 51 [E.T. 36]; We.), or metaphorically? Had the
former been the sense intended, the fact, it is probable, would have
been stated more circumstantially, instead of its being left to the
reader to infer it from a single word. ΠῚ is the technical word
used of the redemption of a life that is forfeit ; but the redemption
may be made by the life of an animal, or by a money payment,
EX, 13, 13. 15. 34, 20, οἵ, 21, 8. 30(all JE); Nu. 18, 15. τό (P).
41. yw] ΜΠ is 40 pronounce or treat as wicked, i.e. to condemn
(Dt. 25, 1); hence MT. has been supposed to mean condemned in
fact (Keil), punished; and in support of this rendering, the analogy
of the Syr. a&% prop. /o /reat as guilty, to condemn, but occasionally
used in the sense of ἡττᾷν 20 put to the worse, overcome (Ephr. i. 325 ;
ii. 318; ap. PS. col. 1213), has been appealed to. But such a
usage would be quite isolated in Hebrew: and the absence of a
suffix or other object to yw is strongly against it here. LXX
has ἐσώζετο = yon :—‘ And wherever he turned he was victorious,’
a reading in every way satisfactory and suited to the context. For
the sense of the Wf cf. Pr. 28, 18 YY DVN qin; Zech. 9, 9
1 Or, according to others, a rhetorical application of the partitzve sense.
92 The First Book of Samuel,
YWAI PIS lit. just and saved, i. e. successful and victorious. The impff.
denote reiteration or habit in the pas?, just as in Pr. 17, 8 etc. they
denote it in present time. LXX οὗ ἂν ἐστράφη ἐσώζετο: On οὗ ἂν
comp. 17, 34 foot-note.
48. dn wy] lit. made might, i.e. displayed prowess, performed
deeds of valour: Nu. 24, 18. w. 60, 14. 118, 15. 16.
wow] The ptcp.seems intended as a plural: if so, the word affords
an example of the very rare form of the suffix 3 masc. 17— after a
plural noun: 30, 26 YI, Nah. 2, 4 W733, Hab. 3, 10 37", Job
24, 23 WPPY, Pr. 29, 18 MWS: Stade, p. 20 mole, ὃ 3468 (2),
and p. 355; Ew. ὃ 2582.
49. wv] No doubt an alteration for byswx 1 Ch. 8, 33, made
on the principle explained on II 4, 4; though how precisely the
form ‘Ww arose must remain uncertain. Probably the name is a
corruption of one formed similarly to Syswx but with 1 in the
second part instead of bya; LXX Ἰεσσιουλ (Luc. Ἰεσσιου) read "
immediately after w. Perhaps, as no name Πὲς ‘man of Yah’
was in use, a more or less similar one beginning with » was sub-
stituted. (The form with w cannot be derived phonetically from
one with wx, only the reverse change from yz to’? being in accord-
ance with analogy.) Ἰεσσιου would correspond precisely to 37°
(for Teo- cf. WY Ἴεσσαι : for -ἰου aTDN Ἤλειου or Ἤλιου, ἼΠΣΞ Βαναίου
ἘΚ Ὁ, ΘΠ, way ᾿Αβδειου τό. 18, 3 ff.).
BL. Swan ja| Read ONIN ‘12, though the error is as old as
LXX. But already Josephus says (Azz. vi. 6, 6) Νῆρος καὶ Κεῖσος ὁ
Σαούλου πατὴρ ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν υἱοὶ δὲ ᾿Αβιήλου.
52. ANN] frequentative: ‘and Saul would see, etc., and would
take him to him’ = and when Saul saw..., he used to take him to
him (Zenses, ὃ 120; 148.1: so Il 15, 2. 5 etc.), WEDS is irre-
gular for }DDN) or IN& ADN1: see on 2, 16.
15. Saul and Amaleg. Second rejection of Saul. (Introduction
to history of David.)
15, 1. ἮΝ] Position as Gen. 37, 4; 48, 36 ondsw ‘nx.
2. ΡΞ] ‘1 will visit,’ i.e. punish—the pf. (though unusual in
BEI GOIN. 93
prose, except in “AN3) as Jud. 15, 3, expressing determination
( Zenses, ὃ 13); and ἽΡΒ being construed with an accus. of the sin
visited, as Hos. 8, 13; 9, 9; Jer. 14, 10. The sense mark (RV.),
ansehen (Keil), is not borne out by usage: 3P means to visit 272
fact, not to observe mentally, or to ‘direct one’s look at’ (Keil).
‘yy Dw Tw] ow in a military sense, as 1 Ki. 20, 12 19°Y “ON
syn Sy wow, and nw inp. 3, 7. Comp. Dt. 25, 18 Jap ἼΩΝ
2.
3. ono inn] LXX, independently of καὶ Ἴερειμ καί, has two
translations of this word, viz. καὶ ἐξοχεθρεύσεις αὐτὸν and καὶ ἀναθεμα-
τιεῖς αὐτὸν καί, both pointing to awe 55 ns} \noann (1) for Ὁ).
Though the Hebrew is poor, the combination nevertheless occurs
(see on 5, 10), and as the sequel shews that the nafcon, as well as
its belongings, was ‘ banned,’ it is best to adopt it.
3b. pay syn Shyn] 22, rot. AWN TY) WIND 72. Jos. 6, 21. 8,
26 al.
Wi... Ὁ] from... even unto, i.e. including both, as often.
Ayo The P7'el,'as23) 81 So Jer. 51; 27° the: Hifil.
ox5na] To be pointed probably onde, and identical with nby
in the ‘Negeb’ of Judah, Jos. 15, 24.
cf. MS for PINS Job 32, 11; brand (as generally understood) Ez.
21, 33; ft Pr. 17, 4. The omission of & is somewhat more
frequent (though rare even then) in Qa/: 28, 24 ΠΕΡῚ; II 6,2
FID) (from ADR); 19, 14 2A; 20, 9 IAL; ψ. 104, 29 ADA (from
ΠΝ).
6. On the Qenites, and their former friendly relations with Israel,
see Nu. το, 29 f. Jud. 1, 16, where it is probable that Budde
(ZA TW. 1887, p. 101) is right in reading, after MSS. of LXX,
spboyn ΠΝ for oyn nx.
DD] The metheg, shewing the hireq to be long, appears to
indicate that the punctuators treated the verb as Hz7f But the
Hif. of ἢῸΝ does not elsewhere occur, and the me/heg rests, no
doubt, upon a false theory as to the nature of the word. Read
without metheg, it will be the impf. Qa/ 4D (as ψ. 104, 29), with
94 The First Book of Samuel,
-- shortened to — when the syllable is rendered toneless by the
addition of a suffix (so in the 21. TADS 13227 2 Ki. 22, 201, FDS
Comp. KGnig, p. 382f. For the sense, cf. y. 26, 9.
7. Ww ἽΝ nbn | On Shur, see Mr. Spurrell’s Motes on the
Hebrew Text of Genesis (1887), on Gen. 16, 7. It appears to
have denoted the district on the N.-E. border of Egypt, which
gave its name to the "Ww 1291 Ex. 15, 22. Where ndyn was is
uncertain. In Genesis the name denotes localities in the direction
of India (2, 11) or the Persian Gulf (10, 29. 25, 18), perhaps also
in Abyssinia (10, 7): in any case, too remote to define the
starting-point of the defeat inflicted by Saul upon the Amaleqites.
Either nn here is the name of a spot in or near the country of
Amaleq, otherwise unknown, or we should simply (with We.) restore
nds (v. 4): ‘the error may have arisen through a reminiscence of
Gen. 25, 18,’ where the phrase occurs, closely resembling the one
here, ΣΝ. 3p Sy awe caw sy mdynn, but where mdyn, as has
just been said, appears from the context to denote a place more
distant than is suitable here.
‘35 by] in front of, in geographical descriptions, commonly
means 20 the cast of: so Gen. dc. 1 Ki. 11, 7.
9. owen] Explained by Kimchi (Book of Roots, s.v.) in the sense
of 3 Desay, i.e. young of a second birth, such as had the repu-
tation of being superior to firstlings (see Tanhum, quoted by Roed.
in the Zhes. p. 14518). So Roed. himself (p. 1451»), and Keil.
But the text reads suspiciously, and the position of by before
nn (instead of before the far of similar delicacies pwn
ὩΣ 2ΠῚ) suggests error. We. for o727 byy ΣΦ ΟΠῚ would read
O37) O20 ‘and the best of the flocks and the herds, even the
fat ones (comp. Ez. 34, 16), and the lambs,’ etc., which un-
doubtedly forms a better Hebrew sentence, and nearly agrees with
the rendering of Pesh. Targ. (8'2°D5) N°2'DY), neither of which,
1 In the parallel passage, 2 Ch. 34, 28, in exactly the same phrase, ἼΒΌΝ
is pointed as here, with me¢heg, i.e. as an impf. Hif.!
XV. 7-9. 95
at least, appears to have had either pwn, or by before non.
mn are mentioned in terms implying that they were a delicacy
in Am. 6, 4; Dt. 32, 14.
yoINA ANS op» m2 maNdon Ὁ5}] AaNdy is used of cattle,
Gen. 33, 14. 19D) is a grammatical monstrum, originating evi-
dently in the blunder of a scribe. The text had D3 Ara: the
scribe began by error with the second word, wrote the first two
letters 193, then discovered his mistake, but not wishing to make
an erasure, simply added the letters mra. (There are similar
monstra in Ez. 8, 16. 9, 8.) The words present, however, other
difficulties. NS, resuming pp) ΠῚ2), is indeed defensible by Dt.
15: By (4, Ὁ. Poe τοὶ, <5 ali (Tenses, $199. 1; 2}: and: forthe
change of gender there are at least parallels which can be adduced
(e.g. 1 Ki. 19, rr: see Ges. ὃ 147 Rem. 1; Ψ. 63, 2 ἢ" Νὴ) ΠΝ PINI
with Hitzig’s note’); but the use of D103 is very strange (lit. melted
away = diseased, consumptive?). The versions all express a synonym
of mta3—LXX καὶ ἐξουδενωμένον, Pesh. Judas, Targ. 53), Vulg.
et reprobum: and there can in fact be no reasonable doubt
that MDX) must be restored, either for AMX DD or for DDN
alone (retaining ANN’). Indeed, AV. RV. appear both to have
adopted implicitly this emendation; for ‘refuse’ is no rendering
of DI], though it obviously expresses DN1D] (Jer. 6, 30 marg.) or
NDS]. The omission of the art. with the ptcp., after a subst.
defined by it, is a further difficulty. The text as it stands ex-
presses the sense ‘But all the maxdy, being vile and refuse, they
banned*:’ but this contradicts the context; for some of the ΠΌΝΟ
1 «The fem. termination of the adj., once used, can in a way operate forwards,
so that the second adj. is left in the simplest, most immediate form,’
? Which is expressed by Pesh. Targ. LXX (Luc.), Vulg., and as stated above
is fully defensible.
* So Ψ. 18, 18; 92, 12 Dy 1 »5y DMPA against those who rise up against
me (as) evil doers; 143, Io 7110 ΠῚ Ἢ thy spirit (being) good; Jer. 2, 21
(text doubtful). The adj. without the art. forms a species of predicate: ef. on
2, 23. (II 6, 3° is corrupt: but even were it not so, the grammatical rendering
“ drave the cart, being a new one’ would be consistent with the context, which,
in the case of the phrase here, is just what is not the case.)
96 The First Book of Samuel,
was good, and was spared. The sense demanded by the context,
viz. ‘but sach of the ΝΡ as was vile and refuse they banned,’
requires either the Zr ce of the art. in both cases, or its absence
in both.
rr. ὈΝ ΟΡ sn] Dr. εἶτ: ‘LXX ἠθύμησε, Vulg. conturbatus est,
Syr. ἃς alhoalh?, Bunsen, Pbelwerk, “ ward unmuthig,” referring to
Gen. 45, 5 ‘TN OMI 2 DI2yr aM ON wayyn by, and IT 6, 8
mya yap ¥% yp wwe ὃν and any (LXX ἠθύμησε). The LXX
must have read %12"1, and yet ΜῈΝ would seem much more suitable.
Keil makes 1m) mean here “wrath at the frustration of God’s
purpose in raising up Saul to be king.” But comp. v. 35. 16, 1.
Perhaps we ought to read “¥"\ (comp. the instances in which aN
seems to have taken the place of MS, Academy, iv. Ὁ. 251 Ψ. 67, 5.
116, 9. 143, 10]). So also in II 6, 8. The AV. translates there
was displeased and here was grieved: but not so elsewhere. jn
is always wrath. For “¥\ comp. 28, 15. ΠῚ 1, 26. Gen. 32, 8 etc.’
Comp. below on II 6, 8; and see also Jon. 4, 1.
12. ΠΝ ΡΟ nsw] In thorough analogy with Hebrew usage (see
on 6, 13). LXX, Vulg. express 10», which Th. declares to be a
‘necessary’ insertion: but the renderings of these versions are
merely accommodations to the idiom of a different language. See
besides Ct. 7, 13 Ὁ ΣΟ ΠΣ); and Ges. Thes. p. 1406 (referred
to by We.).
mom] without the suffix, as 16, 11. But the ptcp. ay” ‘zs set-
ting up’ does not agree with the sequel (which states that Saul
had 171 Carmel): and doubtless 23) ‘Aah set up’ must be read
(so LXX ἀνέστακεν).
3°] lit. hand, i.e. sign, monument, trophy of the victory: II 18, 18.
14. ΠῚΠ] See on 14, 29.
15. WW] WW is a “ink, bringing the clause which it introduces
into relation with what precedes: here the relation is a causal one,
in that, forasmuch as: 20, 42. 26, 23>. Gen. 30, 18. 31, 49. 34, 13
(cf. on II 2, 5): elsewhere, "WN may be resolved into the expression
of a consequence, so /#a/, aS'Gen, 13, 16; 22,14; 1 ΚΙ 5. 12. 15:
2 033%
AV. 11-23. 97
16.17] Dr. Weir thus appositely illustrates the usage of this word:
‘Dt. 9, 14 DPMYNI OD AIA. ch. 11, 3 DOpaw 9d AIA. IT 24,
16 JD sn. ψ. 37, 8 AKO AI. 46, rr yy ww.
ποῦ] the night (that is just past)=/as¢mght. Elsewhere always
of the coming night, as Gen. 19, 5; 30, ΕΥ̓ etc.: comp. on 14, 34.
MN] Qri WRX", a necessary correcti« \ The opposite of the
variation noted on 13, 19. See Ochlah wi’ Ochlah, No. 120 (eleven
instances of } at the end of a word "ἽΡ xd) and cited: among
them Jos.6,-7 59, ἢ: PKI. .£4,.97 21, hie Ki 1.4. 859):
17. ‘ Though thou art little in thine own eyes, art thou not head
of the tribes of Israel? And Jehovah hath anointed thee to be
king over Israel’ (i.e. thou art in a position of authority, and
oughtest to have restrained the people).
18, ony onyd> sy] ‘Until ¢2ey consume them’ cannot be right.
Either ONS 4Nib2 TY (Jer. 9, 15=49, 37) must be read (with LXX,
Pesh. Targ.), or OO must be omitted (with the Vulg.), as having
arisen by some confusion out of the preceding ὩΠ-. pnipa7y
‘until (one, people) consume them’ is the more idiomatic usage :
1 Ki, 22, τι ὈΡΊΡΞ ἽΝ DINTNN NaN; y. 18, 38.
19. byAy] for pyr from py: Ges. ὃ 72 Rem.g; Stade, ὃ 5491.
20. WWN]| stands as the equivalent of "5, after ΠῚ 18, 15; after
yo Ex. 11, 7. Ez. 20, 26 (unusually in Ezek.; see Hitz.). Qoh. 8,
12; after yawn Ki. 22, 16; and=9 recztativum (2, 16), as here,
II 1, 4 (cf. 2, 4), p. 10,6? Neh. 4, 6 (most probably) ’.
22. awond] The inf. cstr. with 5, as the subj., as Is. το, 7);
yw. 118, 8.9; Qoh. 7, 2.5; Pr. 21, Ὁ NYND 4 ΠῸΒ by nawd aw
ἼΞΠ nd) oN (contr. 25, 24).
23. 0] ‘ oftenest in Ezek. (2, 5 etc. AMA WD 13%). Is. 30, 9
xin py. Nu. 17, 25 "9 92. Dt. 31, 27 AWPN JEANS) PWN’
(Dr. Weir).
WN] Signifying, in particular, idolatry, as Nu. 23, 21 30 nb
Seawya ne.
‘In late Hebrew ἼΩΝ appears as = guod with greater frequency: Dan. 1,
8 bis, Qoh. 5, 4... WN 11¥ (contrast Ru. 2, 22 "3). 7, 29. 9,13; and espe-
cially in Est. Neh. (fasszvz).
H
98 The First Book of Samuel,
N53] in pause for ¥50, as constantly in verbal forms, as
12%, awn, ΠῚ (Is. 18, 5), etc., and occasionally in nouns, as
bea 15. 7, 6tor, ὉΝ3Ὁ (cf. Ezr. 4, 7), Sys Zech. 14, 5, * DMN 1 Ch.
8, 38 (v. 37 byy) : Ew. ὃ 93%, Stade, ὃ 1072, 7857 is the abs. inf.
Hif, almost with the force of a subst.: cf. TY Is. 14, 23, 7217
Job 6, 25, SWF 25, 2 (Ew. § 196°). The form, with a substantival
force, is rare in Biblical Hebrew; but one nearly the same (311)
is common in the Mishnah: Siegfried and Strack, Lehrbuch der
Neuhebrétschen Sprache (1884), § 55».
JONI] “1 in answer to ‘3, as v. 26. Hos. 4, 6 edd. (but not
Baer); cf. Nu. 14, 16. Is. 45, 4. 48, 5 al.: Zenses, ὃ 127 γ.
jbo] ‘from king’=‘from being king:’ cf. the fuller form in
26>, and the alternative ΠΌΡΟΣ ἴῃ 16,1. So 733) 71D" τ Ki. 15, 13.
28. mabnn] The usual word is ΠΡΟ: but the form ΣΡ
(from [7e21]) occurs besides, II 16, 3. Hos. 1, 4. Jer. 26, 1,
Vos. 13, 12, 21.27. 30, 211} ‘Cf. ΠΡΊΩΝ Hag. τὶ RG from qubn:
Stade, ὃ 3049, We., observing that the form never occurs in the
absolute state, questions the originality of the pronunciation ex-
pressed by the plena scrzptio, and would restore everywhere nen,
poy] Srom off thee: 1 Ki. 11, 11». For the figure, cf. by Is. 9, δ.
20. Syn ΓΝ] Probably the Glory of Israel. The root my)
appears only in certain derivatives in Hebrew, the manner in which
they are related is apparent only in Aramaic. ΠῚ) in Syriac is
properly splenduct, hence the adj. \us7s = λαμπρὸς Apoc. 22, 16;
but in the Peal (= Heb. Qa/), and more especially in the E7¢hpa‘el,
it usually appears with the derived sense of zuclaruit, celebris evastt,
and so wictoriam adeptus futt, triumphavit (cf. Dan. 6, 4): similarly
the subst. ὦ," = victory (e.g. Jud. 13, 18 Ξε ΠΡ), and the
corresponding Niny) in the Targg. as Jud. 7, 18 pyta 51) by sony
‘and wicfory by the hands of Gideon ;’ . 35, 23 ΓΝ) "19 ‘ the lord
of my vecfory’ In Heb. my) has certainly a sense allied to this in
the late passages, Lam, 3, 18; 1 Ch. 29, 11°; and the expression
1 Doubtfully in Hab. 1, 4 (AV. but not RV.). The sense of the root in
XV, 28-32. 99
here used is doubtless intended to characterize Jehovah as the Glory
or Splendour of Israel. Similarly the Versions, but leaning somewhat
unduly to the special (and derived) sense 6f véc/ory: Pesh. opme
Sc{ic0s/) the Illustrious or Triumphant one of Israel; Targ.
Sse} NY) “WD the lord of Israel’s victory; Vulg. Triumphator
(no doubt from Aq. or Symm., though their renderings have not
been here preserved): so Rashi baw» by wnnya. AV. (from Kimchi
OND) opin) strength: but this sense rests upon no _ philological
foundation, and is merely conjectured from some of the passages
in which my) occurs, and where such a rendering would satisfy
a superficial view of the context. Ges. Ke. render fiducia, com-
paring 725 purus, sincerus, fidelis fuct (used of sincerity towards
God, Qor. 9, 92, or well-wishing toward men, 28, 11. 19). But
it is doubtful if this sense of the Arabic root is sufficiently pro-
nounced and original to justify the definite sense of confidence being
attached to the Hebrew ΠΥ) ἦ.
pnind sin ot Nd 5] Cf. Nu. 23,19. Contrast here vv. 11. 35:
as Le Clerc (quoted by Th.) remarked long ago, the zarrative is
expressed ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, the prophecy θεοπρεπῶς.
32. nosy} An (implicit) accus. defining the manner in which
Agag advanced, i.e. an adverbial accusative: cf. ΠῺΣ zz confidence
(12, 11 al.), ow, wD zz uprightness (poet.): other examples
in Ew. ὃ 279°. The sense, however, is not certain. (@) The most
obvious rendering is delicately, voluptuously: cf. NYY luxurious,
‘given to pleasures,’ LXX τρυφερά, Is. 47, 8. DTI OY WIL τ, 24.
ψΨ 36, 9 PITY or LX χειμάρρους τῆς τρυφῆς σου. Neh. 9, 25 122)
woyn) LXX καὶ ἐτρύφησαν 3, So Τατρ, ὃ Symm. We. (4) Others
Aram. explains LXX ἰσχύσας in Is. 25, 8, and St, Paul’s more explicit εἰς νῦκος
[so also Aq. Theod. in Isaiah] in the quotation, 1 Cor. 15, 54.
1 mz. in Is, 63, 3. 6 is a different word altogether (though identified by
Kimchi, AV. ), being connected with the Arab. 2.4 3 to sprinkle; see Ges. Thes.
2 Comp. 821» daznties Gen. 49, 20. Lam=4, 5 0237905 Ὁ 5557.
3 xpipn (see Dt. 28, 54 Onq.). Azlari animo (Ge. Ew. Ke.) gives the word
a turn which is foreign to the root from which it is derived. Vulg. pzrguzsstmus
[et tremens of the Clementine text is a doublet, derived from the Old Latin, and
omitted by all the best MSS.] is based probably on Symm. ἁβρός.
H 2
100 The First Book of Samuel,
compare ΤῚΣ ἽΝ) in Job 38, 31, which can scarcely be explained
otherwise than by metathesis from ΠΥ) dands: hence, here, 27
fetters. So Kimchi. (c) LXX render τρέμων, whence Lagarde very
cleverly, merely by a change of punctuation, suggests ΤΣ Ὁ (of
the same form as ΠΙ9 ΠΣ dackwards, MIT? mourningly) tolteringly.
It is safest, on the whole, to acquiesce in (a). (Th. ¥Y73(!)—a term
which might be applied to a mounéacn quaking, but not to a man.)
nyon 9 4D [3] fDN in an exclamation, with asseverative force,
as Gen. 28, 16 ΠῚΠ apna "7" yw JIN; Ex. 2, 14 7370 yt JON.
It is a stronger word than δ, which is also used somewhat
similarly (see 16, 6).
Ἵ2] a subst. dzterness, as Is. 38, 15 WEI WD by. 1D 2s departed,
gone by, as Am. 6, 7 BND AMD 1D}; and Is. 11,13 of a state
of feeling (Π 30). LXX, Pesh. omit 1D, expressing merely the
platitude, Surely death is bitter! (In LXX εἰ οὕτω implies the mis-
reading of }38 as 131.)
33. DwIp] Jud. 5, 24.
RDw| Only here. Aq. Symm. διέσπασεν, Vulg. τη frusia concidit,
Targ. Pesh. nwp (LXX more generally ἔσφαξεν). Of the general
sense intended by the narrator there can be no doubt: but whether
the word used by him has been correctly handed down may be
questioned. Etymologically ,Dw stands isolated: the Syriac }QY
fidit (Roed. in Thes.) does not correspond phonetically. Should
we read YOU" (Jud. 14, 6 al.)?
The 51M, referred to in this chapter, is perhaps best explained
by Ewald in his Antiquities of Israel, pp. 101-106 [E. T. 75-8]*.
The word itself is derived from a root which in Arabic means
to shut off, separate, prohibit (ay=)s whence the haram or sacred
territory of the Temple of Mecca, and the harzm (2 2); the
secluded apartment of the women, applied also to its occupants,
i.e. the ‘harem 2. In Israel, as in Moab, the term was used of
1 See also the art. ‘ Bann’ in Riehm’s Handwirterbuch des Bibl. Altertums
(1884) ; and Dillmann’s note on Lev. 27, 28 f.
* Also εὑΞ haram, sanctuary (as in the title Παγᾶρε ’es-Sherif, or noble
AV, 33. 101
separation or consecration to a deity. Mesha in his Inscription
states how, on the occasion of his carrying away the ‘vessels of
Yahweh’ from Nebo, and presenting them before his god Chemosh,
he ‘devoted’ ooo Israelite prisoners to ‘‘Ashtor-Chemosh °.’
Among the Hebrews, the usage was utilized so as to harmonize
with the principles of their religion, and to satisfy its needs. It
became a mode of secluding and rendering harmless anything
which peculiarly imperilled the religious life of either an individual
or the community, such objects being withdrawn from society at
large and presented to the sanctuary, which had power, if needful,
to authorize their destruction. The term occurs first in the old
collection of laws called ‘ The Book of the Covenant’ (Ex. 20, 23
—ch. 23), Ex. 22, 19 with reference to the Israelite who was
disloyal to Jehovah ("739 vb onda pan’ ovnbsd nat) 2 More com-
monly we read of its being put in force against those outside the
community of Israel: thus it is repeatedly prescribed in Deuteronomy
that the cities and religious symbols of the Canaanites are to be
thus ‘ devoted’ to the ban; and the spoil of a heathen city was
similarly treated, the whole or a part being ‘ devoted’ or ‘ banned’
according to the gravity of the occasion (Dt. 7, 2. 25 f. 20, 16-18).
Instances of the 07M, as exemplified historically, are recorded in
Nu. 21, 2f. (after a vow). Dt. 2, 34. 3, 6. Jos. 6, 17-19 (the
Sanctuary, applied to the area enclosing the ‘ Dome of the Rock’ at Jerusalem,
τὰ
on which the Temple formerly stood) ; and ¢ a muharram, the sacred (first)
month of the Arabs, in which it was forbidden to carry on war.
' Lines 14-18 ΠΣ ΝῚ 97992 JOT) DR Ww? by 722 NN ἘΠῚ 17 W979 WN
1322} yaa DON nyaw 05) AIAN) WN) DLT ἽΝ nanw7 ypand ma
mi o5[) ΠῚΝ DWN APR ANdINA wd ANwyd 5 NAM nI3) 7321
wn 8} om amor ‘And Chemosh said to me, Go, take Nebo against Israel.
And I went by night, and fought [the conjug. is = the Arabic VIII] against it,
from the break [Is. 58, 8] of morn until noon, and I took it, and slew them all,
7000 men, and sons [text here doubtful], and women, and daughters, and maid-
servants {see Jud. 5, 30], for I had devoted it to ‘Ashtor-Chemosh, and I took
thence the vessels [so Renan, who doubts here the reading 9x18 (Ez. 43, 15. 16)]
of Yahweh, and I dragged them before Chemosh.’ (On the deviations from
Smend and Socin’s text see Clermont-Ganneau, Journ. As., Jan. 1887.)
2 Comp. Dt. 13, 13-18 (the idolatrous city in Israel).
102 The First Book of Samuel,
whole spoil was here made hérem or ‘devoted:’ a part of this
hérem was afterwards secreted by Achan, as it was reserved by
Saul on the occasion to which the present chapter refers). 8, 2.
26al. Here, it appears to be put in force, exceptionally, against
an external political enemy of Israel’.
16, 1-13. David anointed by Samuel at Bethlehem.
16, 1. °>,..°mN] Gen. 22, 8.
2. sammy ΟΝ yown] Il 12, 18 would support the construction
that treated these words as under the government of Js (Zénses,
§ 115, p- 156), though they might in themselves be construed
independently (12. ὃ 149: Gen. 44, 22 ΠῚ YANTNN Ary).
ἮΝ ¥%5 nats] Note the order: Gen. 42, 9. 47, 4. Nu. 22, 20.
105: 2.5; Jud. a5, το ch. ΤΠ 20. 280.
3. nara] Unless nad should be read (as z. 5), 2 will have the
so-called ‘ eventual’ force, ‘shalt call him (so that he may be) αΖ
the sacrifice:’ cf. Hos. 12, 7 ὙΠΌΝΣ awn any) shalt return (so
as to rest) 7 thy God, ψ. 17, 12 Delitzsch.
pox WN WN] WN = 10 name, designate, as Gen. 22, 2». 9. 26, 2;
Ae, 27 JUG, 22.5.2 IKI; Ὁ: ΤΟ:
4. inxpd,,. rtm] See on 6, 13.
ox] sc. 1287. When the verb appears in Heb. without a
subject expressed, the implicit subject is—not ove, as in English
or French—but ¢he cognate participle W289. The explanation is
1 In AV. the verb D°1n7 is generally rendered ztterly destroy and the subst.
Din accursed thing ; but these terms both express secondary ideas, besides
having the disadvantage of being apparently unrelated to each other: in RV.
by the uniform use of devote and devoted thing, in the margin, if not in the text
(for ‘utterly destroy, with marg. ‘ ed. devote,’ has been retained in the text
where the reference was to fersons), the idea attaching to the Hebrew is more
clearly expressed, and the connexion between the different passages in which
the word occurs is preserved. It is a conjecture of Stade’s (Gesch. i. 490) that
the D1 was in its origin associated with a vow; in the hope of securing the
aid of a deity, the spoil of the city to be attacked was dedicated beforehand to
him. However, in the OT. itself, it is spoken of in terms which imply
that it was resorted to, as a rule, unconditionally (so already, in particular,
Ex. 22, 10).
AVI, 1-7. 103
confirmed by the fact that cases occur in which the cognate
participle is actually expressed, Dt. 17, 6 mon nin. 22, 8 day 15
boon. IL 17, 9 yown your. Is. 28, 4 ANN ANID ANY ἼΩΝ, Ez. 18,
32 non mins. 33, 4 twa Sp ΠΝ yown pow. The idiom is
already rightly explained by the mediaeval Jewish grammarians, as
Ibn Ezra}, 6. g. on Gen. 48, 1 mpd ἜΝ (the stock example of
the idiom) sc. W287; Is. 8, 4 Nw sc. NYI7; Am. 6, 12 WIN’ ὮΝ
opaa sc. YIn3, and constantly ; Kimchi on 1 Ki. 22, 38 ΩΦ
jord rN ws ΘΠ“. Comp. Ew. ὃ 294} (2), Ges. ὃ 137. 3 (where,
however, the explanation given is inadequate).
JN ΒΟ. The interrogation being indicated by the tone of the
voice (cf.on 11,12). So, with the same word, II 18, 29. 2 Ki. 9, 19.
There is no occasion, with Gratz, Die Psalmen, p. 116, to restore 3.
Lit. ‘Is thy coming peace ?’ the abstract peace being used in pre-
ference to the concrete peaceable. So often, as 25, 6 pidy ans
miby nay. On the principle involved see Zenses, ὃ 189, and comp.
Delitzsch’s note on Job 5, 24 (ed. 2).
5. wapnn] Cf. Ex. τὸ, ro. 22.
6. ἽΝ] So often, in an exclamation, to add force to the expres-
sion of a conviction (not necessarily a true one): Gen. 44, 28;
Wud; 20, 36). ch. 25, 21’ Jer. 10,192 Ψ 58; ΤΣ: ὍΣ, τὸ 5]:
7. 123] The adj. as a neuter, with the force of a subst. : cf. 5)
Bx 15, 26; wip ψΨ. 46, 5.
DINT ANY wx] LXX expresses in addition *mAm ANY, which
must have fallen out accidentally. For ὝΦΝ, 13 must be restored;
the passages in which \Wx may be rendered as (Jer. 48, 8. ψ. 106,
34.) are not parallel in form to the one here.
1 Who, however, is apt to extend unduly the principle involved. Comp.
Friedlander, Zssays on the Writings of Ibn Ezra, p.134; W. Bacher, Adraham
lin Ezra als Grammatiker (Strassburg, 1882), p. 143°.
* And similarly with the plural, as Is. 2, 2015 ἸῺῸν ὙῸΝ sc. DDYT.
3 ὃ θεός, which however answers to 717 in the following clause.
* Where ἼΩΝ is properly ¢hat which, and may be so rendered. But the
writer cannot haye intended here to say that ‘ God seeth not ¢hat which man
seeth!’ In Is. 54, 9, Jer. 33, 22 the construction is doubtful: but the sense
that which, as the direct object of a verb, is excluded by the following 15.
104 The First Book of Samuel,
pryd] ny of the look or appearance, as Lev. 13, 5; and in the
sing. 20. 55. Nu. 11, 7.
11. 737)| without the suffix, as the subject referred to immediately
precedes.
3D3] usually explained as meaning to οἱ round the table or
divan. Dr. Weir writes: ‘ LXX οὐ μὴ κατακλιθῶμεν, Vulg. non dis-
cumbemus, Targ. VOD) surround, which is used in the Targ. of
sitting at meat, Ψ. 1, 1. 26, 4.5. Gen. 27, 18 = naw [and in the
Af‘el, ch. 20, 5. 24. 25]. In all these passages it corresponds to
the Heb. 3". Syr. yoror/ WZ wll not return. 31D is nowhere
else used in the sense supposed. Perhaps we might read 203.’
12. oy ΠΕ ὮΝ] So 17, 42: but the expression is very re-
markable and anomalous. It is contrary to usage or analogy for
ny to be used with an adverbial force (Ew. § 352°; Keil; AV.
‘withal’): if the text be sound, 75) must be a neuter adj, like 73)
in v. 7: ‘together with beauty of eyes.’ Gratz suggests ney (17, 56)
for oy: so also Max Krenkel in the ZA 7W. 1882, p. 309.
16, 14-23. First account of David's introduction to Saul. David
ts brought into attendance upon the king for the purpose of
soothing him, during his fits of madness, by his minstrelsy, and
7s made his armour-bearer.
14. ἸΏΝ} The pf. with waw conv. (not simple waw) with
a freq. force (cf. 15 end, the ptcp.). The word (which is a strong
one) only occurs here and v. 15 in prose’, being elsewhere confined
to poetry—chiefly the Book of Job.
Ys ma] “575 nn as good spirit is opposed to 5. nND MY or
mnbs min as evil spirit. This distinction is strictly maintained in
MT.: only 19, 9 would form an exception, but there ὈΠῸΝ An
should doubtless be read with LXX for 55) mn’ (We.).
16. 3) WN] ‘Let our lord, now, command, thy servants are be-
fore thee, let them seek,’ etc. The roughness and abruptness of the
Heb. (which is concealed in RV.) is extreme: LXX, in far better
1 Except the Nif., which is found in /ate Hebrew (thrice).
AVDA, τὶ 105
accord with the usual form of a Hebrew period, express 8271}2N"
Wr Bd 7T73¥. MK was probably written originally WN’ (see
Introd.) ; and 43358, when first inserted, was intended to be taken
as a vocative: but 118’ being ambiguous, it was taken actually as
a nom., and so the pronunciation ON’ fixed (in lieu of 78°),
79993 32 yt] ‘knowing, as a player with the harp’ (cf. Ew.
§ 2859). A particular case of the principle by which, in Hebrew
syntax, one verb appears as supplementing or completing the
sense of another (on 2, 3). In Ὁ. 18 ys) is construed with an infin-
itive. For yt’, as denoting technical skill, cf. 1 Ki. 9, 27 DT ‘yy,
Am. 5, 16 ‘m3 ‘yi, « Ch. 12, 32 ΤΡ mvs syd, Is. 20; τὰς
3 22)|] To specify in detail the instrument or means by which
an action takes place, even though to our mode of thought it may
appear superfluous, is very Hebraic: LXX 119333 is anything but
an improvement. See v. 23. 18, 10. 19, 9; also such phrases as
UNI FTW, etc.
17. 95 2.22] Ez. 33, 32 [2) 30M; Is. 23, 16 yx ON.
18. 135 7129] LXX σοφὸς λόγῳ, Vulg. prudentem in verbis, i. 6.
clever, capable in speech. (Ready in speech, eloquent, is D727 WS
ΣΤ, ΤΟ lias Go Coe Σ : wind 32 clever in enchantment.
20. ond ὙΠ] If the text be correct, this will mean an ass laden
with bread. But the expression ‘an ass of bread’ is peculiar ;
and as elsewhere ond is regularly numbered (by loaves), it is quite
possible that 19n is a corruption of AWN or Mwy, LXX γομορ i.e.
“ny? favours the latter—w and Ὁ in the old character are very
similar,
1 See Ex, 16, 36 LXX: so Γοθονιὴλ Ξε 2 ν, ToforAia=75ny, Tala=ny,
Γόμορρα = ΠΡ, Syywp or Zoyop (Jer. 48 [31], 34)= 19x, Ta= yn (Ai),
Γαιβαλ -ε 3)», Φογωρ -- Ἢ» Ὁ, Βεελφεγωρ -Ξ ν ΒΓ 5.2, Χοδολλογομορ and Θαλγα
ΞΕ ὩΣ 515 and Ὁν»1 (ἀξ. 14, 1), Ῥαγαν (Gen. 11, 18. Luke 3, 35) =1»7,
“PayounA τε νη, Topepa and Σωγαλπεεῖτηθν and νὴ) (ch. 13, 17), Γαιδαδ -Ξ
avy (Gen. 4, 18), Tepap (Tapep, Tapap) =p y (Gen. 25, 4. 1 Ch. 1, 33 [cf.
2, 46. 47]. Is. 60, 6): add Gen. 36, 2 yrvax Σεβεγων, 14 Ody? Ἰεγλομ, 23 35D
Γωλων, 51°y Γαιβηλ, 35 ny Γεθθαιμ (so 1 Ch. 1, 46), 40 πλὸν Twdaa; Nu. 1, 8
WIS Σωγαρ; 33, 35 ἃ]. Ἴ2λ psy Tecowwy (Τασιων) TaBep, 44. 45 (D)»y Tu,
46 γγ9}» Tedpov; Jos. 15, 59 ΠΣ Ὁ Μαγαρωθ; 19,11 ΤΠ» 1 Μαραγελδα; 21,
106 The First Book of Samuel,
22. 905 Ty] ΞΟ ἼΩΝ is an idiom denoting 4 be cn al/endance
wpon one, to wait one’s bidding: 1 Ki. το, 8 of the servants of
Solomon: 26. 17, 1. 2 Ki. 3, 14 of Elijah and Elisha as the minis-
ters of Jehovah: elsewhere it is applied technically to the priest
as in attendance upon /ehovah, Dt. 10, 8. Ez. 44, 15; and to the
Levite as in attendance upon the people, Nu. 16, 9. Ez. 44, τι.
23. Notice the series of perfects with waw conv. expressing what
happened adztually, and represented rightly in the versions (impff,
in LXX, Vulg.; ptcpp. in Targ. Pesh.).. “Ὁ ΠΥ as Job 32, 20%.
myan ΠῚ] Apj is an adj. (not a subst. in the gen.) as appears
(1) from the analogy of 15>. 16>; (2) from the fact that nynn is not
used as a qualifying genitive. Comp. above, on 12, 23. For the
conception of the ΠῚ ΠῚ, cf. Jud. 9, 23.
17, 1—18, 5. Second account of David's introduction to Saul.
David, a shepherd youth from Bethlehem, attracts the king’s
attention by his victory in single combat over Goliath.
17, τ. Hw] LXX Σοκχωθ. A geographical ground in all pro-
bability underlies this plural: see We.’s note.
mam ws] Cf. Ki. 19, 3; 2 Ki. 14, 11 (of Beersheba);
18 y1n9y Tayada [1 Ch. 6, 45 (60) noby Γαλεμεθ]; 1 Ki. 5, 11 (4, 27) JN?
Taday (jy or 7719); 16, 28 Γαβουζα (of Asa’s mother 711s in an addition to
MT.; not with T 22, 42. 2 Ch. 20, 31); 1 Ch.1, 9 mp7 Ῥεγμα; 4, 9 yay?
Ἰγαβης (also ὡς yaBns for 25»); 2,47 AYW Σαγαε (Al. Sayad); 4, 14 TIDY
Topepa; 9, 4 my Tobe; 42 noby Tapered; 2b. ΤΥ Ταζαωθ (but not so
8, 36. 12, 3. 27, 25); 11, 32 »naiym Γαραβαιθθι. In Arabic, the soft and
hard sounds of y are distinguished by a diacritical point ίς. ς ): in Hebrew,
though no such sign has been adopted, it is clear, from the transliteration of
LXX, that ν had in some words a harder and stronger sound than in others
(comp. Stade, ὃ 63°). According to Lagarde (Orzentalia, II. 1880, p. 37,
Mittheclungen, i. 196 f., ii. 76), the LXX in representing by I were guided by
an explicit tradition concerning the pronunciation. This is highly probable,
and confirmed, at least in many cases, by the corresponding forms in Arabic
(with δ not &): Can it, however, be shewn to be probable that in a// cases
of »=y the corresponding word (or root) in Arabic would have ἕξ; and not e?
The subject is one which invites further investigation, though this is not the
place in which to pursue it further.
XVI, 22—X VII. 8. 107
1 Ch. 13, 6 (of Qiryath-yearim): also onwdoad wy 1 Ki. 15, 27. 16,
15; ΕΣ ἽΦΝ 20. τῇ, 9: Jud. 18, 28. 19,14. 20, 4.
3. The ptcpp. describe the confnuous position of the parties
during the incidents about to be related.
4. D3 ws] i.e. the man of the μεταίχμιον, who came forward
as the μεσίτης to bring the warfare to a close. Kimchi: mnw ἜΡ
DIN WS NPI ND yn ὙΦ Ps ov ov ΝΙΝ" 7,
na] The same fem. termination occurs in other old Semitic
(mostly Canaanitish) names: MIN (m.) Gen. 26, 26 (Philistine);
nova (f), nnn (f.), NW23 (ch. 9, 1); NW (1 Ki. rx, 20—perhaps
Edomite), nm3 and nm Gen. 26, 13. 23; and in Nabataean,
Euting, Wabatéische Inschrifien, pp. 73, 90-2, as NNN (=’Aperas
2 Cor. 11, 32), N33 (m.), ma (f.), ΠΡ) (m.), N79 (m.), Nay (m.),
al. (several of these similarly in Arabic) *.
5. In MT. the giant’s weapons of defence are of bronze, those
of attack are of iron. MHere there is undoubtedly a consistency,
which is badly disturbed in LXX (We.).
6. NN¥D] NAY (We.) is preferable.
Δ) Y2)] Keil quotes appositely (from Bochart) 1], 2. 45 al.
ἀμφὶ δ᾽ dp ὦμοισιν βάλετο ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον. "2 = javelin: see
v. 45 and Jos. 8, 18.
7. ym] Read, with the Qri, and the parallel, II 21, 19, pyi, i.e.
and the shaft.
8. o95 13] In all probability this is an error for 35 na (as
1 Ki. 18, 25. Jos. 24, 15: and >> anh 21. rail). ania Geb:
means 210 eat food: and the meaning select, choose, is not sub-
stantiated for it by either Arabic or Aramaic. (The same sugges-
tion is made by Dr. Weir.)
1 Some of the Jews imagined fancifully that the word described Goliath’s
mixed parentage: Lagarde’s Prophetae Chaldaice, p. xvi (from the margin of the
Cod. Reuchl.): 320 Whom Nt (πολέμαρχος) NIIDINID RIB YOdwry DIN
M52 ANID 22 ἸῸ MTT AI pO) 11 waw 19 WAT ΠΩ 7 Ora "ΠῚΠ
wow. (7) 02λ pl. of D’21 = γένος.) The same tradition probably underlies the
Vulg. vir spurius.
* And in many names of dlaces. Comp. Zenses, § 181 note.
108 The First Book of Samuel,
12-31. We here reach the first of the considerable omissions
in LXX as compared with MT. These verses are not in cod. B;
and though they are supplied in cod. A, they form no part of the
original and genuine LXX. This may be inferred from the different
style of the translation, which (1) adheres more closely to the
existing MT. than is the case in the book generally; (2) deviates
in the rendering of particular words, as κοιλὰς τῆς δρυὸς 16 against
κοιλὰς Ἦλα 21, 9; μεσαῖος 23 instead of δύνατος 4 for DIAN WKN,
Γολιαθ 6 Φιλιστιαῖος 20. against Τολιαθ 6 ἀλλόφυλος 21, 9. 22, 10;
comp. also in the allied passage vv. 55-8 ἄρχων τῆς δυνάμεως for
NAST WW against ἀρχιστρατηγὸς 12, 9. 14, 50. 26, 5: ἐστηλώθη 16
against κατέστη (see 3, 10. 10, 19. 23. 12, 7.16) is of less weight,
as it may have been chosen on account of the particular sense of
ayn’, and recurs in a similar context II 23, 12.
12. ΠῚΠ] Contrary to grammar, as well as unsuitable. ‘ 7715
Ephraimite’ would be ΠῚΠ ‘sn .aNA w NT: but the word 225 is out
of place,—for the paraphrase (Vulg.) de guo supra dictum est is
inadmissible. Perhaps it is an error for 7° (Pesh.: so Dr. Weir,
comparing II 4, 4), though in point of fact no verb is required
(see 25, 2. 1 Ki. τι, 26). The verse in itself is superfluous after
ch. 16, and only stands here as introducing a narrative originally
unconnected with ch. 16: hence it is not impossible that ΠῚΠ is
merely a late and unskilful insertion made with the view of
identifying the ‘NAD ws here mentioned with 'w of ch. τό.
ὌΝ 82] The text was already the same, when the translation
of cod. A was made: but ‘and the man in the days of Saul was aged,
entered in among men’—which is the only rendering that is jus-
tifiable—affords no intelligible sense. The most obvious correction
is the omission of 82 (Hitzig); ow3N2 pr will then mean ‘aged
among men. Gratz after Pesh. would read D'2W2 82 ‘ entered into
years’ (so LXX (Luc.) ἐληλυθὼς ἐν ἔτεσιν). Against the first, We.
argues that the parallels nwo ΠΕ (Ew. ὃ 313°), ἐσθλὸς ἐν ἀνδράσιν
etc. are incomplete, jp? not expressing a distinction among things
in other respects similar, as MB’ and ἐσθλὸς do. Against the second
proposal is the fact that the phrase in use is always D'2°2 NJ {pt
XVII, 12-18. 109
(Genig8, 25.524) ἀπ} 08} 1.53.. τοῦ 2374 )(chi2)x Kix, rt). In
face of this constant usage, it is extremely questionable whether
Dw ΝᾺ can be regarded as a legitimate and idiomatic alternative
for n°’. N23. In a choice of difficulties, that attaching to pr
nw INI is, perhaps, the slighter: and in this, on the whole, it will
be the safest to acquiesce.
page wD ois ον 105")] One of the two verbs is superfluous. The
theory (Ew. § 3461) that 125n is annexed for the purpose of giving
125, the force of a plupf,, is artificial and contrary to analogy. No
other example of such a usage occurs in OT., cases of resumption,
after a Jong intervening clause, being readily intelligible, and resting
upon a different footing: e.g. Dt. 4, 42 DN; 18, 6 N31; Jer. 34,
18-20 ‘nn3', etc. 135m here may be due to a copyist’s eye having
glanced by error at the following verse, where the word occurs
(rightly) between the same words.
14. NIN] Gen. 2, 14; 9, 18 etc.: Tenses, ὃ 199.
15. Δ) pon] ‘ Speaker's Comm. “was gone,” quite arbitrarily’
(Dr. Weir). Was gone would be expressed, of course, by Ἴ2Π nN
aw (see 9, 15): the participles can only be meant to describe
David’s custom at the time. The verse is no doubt an addition
made by the compiler of the Book for the purpose of accounting
for David’s absence from the court of Saul, after 16, 21 f. In fact,
however, according to the narrative embodied in this chapter, David
was still unknown to Saul (vv. 55-58). See the note after 18, 5.
by] from attendance on Saul: see Jud. 3, 19. Gen. 45, 1. Mr.
Deane (David: his Life and Times, p. 14) has omitted to notice dyn.
17. mm ond my] mn cannot belong to my (contrast 18
nbxn), and Am ond is not Hebrew (Jer. 40, 3 in 135 is corrected
in the Qri). ΠῚΠ ondnm must therefore be restored: after Mwy, 7
might readily have dropped out. pon=dake zt quickly: Gen. 41, 14.
18. odwd span] A variation for the usual mbwd 2525 Sew
(v. 22). Another (uncommon) variation is TS pow NS 7S Gen.
37, 14.
npn onary ΓΝῚ] ‘and take their pledge,’ i.e. bring back some
token of their welfare. Of the versions, LXX (Luc.), Targ. Pesh.
110 The First Book of Samuel,
hit the general sense most nearly: καὶ εἰσοίσεις μοι τὴν ἀγγελίαν αὐτῶν
mn pA ΠῚ od Iki) obra,
20. by] Cf. vz. 22 (a dy). 28; and by ina Is. 29, 12 (11 58).
ΜΠ στ, 14: —rbsynn (with 7 Joc.) to the barricade of wagons: boy
as 20, 5. 7+. Some edd. read the fem. form nbayon (mztlra’).
‘yxy Snm] ΝΥ with the art. must of course be in ap-
position with bynn: as the text stands, therefore, it can only be
rendered ‘And the host that went forth to the battle array—they
shouted in the war’ (1y7m, acc. to Zenses, ὃ 1238 or 129). The
construction, however, is very strained; and the fact of the host
going forth is surely intended to form part of the information given,
and not to be presupposed. Most probably, therefore, 8¥* should
be read for Ny: ‘And he came to the entrenchment, and (=as:
a circumstantial clause) the host was going forth to the battle array,
and (Zenses, 113. 4 8) they were shouting in the war.’
21. Tiyni] the fem., ὈΝ being construed collectively, as ἃ
nation (Ew. ὃ 174»): so Gen. 41, 8 ADDN (of ONY). Ex. το, 7.
12, 33 pyn Sy omy pinm. ID 8, 2.5.6. 24, 9 “ἢ Sew onm.
is? ἢ: 2. Glenroy τὸ Sowh mwa ΠΡ). Is. 42, τι. ΠΟΤῚ, ΤῈ:
The same principle underlies the 2οείεαϊ use οἵ N2WY (with a gen.
following) to designate the population of a city or district: Is. 12, 6
yy nawy; Jer. 48, τὸ oy nawy; Mic. 1, 11-13: cf. Jer. 10, 17.
21: 15. 22,029 al:
23. ...797),..7279 Nim] A special case of the idiom noticed
on 9, 5: 1 Ki. 1, 22. 42. Gen. 29, 9 are closely parallel.
nyo) An error, already noted in the Qri. LXX, Vulg.
Targ. agree with the Qri in expressing the pl. N27°Y%12: Pesh. has
the sing. N21Y2 ; and one of these must be right.
24. 1D] "1, as 14, 19%. Gen. 30, 30 ( Zenses, § 127 a).
ae nby] without subj., as Gen. 32, 7; Is. 33, 5: 26.§ 135.6 (2).
26. Π΄Π 3] not shat he should reproach (1), but that he should
have reproached (as a completed fact): ψ. 44, 20 that thou shouldest
have crushed us in a place of jackals. Gen. 40, 15.
1 The rendering of RV. implies yp for 1y1m.
AVII, 20-34. 111
28. mn] ἸΝΝ is construed regularly as a fem. pl, e.g. 25, 18 5
Jer. 33, 13; Zech. 13, 7.
29. xin ἽΔῚ ΝΌΠ] ‘Was it not a word?’ i.e. I merely asked a
question: that was all. So Ki. rightly: sim pind xn wun
Ὁ Sy ax myyS oo ps ἼΔῚ ΠΝ xo onat ox ads net
“Δ INY.
30. Ins dy 5x] ‘to the front of another.’
32. DIN 25] LXX, We. 278 55: which is undoubtedly more
pointed, and is recommended by the Jt2y which follows: cf. Ὁ. 11
(which immediately precedes in LXX). ‘It is the custom, when
the king is addressed, to say “my lord” in place of what would be
the first shou’ (We.).
voy] as Ψ. 42, 5. 6. 7. Not ‘within him’ (='27P3), which
suggests an incorrect idea, but ‘won him,’ y in this and similar
expressions is idiomatic: it ‘separates the self, as the feeling
subject, from the soul’ (Delitzsch). So Ψ. 131, 2 as a weaned
child is my soul 207: me. 142, 4. Lam. 3, 20. Jon. 2, 8. Jer. 8,
18 47 129 sy my heart upon me is sick. Comp. Ges. hes. 1027),
who renders by apud, which is at least better than wath.
34. ayI7-NN) “WNA] It is strange that here nx should be a
redundancy, while in v, 36 2107 ὯΔ INT NN D) it is rather
desiderated before the same word for the sake of symmetry. As
it is, MN) stands according to Ew. ὃ 2774 end (to mark a new subj.
in a sentence): but though several instances occur, they are not
mostly in passages belonging to the best style, nor can this use of
the particle be counted an elegancy. Here ns quite superfluous.
It would seem as though a copyist’s eye had actually interchanged
275 here with 32.97 MN in v. 36.
mt] The edd. have a note “p AY: but the note is not a
Massoretic one, and in fact ΠῚ is no part of the Massoretic Text
at all, but is simply an error first occurring in the Rabbinical
Bible of 1525, edited by Jacob ben Hayim, and perpetuated in
subsequent editions. See De Rossi, Varzae Lectiones, ad loc., who
states that αἱ MSS, (184 of Kennicott’s, and 64 of his own,
besides others) read correctly MW,
112 The First Book of Samuel,
34-35. The series of perfects with ἡ, instead of the impff. and
waw conv., which is the usual narrative tense, is remarkable. A
series of pff. with waw, in an historical book, has the presumption
of being designed by the writer in a frequentative sense ; and such
is in all probability the case here, though, as the accentuation shews,
the passage was understood otherwise by the punctuators. If the
sense suggested be adopted, ὙΟΥΠῚ must, of course, be read *ndym,
(see Jer. 6,17; Am. 4, 7), and \npinm—though not quite with the
same absolute necessity —‘npinm\. The solitary pp’ is not decisive
against the interpretation proposed (see Jer. /.¢., and on 14, 52).
In this case, further, as the allusion will be no longer to a single
particular incident, the art. in “NF and 377 will be generic:
‘And if a lion or bear came, and took a sheep out of the flock,
I would go out after him, and smite him, and rescue it from his
mouth: and if he rose up against me, I would seize hold of his
beard, and smite him, and slay him?’ (So also Dr. Weir.)
35. Yap wndym] Am. 3, 12.
37. 117 Wx] In accordance with Hebrew idiom, though omitted
in LXX. It is ‘a recapitulation of the substance of a preceding
longer speech, entirely in the manner of popular narrative, and
of repeated occurrence in Hebrew’ (We.): cf. v. το.
39. Ehud Jud. 3, 16, for purposes of concealment, girds his sword
yqp> mond. op denotes a military garment: cf. 18, 4.
n25b Sy] The words admit of no rendering consistent at once
with the meaning of Swan, and with the following causal clause
1 See Jer. 4, 2 ( Zezses, § 104).
2 So LXX in v. 34 ὅταν ἤρχετο καὶ ἐλάμβανεν : in LXX (Luc.) the impff.
are continued, as logically they should be, to the end of v. 35. (On the fre-
quentative force of ὅταν, ἡνίκα ἄν, ἐάν, ὡς ἄν, with the impf. indic., and even
with the aorist, in Hellenistic Greek, see Winer, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § xiii.
5; and comp. Gen. 6, 4 [wrongly explained in the note 2d.; see the Hebrew:
in 27, 30 for ὡς ἂν Tisch. must be read either ὡς with codd. AD and Io cur-
sives, or ὅσον with E and 18 cursives (also Philo): see Hatch, Zssays ex
Biblical Greek, 1889, p. 163f.]. Ex. 17, 11. 33, 8f. 34, 34. 40, 30. Nu. 21, 9.
Jud. 6, 3. II 14, 26 (where Lucian, as here, has also consistently the impf. ἵστα
for ἔστησενῚ, etc.; and Mark 3, 11 in the Revised Version.)
XVII. 34-48. 113
mor xd 5: for assayed (AV.), which (as mp3 ΝΟ 15. shews) must
mean ‘endeavoured unsuccessfully, is not a sense that is ever
possessed by San. In Targ. Pesh. the difficulty is felt so strongly
that the positive clause is transformed into a negative one (ΠὩ Ν xb)
by : ING) OE b>, Wo) ! LXX have ἐκοπίασεν = NP ‘And he
wearted himself to go (with them),’ i.e. he exerted himself in vain to
go with them, which agrees well with the following clause ‘ for he
had not tried them.’ Cf. Gen. 19, 11 nnpn xy why and they
wearied themselves to find the door, i. 6. exerted themselves in vain
to find it. The reading xb» is accepted by Luzzatto 7 Profe/a
Lsaia [ed. i. 1855] on 1, 14 (who states that it was first suggested
to him by his teacher Abraham Meinster), and Geiger (Urschri/,
Ρ. 377); it is adopted also (in each case, as it would seem, in-
dependently) by We. and Dr. Weir.
40. DAN pon] smooth ones of stones=smoothest stones: Ges.
§ 112. 1 Rem. 1; Ew. ὃ 2120.
43. mbpoa] LXX put into David’s mouth the singularly vapid
reply : καὶ εἶπε Δαυειδ, Οὐχὶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ χείρων κυνός.
46. 735] collectively, as nba) Is. 26, 19.
yan 55 wa] ΝΠ construed with a plural, as Gen. 41, 57;
and, more frequently, in late poetical style, as Ψ. 66, 1. 96, 1. 9.
100, ral.
Seawd pind ey 9] ‘that Israel hath a God.’ wy asserts ox |
istence with some 1e emphasis. |
47. pwn] The retention of 7 of the Hif‘il, after the stele
ative of the impf., is rare and usually late: Jer. 9, 4; Is. 52, 5;
y. 28, 7; 45, 18; 116, 6 (as here) ; Job 13, 9; Neh. 11, 17; Ez.
46, 22 (Hof ptcp.). These are all the examples of the uncontracted
veré that occur in Hebrew: cf. the n. pr. 1Di7 once ψ. 81, 6. The
form occurs also regularly in Biblical Aramaic, as Dan. 7, 18. 24.
Comp. Ges. ὃ 53. 3 Rem. 7; Stade, § 113.2; Konig, p. 294 [7
48. mm] See on x, 12.
* So with the art., the non-syncopated form Ὁ Ὁ ὉΠΔ ψ. 36, 6 (except in
D173) is nearly always late: comp. on II 21, 20,
I
114 The First Book of Samuel,
51. WnnDH| See on 14, 13.
52. ΝᾺ] The 3 in v. 3 was the ravine which separated the op-
posing forces ; but this could not also be the goal of their flight :
moreover, if a particular δὴ) were meant, the article would be re-
quired. The word must thus represent some proper name: LXX
have n3, which is accepted also by Keil and Dr. Weir. Gath was
not far W. of Sochoh; and if Zell Zakartyah be Sha‘araim (Jos. 15,
36), a little way down the Wady Sant, it would agree well with
the course that would be naturally taken by the Philistines in their
flight. Cl. ὁ will then describe a detail of the flight, how viz. the slain
fell by the way: in view of the relative situation of the places
named, we must probably suppose that at Sha‘araim the fugitives
diverged, some going S. to Gath, others NW. to “Eqron. LXX, how-
ever, in ὦ express Dywn 7173 (see II 18, 24), on which see We.
54. ndwin’] An obvious anachronism. Surely the supposition
that ‘ Vob which was close to Jerusalem’ is meant (Kirkpatrick) is
most improbable. Nob (cA. 21) was perfectly distinct from Jerusalem
and in the hands of the Israelites. Jerusalem was still a Jebusite
stronghold.
nw | Keil (following Th.): ‘an archaism for dwelling, as 4, 10.
13. 5 εἰς (But ΠΝ only has (apparently) this sense, in the phrase
yonxd wx inherited from a time when the nation dwelt actually in
tents. The meaning can only be that David put the armour in
the tent occupied by him, when he was on duty with Saul (18,
2-5 etc.): afterwards, the sword at any rate was removed to Nob,
and placed behind the ephod (21, 10).
55. WON... ΠΝ 21] Not a common type of sentence, in early
Hebrew. ‘It is the tendency of the earlier Hebrew, in the case of
temporal or causal clauses, which Greek often places early in a
sentence, either (a) to postpone them somewhat, or (ὁ) to prefix
‘7: it is the later Hebrew, that is apt to introduce them at the
beginning. Compare ad (a) Gen. 19, 16. 34, 7: 50, 17. Ex. 31, 18.
Jud. 8, 3 with 2 Ch. 12, 7. 15, 8. 20, 20. 24,25. 26, 16. 19”. 33,
12. 34,14. Dan. 10, 9. 11.15. 19; and ad (4) (Ὠ) 555) 2 Ch. 7, 1.
20, 23. 24, 14. 29, 29. 31, I against some fourteen times in
XVIT, 51—X VIII. 5. 115
earlier books with 5} prefixed}, e.g. ch. 18,1; 1 Ki. 8, 54 (ΠΝ
omitted in the parallel, 2 Ch. 7, 1). 9, I.
syn ΠΡ 2] Not as AV. RV. ‘ whose son is this youth?’ but
‘whose son is the youth?’ ΠῚ belongs to 9, as Jer. 49, 19; W. 24,
8 etc. Inv. 56 AV. RV. render correctly.
56. ANS byw] Note both the position and the force of TAN
‘Ask ¢hou:’ Ex. 20, 19 OY ANNI speak shou with us; Dt. 5, 24;
ch. 20,8; 22,18 ANN 3D; Jud. 8, 21 ANN Dp.
nbyn] 20, 22+. The masc., of which the corresponding fem. is
maby Is. τὰ ee
57. Mp] See on 4, 20.
18, τ. 5) ΠΡ] Gen. 44, 30 WEI ΠΡ WE.
ἸΔΠΝ] The Kt. is 208% (a rare form: Ew. ὃ 249; Ol. p. 469;
Kon. pp. 224, 621: Hos. 8, 3 151}. Ψ. 35, 8 jrabn. Jet. 25, 6
inp’; Qoh. 4, 12 ippn’; Jos. 2, 4 [corrupt]: see also on 21, 14
and II 14, 6): the Qri substitutes the more usual 72084.
2. nwd wna xdy] The same idiom as Gen. 20, 6. 31, 7. ch.
24, 8 etc.: and Nu. 20, 21. 21, 23 without 3,
4b. 1910) |] = and also his cloak: cf. on 6, 11.
5. bow] defines how David fared when he went out: ‘And
David went forth, wherever Saul sent him he prospered’ = pros-
pering wherever Saul sent him. Jer. 15, 6 ΡΠ nN ons ΠΦῸΣ
‘Thou didst forsake me, thou wentest ever backward’= going ever
backward. Comp. Zenses, ὃ 163 with Ods. The impff. have of
course a frequentative force.
Sown is 20 deal wisely with the implied consequence of success:
in other words, it expresses not success alone, but success as
the result of wise provision. No single English word expresses
the full idea conveyed by the Hebrew: hence the margins in RV.
here, Jos. 1, 8; Is. 52, 13. Success alone is denoted in Heb. by
movin.
1 Quoted from a letter of the writer by Prof. Delitzsch in The Hebrew New
Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society. A contribution to Hebrew
Philology. Leipzig, 1883 [written in English], p. 19.
12
116 The First Book of Samuel,
τ--- The narrative 17, 1—18, 5, precisely as it stands, it appears im-
possible to harmonize with 16, 14-23. The two narratives are in
fact two parallel, and taken strictly, incompatible accounts of
David’s introduction to the history. In 16, 14-23 David is of
mature age and a ‘man of war, on account of his skill with the
harp brought into Saul’s service at the time of the king’s mental
distress, and quickly appointed his armour-bearer (vv. 18. 21). In
17, I—18, 5 he is a shepherd lad, inexperienced in warfare, who
first attracts the king’s attention by his act of heroism against
Goliath ; and the inquiry 17, 55-58 comes strangely from one who
in τό, 14-23 had not merely been told who his father was, but had
manifested a marked affection for David, and had been repeatedly
waited on by him (vz. 21. 23). The inconsistency arises, not, of
course, out of the double character or office ascribed to David
(which is perfectly compatible with historical probability), but out
\ ofthe different representation of his first introduction to Saul, In
LXX (cod. B), 17, 12-31. 41. 50. 55—18, 5 are not recognised.
By the omission of these verses the elements which conflict with
16, 14-23 are greatly reduced (e. g. David is no longer represented
as unknown to Saul); but they are not removed altogether (comp.
17, 33. 38 ff. with 16, 18. 21>). It is doubtful therefore whether
the text of LXX is here to be preferred to MT.: both We. (in
Bleek’s Lvnle‘tung, 1878, p. 216) and Kuenen (Onderzoek*, 1887,
p- 392) agree that the translators—or, more probably, perhaps, the
scribe of the Heb. MS. used by them—omitted the verses in
question from harmonistic motives, without, however, entirely se-
curing the end desired’. The entire section 17, 1—18, 5 was,
1 And so Kamphausen, Zheol. Arbezten (Elberfeld), vii. ‘Bemerkungen zur
alttest. Textkritik,’ pp. 16-18.—Dr. Weir views the Hebrew text similarly,
though accounting in a different manner for the omission in LXX: ‘“ Whose
son is this?” In 16, 21 it is said that Saul loved David, and he became his
armour-bearer. To reconcile the two statements, it has been conjectured
(Speaker's Commentary) that 16, 21 records by anticipation what did not
really come to pass till after David’s victory over Goliath. But how can
this be reconciled with 18, 9. 10, and especially with 18, 13? Or, again (Keil),
that the question ‘‘ Whose son is he?”’ has relation not to the name, but to the
XVIII. 6-9. 1
however, no doubt derived by the compiler of the book from a
different source from 16, 14-23 (notice how David is introduced
17, 12 ff. as though his name had not been mentioned before),
and embodies a different tradition as to the manner in which Saul
first became acquainted with David.
18, 6-30. Saul’s growing jealousy of David
(2 continuation of 16, 23).
6. mbnom awd] The two words correspond in form so im-
perfectly that the text can scarcely be in its original form. LXX
express 3) DYANI Sew my bo WT ΠΝῚΡΡ mibbinen ΓΟΝΥΠῚ,
which is certainly preferable. MT. has by some means got into
disorder. Cf. Ex. 15, 20 ΠΌΠΟΙ pana mayne owornd> ΝΥ ΠῚ.
7. myn] So Ex. 1g, 21 | ond qn.
mypnwin awn] ‘the women which made merry.’ Illustrate from
II 6, 5 where David and the Israelites, as they bring the ark up
into Zion, are described as ¥ 1285 p’pnwia : also Jer. 30, 19 AMIN
D'pnwid by; 31, 4 (in the promise of Israel’s restoration) Ty
D'pnw0y Sins NX) THN WN.—On the omission in LXX, see
at the end of the section.
9. py] The Qri {¥ is right. ὑπ) with the ptcp. expresses at
once origination and continuance—‘and ... came into the condition
of one eyeing :’ so Gen. 4, 17 Wy M93 A; 21, 20>; Jud. 16, 21
ἸΠῚ ὙΠ; 2 Ki. 15, 5. The verb is a denom. from }'Y, ‘to eye’
(sc. enviously: LXX, cod. A ὑποβλεπόμενος), the ptcp. being perhaps
that of Qal, but perhaps also that of Po‘el (Ew. ὃ 125; Stade, ὃ 229),
position of David’s father (but see vw. 58); or that Saul’s madness accounts for
his having forgotten David. But all these explanations are insufficient. Are
the verses wanting in LXX a later interpolation in the Hebrew text? This
cannot well be: for an interpolation would not insert anything at variance with
the narrative interpolated. We seem therefore shut up to the conclusion that
the verses omitted in the Vat. MS. belong to an independent narrative, which
was in parts incorporated with the older account, but not in all MSS. existing
when the LXX translated the book. The Greek translation of the added verses
[in cod. A] is very exact and must have proceeded from a later period, when the
Hebrew text was fixed as at present.’
118 The First Book of Samuel,
with the prefix Ὁ omitted, as sometimes in Pu‘al (Ew. ὃ 1694; Ges.
§52 Rem. 6). The omission of Ὁ is no doubt irregular: but there
is a presumption that for the sense in question, the conjugation
which Ew. (δ 1258) has well characterized by the term ‘Conjugation
of attack’ would be in use. Cf. ΠΡ) to be-tongue, i.e. to slander,
Wi TOL, 4°.
10. NIIN| played the prophet, viz. by gestures and demeanour,
aS 10, 5.
12] See on τό, τό.
ova od] only here. See on 3, ro. 613 Of itself does not
occur till the latest Hebrew: Neh. 8, 18. 1 Ch. 12, 22. 2Ch. 8, 13.
24,01. 190, 21: Ears 5, 1: Ὁ; 0 (Aram),
ΤΊ. by] i.e. cast, from by. But it does not appear that Saul
actually cast the javelin on this occasion; hence Th. We. Kp.
following LXX (ἦρεν) and Targ. (ax) would punctuate by and
took up, from 50), 15: 10; 1
p31 Ἢ ABN] ‘I will smite David and the wall,’ i.e. I will smite
them together, I will pin David to the wall: so 19, 10. Cf. Dt.15, 17.
13. Le. Saul removed him from his circle of immediate atten-
dants, and gave him duties with the army. Dy as 14, 17.
14. y979-5 35] no doubt a clerical error for 13977533. The dis-
tributive sense of 5 (as in pypad by mornings = every morning :
Ew. § 2174) is not probable in this phrase.
15. YH 7%] and stood in awe (Kp.) of him. A stronger ex-
pression than NW in v. 12: Nu. 22, 3.
17. 75 jn& nnN] Note the emphatic position of AnN. Cf. Jud.
14,3 ° Mp nmin.
v% nyondn] 25, 28. Nu. 21, 14 6" nondy ΒΟ).
ἼΩΝ] sazd mentally = thought: so 25, 21 and frequently.
1 Sornpwn Job 9, 15 not my judge, but he that would assaz/ me in judge-
ment, i.e. my opponent in judgement. The conjugation is in more regular use in
Arabic, where its signification is also distinctly seen (Wright, Av. Gr. i. § 43):
thus J&3 zo Ail, JSG to try to hill=to fight with: (ὅν 20 outrun, elas
to try to outrun=to run a race with.
AXVITI, to-25. 119
18. “Π] Punctuate "0 ‘my folk’(Kirkpatrick). The word is the
same as the Arabic (51, explained at length by Dr. W. Robertson
Smith in his Avzship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1885), pp.
36-40, and denoting ‘a group of families united by blood-ties,’ mov-
ing and acting together, and forming a unity smaller than the tribe,
but larger than that of a single family. The word is in frequent
use in Arabic; but was rare—perhaps only dialectical—in Hebrew,
and is hence explained here by the gloss ‘38 nnawy. The punc-
tuation as a pl. (‘my /fe’) shews that the meaning of the word had
been forgotten. 9 (not MD) is used-with reference to the persons
of whom the "Π consists: cf. II 7, 18 ὙΠ Ὁ, Gen. 33, 8 >»
min mands.
19. nn] of geving,—though the action is (and, in the present
case, remains) incomplete: cf. 2 Ki. 2, 1. Hos. 7, 1.
21. word » ΠῚ] The passage illustrates both the proper sense
of wp, and also the manner in which it is often applied meta-
phorically. Michal was to be the dazt (see Am. 3, 5) to allure
David into a dangerous position. Comp. Ex. 23, 33; Dt. 7, 16.
o'nwa] The expression recurs Job 33, 14; lit. wth two, ie. a
second time (RV.)—not, however, excluding the first, but (as the
literal rendering shews) together with it. Hence the phrase as used
here must contain an ironical allusion to David’s loss of Merab.
AV. ‘with (one of) the twain,’ is derived from Rashi, Kimchi, and
ultimately from the Targ. (9nd ΝΠ). A rendering which has to
supply the most crucial word in a sentence, it might have been
supposed, could have found no defenders: the Jews, however,
discover a parallel for it in the OT.—Jud. 12, 7 and he was buried
sydin “ya in (one of) the cities of Gilead !
55: ndpan] the inf. abs. construed as a fem., as Jer. 2,17. The
3 is of course the interrogative.
ndp3] Cf. Is. 3, 5 where this word is opposed to 733).
25. In| The technical word denoting the price paid, according
1 So also We. Keil, Néldeke (2DMG. 1886, p. 176): comp. Ges. Zhes.
Pp. 471%.
120 The First Book of Samuel,
to ancient custom, by the suitor to the father or family of the bride '.
See Gen. 34, 12 ; Ex. 22, 15. 16 (which speaks of the ndyna ann,
i.e. the sum usually paid for a wife). Cf. the Homeric ἕδνα or ἔεδνα,
1, τό. 178 (of a suitor) πορὼν ἀπερείσια ἕδνα; Od. 21. 160-2 ΓΑλλην
δή τιν᾽ ἔπειτα ᾿Αχαιϊάδων εὐπέπλων Μνάσθω ἐέδνοισιν διζήμενος" ἡ δέ κ᾽
ἔπειτα Τήμαιθ᾽ ὃς κε πλεῖστα πόροι καὶ μόρσιμος ἔλθοι.
26. pon ἸΝΟῸ xdy] Obscure: perhaps (Ke.) alluding to the time
within which David’s exploit was to be performed. In LXX the
clause is omitted.
27. onNd}|] LXX 789, which both agrees with the express
statement II 3, 14, and also (as We. observes) is alone consistent
with the following nwo (or better, as LXX2, Aq. Theod. Vulg.
BNP’), i.e. completed the tale of them to the king. The change
was no doubt made for the purpose of magnifying David’s exploit.
The clause 26 may have been added with the same object :
David accomplished in shorter time than was fixed more than was
required of him.
28>, innans ΟΝ n3 Soy] LXX καὶ πᾶς Ἰσραηλ ἠγάπα αὐτὸν
i.e. IN AA& ON edd "5 : certainly original. The clause in this
form states the ground for Saul’s greater dread, expressed in v. 29:
MT. merely repeats without need what has been said before in its
proper place, in v. 20.
29. §}0N"] Written incorrectly, as from }DN: so Ex. 5, 7.
δ] No doubt an error for NY?: the inf. N71 occurs Jos. 22, 25.
Comp. Konig, p. 639 f.
In 18, 6-30 there are again considerable omissions in LXX
(cod. B), the text of LXX reading as follows :—6> (And women
dancing came out of all the cities of Israel to meet David with
timbrels, with joy, etc.). 7. 88 (to dut thousands). 12% (And Saul
was afraid of David). 13-16. 20-21% (to agaznst him). 22-264
(to son-2n-law). 27-29% (reading in 28> ‘and ‘shat all Israel loved
1 Comp. W. R. Smith, Avzship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 78;
Noldeke, ZDMWG. 1886, p. 154.
? Cod, A and Luc.: in Cod. B the word is not represented.
AVITI, 26—X1X. 4. 121
him’). In this instance, it is generally admitted that the LXX text
deserves the preference above MT.: the sequence of events is
clearer ; and the gradual growth of Saul’s enmity towards David—
in accordance with psychological truth—is distinctly marked,—
observe the three stages, (2) 12* ‘And Saul was afraid of David:’
(ὁ) 15 ‘he stood in awe of him,’ and endeavoured indirectly to get
rid of him, 20-218: (c) 29 ‘he was yet more afraid of David,’ and
(19, 1) gave direct orders for his murder. The additions in MT.
emphasize unduly, and prematurely, the intensity of Saul’s enmity.
They also harmonize badly with the account of David’s betrothal
to Michal: if, for instance, he had a/ready been betrothed to
Merab (vv. 17. 19), it is difficult to understand how he could
reject as absurd the idea of his becoming the king’s son-in-law
as he does in v, 23},
19—22. David obliged to flee from Saul. He visits Samuel αἱ
Ramah (19, 18-24), finds through Jonathan that Saul’s enmity
2s confirmed towards him (ch. 20), repairs accordingly first to
Ahimelech at Nob, then to Achish at Gath (ch. 21), and finally
takes refuge in the cave (or stronghold) of “Adullam (ch. 22).
19, τ. mond, ., ἜΤ 2 Ki. τὰ, 27.
3. 72 ἽΞΊΝΙ 3 = about, as Ὁ: 4. Dt. 6, 7. Ψ. 87, 3. Respecting
another, more special sense of “3 135, see on 25, 39.
ἽΡ snsam AD ΠΝ] ‘And I shall see a thing, and I will tell
thee ’= and 771 see a thing, I will tell thee: construction like that
of md) YIN sty) Gen. 44, 22: Zenses,§ 149. Πίξξτι (not ris), as
Pro, τῷ; 25, S:al, Comp. Nu. 23,3 2 nam wen 73, lit.
‘and he will shew me the matter of aught, and I will tell thee’=
and if he shews me the matter of aught, I will tell thee.
4. YwyD] Sing. not plural, the » being due to the fact that
ΓΦ is originally wyn. Cf ὙΦ Dan. 1, 5; ὙΦ} Ψ. 66, 3:
1 Comp. Wellh., in Bleek’s Zinlectung (1878), p. 218; Stade, Gesch. i. 37-40;
Kirkpatrick, on 1 Samuel, p. 242; also Kamphausen, /. ¢, pp. 18-23.
122, The First Book of Samuel,
Ew. § 256; Stade, ὃ 345 (otherwise in /4z7s passage, Kautzsch in
Ges. § 93. 3 Rem. 3’).
5. ΟἹ oy] 28, 21; Jud. 12, 3.
g. Y ma] LXX ods mo: see on 16, 14.
awyinvaa sim | The position of the ptep. as 24, 4. 25,9. IL 11, 11.
2] Read 12 (τό, 16. 23), noting the following },—unless,
indeed, 1° were purposely chosen, for the sake of avoiding the
assonance with the preceding 17° (comp. on 26, 23).
ro. 105] Only here in the sense of depart, escape. In post-
Biblical Hebrew, the word (esp. in Vz) occurs frequently, par-
ticularly in the sense of departing from life: cf. Phil. 1, 23 in
Delitzsch’s Hebrew N. T. (published by the British and Foreign
Bible Society), where pan = εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι.
sin ΠΟ] A rare variation for the normal syn nda: Gen.
19, 33. 30, 16. 32, 23+. On the words themselves, We. remarks,
‘As David no doubt fled immediately after Saul’s attempt, and
there is no ground for supposing that this was made αὐ mzghi, it is
better to connect the definition of time with v. 11, where it is
required [cf. the following 7p], and to read with LXX: ΠΟΣᾺ nm
‘yy ποθ) win” So Kp. Klo. and Dr. Weir.
ΤΕ paa anvandy now] The messengers, it would seem, were not
commissioned to 47/7 David (see vv. 14. 15), but only to watch the
house where he was: hence doubtless } must be omitted with LXX,
and the words rendered, ‘to watch him, that he might slay him in
the morning. So Th. We. Klo.
nyo Ans and... 7 ON] The use of the ptcp., especially
in the protasis, is very idiomatic: Zenses, § 137. Cf. Ex. 8, 17;
9, 2 f. (where, as here, the apodosis also is expressed by a ptcp.).
13. Oy 25] The exact sense is uncertain. 135 is a szeve ;
73312 is the coverlet with which Benhadad was smothered by
Hazael, 2 Ki. 8,15. The phrase appears thus to denote some-
thing made of goats’-hair in the manner of net-work,—probably
1 Where in the Engl. Transl. for ‘ mentioned farther back ’(!) read ‘ reckoned
here formerly’ (i.e. in previous editions).
ATX, 5-17. 123
a quilt. Ew. “71. iii. 107 (E.T. 77) and Keil suggest a fly-net
(κωνωπεῖον), such as might be spread over the face whilst a person
was asleep. (The κωνωπεῖον of Judith 10, 21. 13, 9 was, however,
suspended on oriAo:—the posts of the bed.) nw does not
define whether the ΝΠ ὍΣ was placed adove or under or round
the head: it merely expresses roxzmity to the head, see 26, 7.
7122] So bana Jos. 2,15; BNI 2 Ki. το, 7. To be explained
on the analogy of what was said on 1, 4, and 6, 8: the garment,
the cord, the pots, are each not determined by some antecedent
reference or allusion, but are fixed in the writer’s mind, and defined
accordingly by the article, dy the purpose to which it is, or ts to be,
put. Comp. Gen. 50, 26 δ. Ex. 21, 20 02W3 with a rod:
Nu. 17, 11 ANNNATNN; 21, 9g and he put it pany on a pole:
Jud. 4, 18 NDOW3; 7, 13 Smxn to a tent; 20, 16 every one able
to sling mywn-y JAS with @ stone at a@ hair, and not miss it ;
ch. 9, 9 WNT a man; 10, 25 (where see note); 21, 10 nbown ;
II 17, 13 5ron. 17 AMavn a@ girl; 23, 21 YAWI: in compound
expressions, Ex. 16, 32 Wyn ΝΟ, Jud. 6, 38 bapn Non ; th. £0, 5
jOwN-JANN. 25, 38 (see note), etc. The principle alluded to on
6, 8 might possibly account for the art. in some of the passages
cited, but it will not account for all: and a difference between
Hebrew and English idiom must here be recognised.
14. ἽΝ] LXX x, preferably: see We.
17. 92n7 AD 105] The position of n23 as 1 Ki. 1, 6: cf. II
15; 4s
NON nnd] The use of np is thoroughly idiomatic; and it is
by no means to be corrected (Th.) after the paraphrase of LXX to
xd ox ()): see Gen. 27, 45. 2 Ch. 25, 16 (quoted by Ges. Zihes.,
p. 770). II 2, 22—each time in deprecation: similarly Qoh. 5, 5.
Introducing, however, as it does, the ground upon which the depre-
cation rests, it is virtually equivalent to /es/, and is so rendered by
LXX in the passages cited (μή ποτε, ἵνα μή)". And in dialectical or
1 And so elsewhere in LXX, as Gen. 47, 19; Ex. 32,12; Joel 2, 17 (ὅπως μή);
ψ. 79, 10; 115, 2.
124 The First Book of Samuel,
late Hebrew, as in Aramaic, it actually assumes this meaning, δ᾽ (3)
being prefixed for the purpose of connecting it more distinctly with
the principal clause. See, in OT., Cant. 1, 7, and (with wx) Dan.
1, 10. In Aram. JsaXg is thus the ordinary word for lest, 15
being not in use’.
18. ny3a}] Qri ΓΞ. The origin and meaning of this word,
which occurs six times in the present context, are alike obscure.
Miihlau-Volck derive it as follows: (Ὁ in Arabic is Zo intend,
propose, conceive a design, make an aim for oneself, hence the subst.
(595 is not merely zzéention, project, but also the goal of a journey.
Upon this basis, M.-V. conjecture that the root may have come to
signify 20 reach the goal of a journey, to rest there, bleiben, bestehen ;
hence ΠῚ xb in Hab. 2, 5 shall not adede, and ΠῚ) place of rest
after a journey (Ort der Niederlassung, spec. fiir den Nomaden),
and in a different application 0) dwellings, of the Coenobium of
the prophets. The explanation is in the last degree precarious, the
process by which a secondary and subordinate sense in Arabic
is made the origin of the primary sense in Hebrew being an
incredible one, and the number of stages—all hypothetical—as-
sumed to have been passed through before the age of Samuel being
most improbable. All that can be said is that, if the text of Hab.
2, 5. Ψ. 68, 13 be sound, Hebrew must have possessed a verb ΠῚ
with some such sense as 2 οἱ guzet (which does not, however,
appear in the cognate languages); and that 7)) may perhaps be
connected with it. ΠῚ), however, does not signify ‘habitation’ in
general, it denotes in particular a pastoral abode (see especially
II 7, 8), and is only applied figuratively to other kinds of aédode in
poetry Ex. 15, 13, or the higher prose II 15, 25. ‘The application
is so different that it seems doubtful whether a word closely allied
to this would have been chosen to denote a residence of prophets.
1 In OT. ποῦ" Ezr. 7, 23. In Phoenician 0} (i.e. 04) by itself has the
force of lest (CZS, 2, 21 0358 D210? Db=~e tradant eos Dei): in Hebrew it
is not clear that 70) alone has acquired this force, for Qoh. 7, 17. 18. Neh. 6, 3
are sentences in which the sense of why ? wherefore? appears to be distinctly
present to the writers.
ALIX, 18-23. 125
Ewald, 2715]. iii. 70 (E. T. 49 f.), starting from the same root follows
a different track, and reaches accordingly a different goal. (955 is
to intend, propose, direct the mind upon a thing ; hence—here begins
the process of conjecture—/o study (‘for what is study but the
direction of the mind upon an object?’), and the subst. a place of
study, a college, a school! Again, not merely is a hypothetical
change of meaning postulated: but a very special sense, unsup-
ported by analogy, and unheard of afterwards, is assumed to have
been acquired by the word at a relatively early period in the history
of the Hebrew language. The Kt. should probably be pointed
ΤΣ (cf. LXX ἐν Αὐαθ᾽) with the original fem. termination, pre-
served in many old proper names ( Zenses, § 181 71,: comp. e.g. NDI,
ΤΣ, Np¥2). The form M2 is rare (mwa, nay, may: Ol. p. 412).
It is just possible (on the ground of the masc. 712) that the word
in itself might have signified dwelng (although, as Dr. Weir re-
marks, she absence of the art. is an objection to its being supposed
to have any such appellative sense here): more probably it is
the name of some locality in Ramah, the signification of which
is lost to us.
20. J¥I ἫΝ Syne] ‘And Samuel standing as one appointed
(22, 9) over them.’ Both ptcpp. are represented in LXX, but the
combination is peculiar and suspicious, %* 330 dying asleep 26, 7
being not quite parallel.
22, wa ὍΝ dyn ὋΣ ἽΝ] LXX ἕως rod φρέατος τοῦ ἅλω τοῦ ἐν
τῷ Σεφει = “BWA ἽΝ [3 WA IY, no doubt rightly. The article
in dyn is irregular (on 6, 18); and a ‘SY or dare height (often
in Jeremiah) is a natural site for a [.
22b, ἼΩΝ] sc. TINT, as 16, 4.
23. DW] LXX ἐκεῖθεν = DWN, So Th. Klo. Dr. Weir.
xan son 1%] Irregular: comp. II 16, 13 bb 70 qbn
13, 19 with the pf. (as a freq.) *7PYN jon 3M), The more usual
type is that of II 3, 16 AIR Pb dy,
ἐν having dropped out in transcription: comp. Jud. 16, 4 ἐν ‘AAowpnx for
prw dma. Am. 1,1 ἐν ’Axxapep for 091723,
126 The First Book of Samuel,
24. Dy] i.e. as Is. 20, 2. Mic. 1, 8 without the upper garment,
and wearing only the long linen tunic, which was worn next the
skin. The passage records another explanation of the origin of
the proverb O°N'3)3 Siw pin, which refers it to a different occasion
from the one described in 10, το ἢ,
20, 1. wpad 5] with no subj. expressed, as 17, 25.
2. ΠΝ 15] The Kt. can only be pointed ΠΟ % i.e. ‘Jf my
father had done ...,’ which, however, yields a sense unsuited to
the context. The Qri Nd is therefore to be preferred. As for the
verb, MWY would be grammatical (hath not done = doth not do:
Tenses, § 12): but the impf., which is expressed by the versions, is
preferable (Am. 3, 7): ‘My father doth not anything great or
small, without revealing it to me’ (lit. uncovering my ear: 9, 15).
3». 32] introducing the fact asserted in the oath, as 14, 44 etc.
ywDs] ‘che ike of a footstep is, etc.’ 3 is properly an undeveloped
subst., she ike of *: for instances of a subst. compounded with it
forming the subj. of a sentence, see Lev. 14, 35 33 % AN yn.
Lam. 1, 20 Nyd3 ΓΞ,
ΝΞ] only here: the meaning is clear from the Aram. NyDD,
kseas. Comp. the cognate verb in Is. 27, 4.
4. 49) ΝΠ ΠῸ] lit. ‘what doth thy soul say, and I will do it
for thee?’ = whatsoever thy soul saith, I will do it for thee:
similarly Est. 5, 3.6: Zenses, ὃ 62.
wp3| The wp) in Hebrew psychology is the usual seat of the
emotional impulses: hence JWB) ((W5), WD) is used as a pathetic
periphrasis for the simple pronoun: Gen. 27, 4. 19. 25. 31; Nu.
23, τὸ and Jud. 16, 30 (obliterated in AV., on account of the
difference in the Hebrew and English conception of the ‘ soul’) ;
ch. 2, 16 (comp. note): in poetry (often in parallelism with the
pronoun), ~. 3; 3: 1%) τὸ 34,32 95,03} 5:1 m4 ΠΡ ΤΊ ΤΡ:
Jer. 5, 9. 29 al. Its use, in a passage like the present, is a mark
of grace and courtesy.
noxn] ‘LXX ἐπιθυμεῖ, reading perhaps MSM [cf. 2, 16], which
1 See especially Fleischer, A/ecnere Schriften, i. 2 (1885), pp. 376-381.
ALIX, 24—XX. 7. 127
is usually the Hebrew of ἐπιθυμέω, or Nw as in Dt. 14, 26, where
also it is connected with wp). Only here is em. the translation of
“ox” (Dr. Weir).
5. ΝΣ Iw] ‘David, as appears from v. 25 ff., was, together
with Abner and Jonathan, Saul’s daily and regular companion at
table: thus the sentence ’3) 3¥ D398) cannot be so related to the
preceding one, as though the new-moon were the occasion of his
being a guest at the king’s table: on the contrary, the new-moon
is rather alleged as the excuse for his absence. Consequently, the
rendering, “To-morrow is new-moon, and I must sit with the king
at meat” is excluded; and the only course remaining open is to
read with LXX awx xb 3v “To-morrow is the new-moon, and
I will of sit with the king at meat; but thou shalt let me go” etc.’
(We.). For the new-moon, as a festival and popular holiday, see
5 ἘΚ], 4, 22. Am: 8, ἢ.
nwyn] cannot be construed grammatically with ΝΠ, and is
omitted by LXX. Targ. ‘ (Or) on the third day. ‘ But on the third
day is always whrdeiN Dv2; and του, when without a noun, is
always a ¢hird part’ (Dr. Weir). Probably the word is a gloss due
to a scribe who observed that in point of fact David remained
in concealment till the third day (v. 35).
6. In this verse we have two idiomatic uses of the inf. abs.
combined : (a) to emphasize the terms of a condition expressed by
DN, which has been briefly noticed before (1, 11): add Ex. 15, 26.
19, 5. 21, 5. 22, 3. 1%. 12. 16.22. 23, 22; ch. 12, 25. 14, 30.
below vv. 7%. 9. 21: (6) at the beginning of a speech, where a
slight emphasis is often required: so v. 3. Gen. 43, 3. 7. 20. Jud.
Gud) CA το; 36.14, 28: 25:.2535; 90 5 LE πὸ 6 20; 18.
Sxw>] on the force of the Wi, (asked for himself, asked leave),
see Ew. § 123». Stade, ὃ 167».
po ΠΝ] as 1, 21: cf. ong, 3.
4. WON’ 7D ὮΝ] See on 14, 9.
(AYR ws. 3.0 nnd>] Ὁ. 9. 25, 17. Est. 7, 7; is accomplished (=
determined) of him or on his part. py expresses origination
(= Greek παρὰ with gen.): 1 Ki. 2, 33. 12, 15. Is. 8, 18. 28, 29.
128 The First Book of Samuel,
8. ΜΠΞΝ by] Everywhere else (or nx) Oy Son Avy. There
occur indeed 5x 4pn ΠΣ Gen. 39, 21, and 5y spn ΠῺΣ Ezr. 7,
29. Ὁ, Ὁ: but by suits as naturally with 702 as it is alien to FWY.
Doubtless, therefore, by should be restored, which is expressed also
by LXX, Pesh. Targ.
sean ΠῚ ΠΡ ὙΣΞΝ yi] ‘but to thy father wherefore shouldest
thou bring me?’ Notice the emphatic position of JN ἫΝ, defore
the adv.: cf. before 4 and Non Jer. 22, rg. Neh. 13; τῇ ΠΡ ae
monn 5x 5x 5 for unto God did one ever say? before 15 Gen.
18, 20. 1 Ki. 8, 37. Mic. 5, 4 al.; before DN Ψ. 66,18; before
iD Ἐπ ποτε. Ὁ τ
9. ap πρῦπ] in answer to the remark in the previous verse ; so Φ. 2.
Δ) oN 2] ‘for if I Aow that the evil is determined of my father
to come upon thee, shall I not tell thee λα δ᾽ (dy as Ex. 8, 22).
Ke. We. construe affirmatively, assuming an aposiopesis: ‘... and
I do not tell thee ‘at’ (sc. so and so may God do to me!).
‘3 Ans ΝΟῚ] nny is emphatic: cf. on 21, ro.
το. AYP PAN Jy AD IW] if perchance thy father answer thee
with something harsh. 1% must have here the unusual sense of 25
perchance (RV.), cf. Lev. 26, 41 9 is indefinite, as 19, 3. ΠΦΡ is
in apposition with 4; its position at the end is in accordance
with idiom; see on 26, 18,
12-13. This difficult passage has been rendered in two ways:
(2) ‘O Jehovah, God of Israel! when I shall sound my father
to-morrow [(or) the third (day)], and behold, there is good toward
David, and I send not then unto thee, and disclose it to thee,
Jehovah do so to Jonathan and more also: (but) if it please my
father to do thee evil, I will disclose it to thee’ etc. (Th. Keil).
This, however, implies that 3) Hwy’ nD refers unusually backwards;
it is a further objection that there is nothing in the Hebrew to
express or suggest a contrast between the two clauses introduced
by 5. (ὁ) 12> being treated as a question (cf. v. 9): “Ὁ Jehovah,
God of Israel! when I shall sound my father . .. and behold there
' Rare. Occasionally also 5; Ex. 20, 6. 1 Ki. 2,7. y. 18, 51.
XX. 8-15. 129
is good toward David, shall I not then send unto thee, and disclose
it to thee? Jehovah do so to me and more also: if it please my
father to do thee evil, I will disclose it to thee’ etc. (so RV., the
sentence being merely somewhat more closely accommodated to
English idiom). This is preferable. It is true that commonly a
more emphatic particle follows ‘x1 Awy’ AD, and that the analogy
of other passages might have led us to expect '3..,, 20" ON '3
yy nda (Π 3, 9) or“ moaxs.... ΔΝ 5 Nd ὮΝ (0 ΠΠ το" τὴ];
but the types of sentences with “) Mwy’ MD are not perfectly
uniform, and there seems to be no wecesszty for such a particle
to be used, if the sense is sufficiently plain without it. At the
beginning, mn’ as a vocative agrees badly with the speech fol-
lowing in which the second person is throughout Jonathan.
Probably 7¥ has fallen out after 317 (so Pesh. RV.). Onn Τὺ
see on 9; 16. nwwn is as perplexing and intrusive as in 7. 5,
and is no doubt, as there, ‘a correction ex eventu.’
mom] lit. and behold, used similarly in the enunciation of a
particular hypothetical alternative, Dt. 13, 15; 17, 4; 19, 18; and
in Lev. 13—14 frequently. Comp. above, on 9, 7.
aH”] The punctuation implies as subject either ayn (on τό, 4)
or myn (cf. 2, 32). Perhaps, however, the word ought to be read
as Qal 39’, construed with nx as YT" II 11, 25, where see note.
14-15. Another difficult passage. ‘And wilt thou not, if I am
still alive (sc. when thou comest to the throne), wilt thou not shew
toward me the kindness of Jehovah that I die not, and not cut
off thy mercy from my house for ever?’ The second xb) must be
treated as merely resumptive of the first: cf 5 1 Ki. 20, 31;
ym Gen. 27, 30; AM) Dt. 20, τσ. But most moderns prefer to
point ND) (iT 18. 12) for Not twice: ‘And mayest thou, if 1 am
still alive, mayest thou shew toward me’ etc.
v% spn] as pads Son II 9, 3. The last clause minx xd) does
not in itself cause difficulty: nevertheless LXX, Vulg. both render
as if it expressed the opposite alternative to ὙΠ ‘ITY DN (καὶ ἐὰν
θανάτῳ ἀποθάνω, si vero mortuus fuero). If this view be correct, we
must conclude that O8 has dropped out before myx [so Dr. Weir],
K
130 The First Book of Samuel,
and render (connecting with Ὁ. 15), ‘And thou shalt not, 27. die,
thou shalt not cut off thy mercy from my house for ever *,’
15-16. Δ) nana Nd] A third difficult passage. V. 15 will just
admit of the rendering, ‘ And thou shalt not cut off thy mercy from
my house for ever, and not (= yea, not) when Jehovah cuts off the
enemies of David,’ etc. But the repetition of xd) is more awkward
even than in v. 14; and in v. 15 not merely is the covenant con-
cluded with the house of David strange, but clause ὦ is anacoluthic,
and what is expected is not that Jehovah should require it from the
hand of David’s enemies, but from the hand of David himself, in
case he should fail to fulfil the conditions of the covenant. LXX
points to another and preferable reading, uniting 155 and 16, and
treating the whole as a continuation of Jonathan’s speech: καὶ εἰ
μή, ev τῷ ἐξαίρειν Κύριον τοὺς ἐχθροὺς Δαυειδ ἕκαστον ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς
γῆς, εὑρεθῆναι [cod. A ἐξαρθῆναι] τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Ιωναθαν ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου
Δαυειδ i.e. ΓΞ) ΠΙΘΊΝΠ ID Syp we TT DN ΠΝ mA ΠΞΠ3 ὅ ΝΟῚ
WT ΠΣ Dy yn OY=‘and when Jehovah cutteth off the enemies
of David, each one from the face of the ground, ‘he name of
Jonathan sha// not be cut off from the house of David.’ The clause
Δ) wpas, which was incongruous in MT., is now in its appropriate
place, in Jonathan’s speech, as a final wish expressed by him on
behalf of his friend: ‘and may Jehovah require it at the hand of
David’s enemies!’ (viz. if they presume to attack or calumniate
him.) The reading is also supported by 24, 22 ‘Swear to me now
by Jehovah that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, nor destroy
my name from my father’s house.’ Jonathan, being David’s brother-
in-law, and prescient that David will succeed Saul upon the throne,
prays that when his enemies are destroyed—especially, in accord-
ance with the usual Oriental custom (cf. 1 Ki.15, 29. 16, 11. 2 Ki.
10, 6. 11,1), the family of his predecessor—his own relationship
with David’s house may not be forgotten or disowned. David's
1 We.’s nn 8) NOX ON NY} is a form of sentence not quite supported
by analogy.
? We. μονὴ and may not ...! (LXX, representing x5) by εἰ μή, vocalized
wrongly 85): see below, on II 13, 26; and comp. Jer. 11, 21 LXX.)
XX. 175-19. 131
acknowledgment of the obligation is recorded II 9, 1: cf. 21, 7.
The expression,,., Oy Ow m2) recurs Ruth 4, το.
17. NT nN yaw] to make David swear. ‘'The impassioned
entreaties addressed by Jonathan, vv. 14-16, to David might with
some show of plausibility be termed an adjuration of David: as,
however, they are entreaties on behalf of himself, they cannot be
regarded as any special token of his love sowards David. It follows
that InN jnanNa in Ὁ. 17 agrees only with the reading of LXX
“10 yavind to swear to David, which also has the advantage of
being capable of a strict interpretation: for v. 12 f. (to which the
reference will now be) express an actual oath, whereas vv. 14-16
do not properly express an adjuration.’ (We.).
19. IND ὙΠ nwdvn] For ΤΠ LXX has ἐπισκέψῃ i.e. TP5A,
incorrectly vocalized for 172M thou shalt be missed (so Targ. *yann,
Pesh. Ku? ksskss), which agrees as it should do with ἽΝ greadly,
and is evidently right. To go down is an idea which, as used here
(Jud. 19, 11 is different), would not be qualified by grea#ly: RV.
quickly takes an unwarrantable liberty with the Hebrew.
υἷι is a denom., /o do a thing the third time (1 Ki. 18, 34), or,
as here, on the third day’. Lit. ‘and thou shalt act on the third
day, thou shalt be missed greatly’= and thou shalt on she third day
be missed greatly; cf. Is. 29, 4 35N ΝΘ nbawy lit. ‘and thou
shalt be humbled, thou shalt speak from the earth’= and thou
shalt speak humbly from the earth, the second verb, in each case,
defining the application of the first. The principle is the same
as that which underlies the idiom explained on 2, 3 35M 139n by,
though as a rule the two verbs are in the same tense.
bis youn] LXX τὸ ἐργαβ ἐκεῖνο: cf. v. 41 where anim Syn is
rendered ἀπὸ τοῦ dpya8. Clearly, in both passages, the translators
found before them the same word, which they did not understand,
and therefore, as in similar cases (6. g. v. 20 “Appatrape; 14, 1 αἱ.
Meooaj), simply transliterated. And in both passages their reading,
1 Expressions not quite identical, but analogous, are cited by Roed. from the
Arabic in the Zhes., p. 1427».
K 2
132 The First Book of Samuel,
as compared with the present Hebrew text, has the presumption of
originality in its favour. Here bien is a vox nihil’; in Ὁ. 41
‘beside ¢he south’ is a position which does not admit of being fixed,
and from which, therefore, no one can be conceived as arising;
at the same time, there is the presumption that Syx was in both
passages followed by some similar word. Restore, therefore, here
(or 1 185M) bn 23980 and in Ὁ. 41 INT Pyxn: 157 has occurred
before in 14, 1, and is expressed here also by Pesh. (uo): 3398 is
a word which (cf. 233) would naturally signify a mound or cairn of
earth.
20. MIN... YN] LXX TN me) ΝΠ} wovN “INI, the claims
of which are well stated by We. WWE will be construed as in
v. 19, to which Jonathan’s promise now forms the counterpart,
‘And I on the third day will shoot to its side with arrows.’ It is
true, of course, that Jonathan in fact shoots but one arrow, and
the boy at once runs to fetch it ; but in the first general description
of what Jonathan will do, the expressions ‘ shoot with arrows,’ ‘ find
the arrows that I shoot’ are naturally used. As a “pid, however,
must evidently be carried out in accordance with the terms ar-
ranged, the fact that in v. 35 ff. no mention is made of the ¢hree
arrows of MT. is an indication that they were not originally part of
v.20. ΤῚΝ, though omitted in LXX, may be retained, but must
be pointed either 77¥? or ΠΝ (i.e. 1¥, referring to INNA: see
on II 21, τὴ. In MT. ΠῊΝ is for ΠΝ (referring to 13. Π) the
mappig being omitted, as occasionally happens, e.g. Ex. 9, 18;
2 Ki. 8, 6; Is. 23, 17. 18: Ew. ὃ 2474 (2); Stade, § 347°. Ges.
Thes., in saying that the 7 is paragogic, has overlooked the fact that
the tone is me/ra’.
ὁ προ] so as to send it for me etc. The reflexive ‘5, implying
that the ποῦ is done wth reference fo the speaker, or for his
pleasure, cannot be properly reproduced in our idiom.
21-22. o'ynn] LXX throughout the sing, i.e. "377, an unusual
1 Like the sporadic op, ax, ὯΝ 5, ὉΝῪ (II 12, 1), etc.
2 Mil'el, with 7 locale =to (the) side.
XX. 20-27. 133
form (see on v. 36>), which might readily be eee erroneously
into a pl., as in MT.
21. N32) np] As the text stands, wnp is addressed to David,
the suffix relating to the lad: ‘Fetch him and come.’ We. reading
with LXX ‘ynn (sg-) makes ΠΡ the end of the words addressed
to the boy, ‘fetch it, and treats ANI) as beginning the apodosis.
But though ‘ynn may be right, for the apodosis to be introduced
by } and the zmferative is most unusual, if indeed it occurs at all
in the OT. ; if, therefore, this view of ΠΡ be adopted, it will be
almost necessary to read ΠΝ ΔῚ for M83) (which, indeed, only im-
plies a change of ove letter).
22. qnbw’] ‘ will have sent thee away’ (sc. in the case supposed).
The pf. as 14, 10; Lev. 19, 8; II 5, 24 (Zenses, § 17).
25. jn opr] LXX καὶ προέφθασεν τὸν Ιωναθαν (Lucian more
correctly αὐτὸν Ιωναθαν), implying o1p. Rose up is out of place:
the relative position of those at the table is described, and Jonathan
was in front, opposite to Saul: the seat opposite to Abner was
vacant. True, 03? commonly denotes /o come or go in front; but
not perhaps necessarily, and the use of the word here would
closely resemble that in y. 68, 26 OW WP the singers were
in front.
26. "ind nba] The only passage in which mba is used to
negative an adj. (as elsewhere—at least in poetry—a, e.g. Hos.
7, 8). It negatives a subst. once, Is. 14, 6.
ΠΩ δ] LXX ὅτι οὐ κεκαθάρισται-:- 100 δὲ ΣΙ which relieves
the tautology of MT.: ‘he is not clean; for he hath not been
cleansed. As thus read, the clause will state the ground why Saul
supposed David to be still "17H nda.
27. 3vm winn nan nN] Keil: ‘And on the morrow of the
new-moon there was the second (day),—a fact so patent as
hardly to be worth recording. Better with LXX (and substantially
RV., for the word cannot be wnders/ood) insert O13 before 3wn, ‘And
it came to pass on the morrow of the new-moon, even on the
second day,’ that etc. A slight redundancy of expression is not
out of harmony with Hebrew style, especially when, as here, the
134 The First Book of Samuel,
‘second day’ will suggest to the reader a repetition of the scene
described, v. 24 f.
29. nx vo-my Nim] Cf. ψ. 87, 5 peop mana Nin and Ze will
establish it, even the Most High. The unusual form of expression
may have been intended to suggest that David had received the
command from one whom he would not willingly disobey. We.
would read δὲ ΠῚ and Jo (Gen. 47, 23). For the words quoted
LXX express ‘ON » Vs".
30. man ΤῊΝ) 13] Commonly rendered ‘son of a perverse
woman (N\Y2 being ptcp. Nif. fem.) in respect of rebelliousness.’
The expression is, however, peculiar, and excites suspicion. The
genitive is attached commonly to a descriptive adj. for the purpose
of defining it (Ew. ὃ 288¢): thus (a) a5 73 pure of heart, DYDD ὋΣ
clean of hands, M1 ‘YA erring of spirit: bx ‘sy tottering of
feet ; (δὴ THSY TAN perishing 7 regard fo counsels; ywD wa for-
given in respect of transgression ; (c) Ὁ ND (Pr. 11, 22) a woman
turned aside 77: respect of discretion (=turned aside from discretion) ;
ΝΞ ‘aw (Is. 59, 22) = those turned back from transgression ;
none ‘Ww (Mic. 2, 8)=averse from battle. M712, however, does
not define MYI, but repeats the same idea under a different form.
Further, M1, if derived from 171 4% rebel, ought by analogy
(cf, mab, mad, may: Ol. § 219%) to be pointed NM (with
aspirated 3). On these grounds, Lagarde, in a note on the ex-
pression, having first pointed out that my corresponds with the
Arabic ΤῊΣ to go astray, leave the right path, urges (1) that the
resolution of ‘a woman perverse in respect of rebelliousness’ into
‘a perverse, rebellious woman, as a rendering of ΠΥ ΣΠ ΓΝ}, is
illegitimate, and that ‘only he would think correctly from the point
of view of Semitic idiom who conceived the “ genitive” ΤΥ ΤΠ as
defining that from which the 1¥3 turned aside :’ and (2) that nq
must be treated as a derivative, not of 37 but of ΠῚ, with the
tr)
: « . - . ΠΕΣ ge
force of the corresponding word ho9zs0 in Syriac, viz. discipline
' In his review of the gth edition of Gesenius’ Handwoirterbuch (by Mihlau
and Volck), reprinted in the AZitthec/ungen, i. (1884), p. 236f.
AX. 29, JO: 135
(e.g. Eph. 6, 4 Pesh. = παιδεία. Lagarde would accordingly con-
strue the phrase ‘son of a woman gone astray from discipline’ and he
compares the Arabic expression (Lane, p. 23055) a2 als son of a
zwoman gone astray, i.e. son of a whore. In spite of 213 ‘DY ψ. 40, 5
‘ treacherously recreant’ (Cheyne, ed. 1); [8 "733 59, 6 ‘traitors of
wickedness,’ Lagarde’s argument is philologically just: and the
only difficulty which attaches to his conclusion is the distinctively
Syriac sense which it postulates for ny, and of which there
is no other trace in connexion with the Hebrew 77 or its
derivatives '.
LXX have υἱὲ κορασίων αὐτομολούντων = παρα ΤῊΣ ja; and
nyt = discipline being thus questionable in Hebrew, the alter-
native is with We. to follow this, so far at least as the 7 in ATS
goes, and to read M731 NWI 13. son of a rebellious girl, i.e. of a
girl who has contumaciously rebelled against her master, and left
him, in other words, of a runaway slave-girl. We. compares
Judith 16, 12 υἱοὶ κορασίων κατεκέντησαν αὐτούς, καὶ ὡς παῖδας αὐτομο-
λούντων ἐτίτρωσκον αὐτούς, in the Syriac version Qan? Jee Say gol
«οὐ ado Jyoes [3.53 «οἷο wo?
1 But Lagarde is unquestionably right in maintaining that in my and its
derivatives /wo roots, distinct in Arabic, have, as in many other cases (comp. on
15, 29), been confused in Hebrew, viz. (595 to bend (e.g. in Is. 21, 3 ony)
yown; w. 38, 7); and (55. to err, go astray(Qor. 2, 257. 7, 143. 19, 60 and
often: especially, as Lagarde abundantly shews, opp. to 33) to go straight,
to keep on the right path), which is found in m\y7 Zo act erringly, 11 24, 17 al.,
and in the common subst. }ip zzguzty, properly error, The idea expressed
by my (= 59) and its derivatives is thus not that of perverseness (=w7py),
but deviation from the right track, error: and this sense is still sometimes
expressed by the ancient versions: as Is. 10, 14 D’YIY ΠῚ πνεῦμα πλανήσεως,
JY μοῦ; Pr. 12, 8 a5 my Jud ncau9 =one deficient in under-
standing, Vulg. vanus et excors (as though /¢. one gone astray from under-
standing). The conventional rendering of the frequent γ᾽ by words of general
import, such as ἀδικία, ἁμαρτία, zniguztas, incguzty, tends to conceal from those
to whom the Hebrew term is thus familiarly represented, the metaphor which
originally underlay both 7)» itself, and the cognate verb.
? In Lucian’s recension of LXX there is a second rendering of the phrase in
136 The First Book of Samuel,
ana] LXX μέτοχος i.e. 20 art a companion of, which agrees
with the following δ (see Pr. 28, 24). “M2 is construed with 3, not
with 5, ‘LXX good’ (Dr. Weir).
31. ‘ON ὯΝ] ‘LXX νεανίαν, reading nbyn-nx, their MS. being
indistinct’ (Dr. Weir).
mua) 26,916. 1-12, 5.
33. mond... xy ΠΟΘ 35] For this use of ΝΠ (which is un-
common), cf. 2 Ki..18,°36.. Jer. 50, 15: 25. 51, 6. BT. mb is,
however, elsewhere confined to poetry, and expresses the idea of
consumption, destruction (usually with mwy, as Is. 10, 23), not that
of complete determination. anes (LXX, We.) for xm nd is cer-
tainly a more idiomatic expression (cf. vz. 7. 9).
36:01 ἢν πῆρ ϑι89 πὶ ὧς Κ᾿,
ΝΠΠ] So 37 dis, 38 Kt. 21 f. (LXX), and 2 Ki. 9, 24 MT.
Probably a genuine alternative form of yn (Ew. ὃ 1866). Though
the pl. in Hebrew is 0°80, the form in Arabic (3) and the
plural in Eth. (ΔΆ: ΔΙΑ: Dillm. col. 134) shew that
there is a parallel form, the root of which is a 7’ “5 verb.
38. AYA AIAN] MINN defore the verb which it qualifies, as 2 Ki.
1, 11 AIT ANN, Ψ. 31, 3 ὉΠ IND; and (for the sake of the
rhythm) 37, 2. Is. 58; 8.
sa] LXX, Pesh. Vulg. 83%, which is preferable.
40. 15 ἼΩΝ] τῇ, 40, 21, 8. 24,5. 25, 7. 1 Ka. 1, 8.55 1
10, 28. 15, 20. 22, 31. 2 Ki. 11, 10. 16, 135. Not always with a
compound expression.
41. an Syxp] See on z. 19.
42. WN] ΞΞ ἦι that, forasmuch as, Gen. 30, 18 etc.: cf. on 15, 15.
question, viz. γυναικοτραφῆ, i.e. (as it seems) woman-nourished, effeminate.
Symm. has ἀπαιδεύτων ἀποστατούντων, Theod. .... μετακινουμένων. Vulg. sub-
stitutes another disparaging comparison, Fili mulieris virwm ultro rapientis,
which seems to stand in some relation to the first part of the paraphrase of
Chrysostom (X. 301 D, quoted by Field), as the second does to the rendering
of Lucian: υἱὲ πορνιδίων ἐπιμαινομένων ἀνδράσιν, ἐπιτρεχόντων τοῖς παριοῦσιν,
ἐκνενευρισμένε καὶ μαλακὲ καὶ μηδὲν ἔχων avdpds.—Pesh. |λο ρος 5
(comp. the rendering of Pr. 12, 8 cited in the last note: hardly Πγ1}}).
XX. 31—X XI. 3. 137
21, 2. 723] So 22, 9: cf. nT Ez. 25, 13; also the anomalous
punctuation A— in the imper. ΠΡ Pr. 24, 14, and 1 and 3 pers.
impf. ch. 28, 15 ΠΕΡ. and ψ. 20, 4 72WT. Ges. ὃ go Rem. 2;
Ew. § 216¢; Stade, § 132.
sony] ‘LXX ’ABemedex, as also inch. 22. 23,6. 26,6. p. 52,1:
on the contrary, ᾿Αχειμελεχ 30, 7. Il 8,17. The same mis-tran-
scription occurs in 1 Ch. 18, 16 MT., where LXX has rightly
"Axemedex, We. (the readings of LXX corrected from Dr. Swete’s
edition).
napd.., TIM] as τό, 4.
3. ys ON wx] The same expression, Jer. 36, 19. 38, 24.
ΓΝ as regards anything = at all.
‘nyty] Po‘el from y, according to Ew. ὃ 1252 ‘to make a
person know a thing in order to determine him to act accordingly’
=/o direct. But this explanation requires more to be supplied than
is probable. LXX διαμεμαρτύρημαι, which points to a reading
‘AVY, Po'el from TY (see p. 59 Jofom), in Qal, to designate or
appoint (a place, II 20, 5; a person, Ex. 21, 8. 9): hence in Po'el
with a personal object (Wright, Arad. Gr. i. § 43: comp. above on
18, 9), not, as in Qal, simply to appoint a person for some position
or purpose, but to perform the act of appointment upon a person,
to fix a place or time for him (which is the sense of the corres-
See
ponding form in Arabic, as si€l, Arnold, Chrestom. Arad., p. 197,
Fo -Oor, ἢ; 1385 20; 82 ἐπ py wile SGselys and we
appointed you to the right side of the mountain). So here, ‘ the
young men J have appointed /o the place of such and such a one.
The Hif. ὙΠ is used in nearly the same sense Jer. 49, 19=59, 44:
Job 9,19. Dr. Weir however writes: ‘Is it not rather ‘*1¥)? comp.
Jer. 47, 7 ΤΠ) DY On HN ON? ~The Qal would certainly seem to
express all that is required.
ΣΌΝ 08] So Ru. 4, 1+: in Dan. 8, 13 »15p—the one example
of a real contraction which the Hebrew language affords. we
(Qor. 25, 30) and eo are used in the same sense, perhaps derived
from the root of nde, and meaning properly a separate, particular
one. ΟΝ; perhaps signifies one whose name ἐς withheld (from nbs
138 The First Book of Samuel,
fo be dumb). Ew. ὃ 106¢ renders the expression, ‘ein gewisser
verschwiegener.
4. "Ὁ ΠΣ AN] Keil, RV. and others: ‘ And now what is under
thine hand? Five loaves of bread give into my hand, or whatsoever
there is present.’ But this leaves the emphatic position of Awan
pnd unaccounted for: and how could David ask specifically for five
loaves, when his previous words had just implied that he did not
know whether Ahimelech possessed them? Rather, ‘And now
what is under thine hand? Five loaves of bread? Give them into
mine hand,’ which agrees better with the accents (according to
which the chief break in @ is at pnd, not at 71). But even this
construction is difficult, and probably there is some error in MD.
LXX render as a question. Either 4 or, better, ON for m1 would
constitute a normal Hebrew sentence: ‘And now, 7 there are
under thy hand five loaves of bread, give them into my hand, or
whatsoever there is present. ΝΣ lit. that which 1s found, i.e.
that which is here present, as 13, 16. Gen. 19, 15. Jud. 20, 48.
An idiomatic use of the Wf. of Ny¥D.
5. δ nvAn by] The use of 5x here is destitute of analogy. In
Jer. 3, 6. Zech. 3, 16. Ez.x0, 2 ΠῚ Sx of course expresses motion
under. 5x is in fact redundant, and is in all probability simply a
corrupt repetition of bn.
6. O8 13] apparently, as Jud. 15, 7, with the force of an oath:
see Ges. s.v. who renders fercle.
mwx] a good example of a sing. term used collectively. For
other rather noticeable instances see Gen. 30, 37 bon (note the fol-
lowing jm2). Jud. 19, 12 Wy (followed by 737), 21, τό (TWN as here).
Jer. 4, 29> yp (note 12).
wo-myy] detained 7 reference to us, i.e. (Anglice) from us: cf. ὃ
in Ψ. 40,11; 84,12; Job 12, 20 construed with verbs of removing
or withholding.
3) *nxv2] This difficult sentence is usually rendered: ‘When I
came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though the
journey was but a common one, how much more then to-day shall
they be holy in (their) vessels?’ i.e. the utensils in which the young
XXI. 4-8. 139
men would put the bread were clean ceremonially when they set
out: there has been no danger of pollution since (though the
journey was a common one), and hence they cannot defile bread
put into them. That the fersons of his companions were cere-
monially clean David had assured Ahimelech before: he here gives
him the same assurance respecting their ‘vessels,’ i.e. wallets or
utensils. But the interpretation cannot be pronounced a certain
one’; nor is the text altogether free from suspicion. For the
construction of ΝΞ followed by ‘1 cf. Is. 6, 1; Jud. 11, 16, etc.:
Tenses,§ 1248. The literal sense of n>5 seems the most likely :
that suggested by Ewald (=‘bodies, as σκεῦος, 1 Thess. 4, 4) is
consonant with the context, but artificial: that supported by Keil
is a sense scarcely suitable except in poetry (Is. 13, 5).
wip] Though the sing. is defensible, the plur. wap’ (LXX,
Pesh. Ew. We.) is preferable and more in accordance with general
prose usage.
7. oan ond] i.e. Bread of (Jehovah’s) Presence; cf. Ex. 40, 23
and see Dillmann, Commentary on E'x.-Lev., Ὁ. 600.
opin] The plur. might be explained as a reference to the
separate loaves (cf. ond mwon, Awy): but this does not accord well
with §npbn at the end of the verse. It is better, therefore, either to
read there OPA with LXX, or to suppose that the final Ὁ in pMDI
has arisen by error from the first 1) of the word following, and for
ΒΟ pion (cf. on 1, 24) to restore spd apn. Comp. Jer.
29, 9 (read pyabh) ; 36, 21 (read by in accordance with idiom) ;
Mic. 2, 8 (yp); 2 Ch. 28, 23 (read OMY). On the other hand,
sometimes a repeated letter has dropped out, as ch. 17,17. Is. 45, 11
(read ‘ndxwn with Hitzig, Dr. Weir, Prof. Cheyne), and probably
W. 42, 2 (nd x).
8. ayy2] Comp. Jer. 36, 5. Neh. 6, ro.
1 Dr. Weir remarks : ‘ow5w 21 Π5 is translated by all [substantially] “‘ both
yesterday and the day before ;” but it never has this meaning [see 6. g. Gen. 31,
2.5. Ex. 5,7]; and there seems no reason why we should not render here [in
accordance with its usual meaning]... as heretofore, when I have gone forth’
(placing, of course, the Zagef qaton at ΠΣ).
140 The First Book of Samuel,
Dy WAN] VSS is not chief (RV.), but mighty, which, however,
does not well agree with p'yin, mzght or heroism being hardly a
quality which in a shepherd would be singled out for distinction.
Read, with Gratz, D819 for ΝΠ, ‘the mightiest of Saul’s runners,
or couriers: Saul’s D'S) are mentioned afterwards, 22,17. In a
runner, strength and size, such as \"3N—elsewhere, it is true, only
used in poetry—connotes, would be a qualification which the
narrator might naturally remark upon.
9. YPN] The combination &* P® occurs Ψ. 135, 173 hence
ΣΝ here is commonly regarded as an anomalous punctuation for
PS; cf. ΠῚ Gen. 49, 11. NW Is. 10, 17 (for what, according to
analogy, would be ΠῚ», in’). So Kimchi, Ges. Ew. § 213°, 2862;
Stade, ὃ 194° (2). Delitzsch, however (on Ψ. 1. 4), treats PS as a
dialectical form of DN = 2umP }*S occurs in the Palestinian
Targums = 7f (ψ. 7, 4. 5 etc.), also =4 in zdirect questions, and
=bw, where the answer JVo is expected, Job 6, 12 NAN ὙΠ xdn ps
sn. το, 4. 5%. τι, 7. 13, 90: and 17'S PS occurs (e.g.) simply
=o there is... ψ. 7, 4%. Job 33, 23%. 322; Job 6, 6> 4) by MN pS
or zs there taste in the white of an egg? in an indirect question,
Ww. 14, 2 Sow mK pp yond. Lam. 1,12. It may be questioned if
such parallels justify the use of |S as a neutral particle of interroga-
tion: nor does it seem probable that such a pronounced Aramaism
would occur in an early narrative, clearly of Judaic origin.
10. nnd] Is. 25, 7. 1 Ki. 19, 13 WVIN2 128 pd,
np Je-npn ANSON] If thou wilt take “λα for thyself, take it.
Cf. for the position of AN’, Ex. 21, 8 Qri ἣν (opp. to 1225, 0. ΤΣ:
and on 18, 17.
Nj2] Elsewhere pointed always 73.
14. wyonne ww] ‘And he changed it, even his behaviour.’
The suffix in itself, in anticipation of ἸΏ} nx, is defensible (Ex. 2, 6
35m ms ἸΠΝ ΠῚ and she saw him, the child. a5. be [Ἐν 12. ΠῚ
1 ΚΙ. 21,13. 2 ΚΙ. τό,τρ Kt. Is. 29, 23 (render, with Hitzig, ‘when
his children see it, the work of my hands’ etc.). Jer. 31,2. Ez. 3, 21.
1 Aram. n’x=Heb. Ὁ".
XXI. 9 —X XII. 1. 141
44, 7. Pr. 5, 22. ψ. 83, 12 039 Yon'Y make them, (even) their
nobles, εἰς): but the emphatic anticipation of an object such as
ἸΏΝ is not probable, and the form of the suffix—rare even in
strong verbs (see on 18, 1)—is found only once besides with a
verb 9”, II 14, 6, where there are independent grounds for ques-
tioning its correctness. No doubt 13™) is an error of transcription
for 1321. 80 Ol. p. 547; Stade, ὃ 143°; Kén, p. 546.
bbann] and he behaved himself madly. The word recurs, applied
metaphorically, Nah. 2, 5, Jer. 25, 16. 51, 7.
ὉΠ3] in their hands, i.e. as they sought to restrain him (Th. Ke.).
i] Piel from 1, with anomalous gamez, for 1, i.e. scratched,
made meaningless marks. But LXX ἐτυμπάνιζεν i.e. AN and he
drummed on the doors of the gates,—‘a more suitable gesture for a
raving madman’ (Kp.). So Stade, ὃ 493).
16. 3) Ἵ.Π] ‘Am I in lack of mad men?’—The question is
indicated by the tone of the voice: see on 11,12; and cf. 22, 7. 15.
ΠΝ] See on ro, 27.
by] iit, upon me, i.e. to my trouble: Gen. 48, 7 by San ano.
22, τ. nowy nyo 5x] The myn is afterwards, Ὁ. 4, spoken of
as a ΠΝ ; and the case is the same in the other passage in which
it is mentioned 11 23, 13f.=1Ch.11, 15 f. Can a myn be also
termed a ΠΝ A ANN is a mountain-stronghold (p. 18, 3);
and in Jud. 6, 2. Ez. 33, 27 nyypd and at least NT¥% (Is. 33, 16)
are named side by side as afferent kinds of hiding-place. We.
answers the above question in the negative; and believes that both
here and II 23, 13 ΜΠ odsy myn is an old error for ndsy ΠΝ the
stronghold of ‘Adullam.
1 Comp. Ew. § 309°. There are also other types, as with 5, Nu. 32, 33.
Jos. 1,2. Jud. 21,7. 2 Ch. 26,14; with yo Lev. 6, 8; and with the suffix in
the genitive, as Ez. 10, 3. 42, 14. Job 29, 3; and in Ch., in a form recalling
strongly Syriac usage, 1 Ch. 5, 26 ’5 oda. 23,6. 2 Ch. 25,10. 28,15. With
one word, the interrog. "δ, the apparent pleonasm is idiomatic: Is. 19, 12 Dox
yyoin Where are they, thy wise men? 2 Ki. 19, 13 nam 75D 1x (in || Is.
37,13 ΠΝ). Mic. 7, 10 75x ΠῚΠ YN. Except with this word, the use is
chiefly a late one; or at least occurs with growing frequency in the later writers.
But some of the instances are not improbably due to textual error.
“142 The First Book of Samuel,
ra ia obsy was in the Shephélah Jos. 15, 33. 35: hence went
down’ (Dr. Weir).
2. nwo dws wvda] Cf. Is. 24, 2 13 NW TWN as (one) against
whom there is a lender (creditor).
warp] Jud. 18, 25; cf Job 3, 20; andon 1; το.
3. ὮΣΙΝ νιν Nv] If the text be sound, these words can only be
rendered ‘come forth (to be) with you.’ But the case is not one in
which such a strongly marked pregnant construction would be
expected: and it is probable that either some word has dropped
out, or that we should, with Vulg. Pesh. (maneat, oy) read wy)
for 83°.
4. 03%] ‘led them (so as to be) in the presence of the king of
Moab. Anoiher pregnant construction, hardly less expected than
the last. 5. MN is not used in conjunction with verbs of motion,
and in Pr. 18, 16 3393 nt 285) the prep. is different. Targ.
ΝΣ ΝῊ, Pesh. aaac point to the punctuation 13" (see Jos. 6, 23
Targ.; 11 τό, 21 Pesh.) and he left them, which is altogether to be
preferred. (LXX καὶ mapexa\eoe = OM")
5. o-ne2)] Cf. 7 nsspy τ Ki. 17, 3; and often in the imper., as
Dt. τ, 7 ood wd. 40. 2, 13 ob May. 5, 27 nb ww: Is. 40, 9 12 ὍΣ.
6. yt] Avown =discovered: cf. Ex. 2,14. Jud. 16, 9. II 17, 19.
In clause 4 the series οἵ ptcpp. describe the situation, as (6. g.)
τ ΚΙ; ἃ, 40; 25, τὸ; 5. ||: ὅς 925:
7. nada (2)7 unless it be an error for n>), affords an example
of 5 marking the accus., on which see 23, ro.
8. nbn] zs sick because of me. This can hardly be right. In
the poetical passage Am. 6, 6 the apathy of the boisterous revellers
of Samaria is well described by the words ἢ)" 13” by ony bt «and
Seel no sickness by reason of Joseph’s breach :’ but the passage here
is different. LXX πονῶν, which represents bin in the passage of
similar import 23, 21 ‘Sy pndpn 5. Hence Gritz, Klo. bon: «and
none of you hath compassion on me.’ Dr. Weir makes a similar
suggestion: ‘Is it nbown ? {and there is no compassion on your part
upon me: cf. Gen. 19, 16] comp. 23, 21 LXX.’
anand... opm] Cf. 13 aad ‘dy nrpd to rise up against me zn/o
XXII. 2-22. 143
(=so as to become) oné lying in wait; Mic. 2, 8 (reading for pp’,
DIP’: notice the two mem’s following) ayy Dip oy. LXX (in
both verses) «is ἐχθρόν, which Dr. Weir prefers, remarking that
‘mpn is not suitable to 718, but is so to DX’
9. by ayo] placed over (Ke. rightly), as 1 Ki. 4, 7. Ru. 2, 5. 6.
13. Ὁ bw] the inf. abs., according to Ges. 131. 4%. Ew. § 2515,
After an 27, c., as 25, 26.
14. Jnyown dx ry] RV. ἐς daken into thy council, following Ges.
(qui devertere solet ad colloquium tuum, qui interioris apud te
admissionis est) and Keil. ‘This, however, assumes an unusual
sense for 11D, which is hardly justified by the parallels quoted,
Gen. 19, 2. 3. Jud. 4,18. 19, 12 (to ‘turn aside’ to vzszf a person).
Probably for 1D we should read with LXX, Targ. (ἄρχων, 35)
"WY ‘captain over thy body guard,’ which would imply a position of
responsibility, and close attendance upon the king. For this sense
of nynwy, cf. Il 23, 23 (=1Ch. 11, 25) (Ch. by) Sx ys wae
wnynwr: the word is applied also in a concrete sense, Is. 11, 14
onynwD poy ‘233. So Ew. Bertheau (on 1 Ch. /.c.), Then.
15. 797 aya... ow dx] “3 pw lit. Zo lay in, ice. to attribute
to, as Job 4, 18: so 4 mw Dt. 22, 8.
ὮΝ ΠΣ 553] LXX, Pesh. ’s) 053), which is required.
17. Dy ow] Il 14, 19 (MN): Jer. 26, 24 (nx).
18. 97] Ew. ὃ 458. Kt. uses‘ in the Syriac fashion: the Qri
warns the reader to pronounce it softly, and not differently from
INIT 7. 8: 21, ὃ.
xin yp] Note the emphasis expressed by the pronoun: as
Ex. 18, 19. 22. 26 etc. (Zenses, ὃ 160 note.)
22. Nap] 72D in Biblical Hebrew is used somewhat peculiarly
in 1 Ki. 12, 15 Y py [Ch. 7202] map ann 5 lit. ‘for there was
a bringing about from Jehovah that he might establish his word,’
etc.: in the philosophical Hebrew of the middle ages, it acquires
the sense of cause. Hence this passage has been rendered, ‘I have
been the cause in (the death of) all the persons of thy father’s
house. The legitimacy of this rendering is questionable. There
is no evidence that 73D possessed the sense cawse in Biblical times ;
144 The First Book of Samuel,
nor is it probable, if it did, that 33D (in Qa/) would be a denomina-
tive of it; and thirdly, even though there were a verb 23D 20 de the
cause, its use with ellipse of the crucial word death is more than is
credible. It is best for ‘nap to read, with Th. We., ‘M30 J am
guilty in respect of all the persons, etc.: cf. Pesh. Kaswh?. The
construction with 3 as “2 NOM 19,5, where Targ. has the same
word in the ἐλ. with the same construction, viz. “2 INN.
23. “Soy Ans now Dd] ‘For thou art a keeping with me, i.e.
shalt be jealously guarded with me. The abstract for the concrete,
according to a usage of which there are many other examples in
Hebrew (Zéenses, ὃ 189. 2): comp. Is. 11, 14 DAYOWD poy 2311,
LXX ὅτι πεφύλαξαι σὺ παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ --- TY AN Aw ‘2 (3 for Ὁ, the two
letters being very similar in the old character),—which has nothing
to recommend it.
23—26. David as an outlaw, in the Lowland, the Hill-country,
and the Wilderness of Judah.
23, 3. 12 AN] =and how much more, when, as 2 Ki. 5, 13.
4. ndyyp 37] Qe‘ilah, like ‘Adullam (22, 1), lay in the nop (Jos.
15, 44, See v. 33), which sloped down towards the sea-coast.
— M3] the fut. zwstans : see on 3, 11.
5. 43%] The word used as 30, 2. 20, like the Greek ἄγειν.
6. There is some disorder in this verse: Abiathar fled to David,
before he reached Qe‘ilah ; and clause ὦ cannot be construed so as
to yield an intelligible sense (as it stands it can only be rendered,
‘the ephod came down in his hand!’)*, The simplest course is to
follow LXX and to read after 9 5x: ΠΒΝΠῚ ad yp sys ὮΝ ΤῊΝ NIT
2. Even this change does not entirely relieve the verse of diffi-
culty ; for the sense required is after Abiathar fled, which is not
strictly expressed by ἽΝ M33. AV. RV. ‘that he came down with
* And the remarkable parallel in Moabitic: Mesha, line 28 ΠΡ Ὁ Ὁ 12} 59 »9
Zit. for all Dibon was obedience.
* It is moreover out of connexion with clause a: for according to all but
uniform usage °°) would be resumed by either 11)8 Τ᾽ or Τ᾽ TDN) OF TH
1))x, but not by 1) ΤΌΝ (Zenses, § 78 end).
AXII. 23—X XIII. ro. 145
an ephod in his hand.’ This (irrespectively of the difficulty in
clause a) yields an excellent sense: only it should be clearly under-
stood that 17} zs no rendering of the Massorehc text (\1' Ὑ BN).
AV. (and occasionally even RV.) sometimes conceals a difficulty by
giving a sense that is agreeable with the context, regardless of the
fact that the Hebrew words used do not actually express it: i.e.
they implicitly adopt an emendation of the text. Comp. on 17, 20:
24,20; 25, 30: and see Jer. 19,13. Ez. 45, 21 RV. " Ley’s pro-
posal to read nw for by (ZA ZW. 1888, p. 222) does not touch the
real difficulty of the verse.
7. 13D)] LXX πέπρακεν 13) (comp. Jud. 4, 9). Sold, however,
is here scarcely suitable. If the text be correct, the sense will be /o
treat as strange=1o altenate, reject (cf. Jer. 19, 4 ΠῚΠ DIO NX 3M),
construed here pregnantly with 13. But the context in Jeremiah is
not parallel; and the figure here would be rather a forced one.
Ch, 26, 8, in a similar context, we have 13D, which, however, would
here give rise to an inelegant alliteration with the following 73D).
Perhaps Krochmal is right in suggesting 13D, which is construed
with T\3 in Is. 19, 4 in exactly the sense that is here required,
and only differs from 73) by one letter. The versions, other than
LXX, render only by a general term defrver (11019, ομοδ αὐ, tradidit),
from which nothing can be inferred as to the reading of the text
which the translators had before them.
nay onds] Dt. 3, 5. 2 Ch. 8, 5; cf. 14, 6.
9. wind) was fabricating, forging. Apparently a metaphor
derived from the working of metal: cf. nw’n wan Gen. 457-32.
1 Ki. 7, 14. Elsewhere in this figurative sense only in Proverbs,
and only there in Qal (3, 29 ΠῚ YT Sy winn bx. 6; τὰ. 18. 12520.
14, 22+). The position of yoy makes it emphatic : comp. Jer. 11,
1g and on II 15, 4.
Io. pow pow] See on 20, 6.
syd nn] So with Br Nu. 32, 15. Mnmw is construed so con-
stantly with an accus. that, though there is a tendency in Heb. for
Pi‘el, and especially for Hif, to be construed with 5, expressing
1E, g.’5 mmm Zo give life to, Gen. 45, 7; /9 21110 20 give width to, ψ. 4, 2 al. ;
L
146 The First Book of Samuel,
the dativus commodi (or incommod?), this is probably an instance of
the use of 5 to mark the accusative, such as is regular in Syriac,
and occurs in Hebrew, rarely in the early and middle periods of
the language, and with greater frequency in exilic and post-exilic
writings. See 22,7. Il 3, 30 ΟΣ ΝΟ yn ; Jer. 40, 2 mow... AP 5
ψ. 69, 6 nds nyt ans; 73, 18 wd nwn al.: Ew. § 2779.
ur f. ΠΟ bya] This use of ody to denote the lords or citizens
of a town is rare: Jos. 24, 11 (of Jericho). Jud. 9, 22 ff. (Shechem).
20, 5 (Gibeah). II 21, 12 and 2, 4 LXX (Jabesh of Gilead)’.
13. ἸΣΌΠΠΣ wea idan] Cf. 2 Ki. 8, τ wn wan; I rs,
20 shin sox Tw by shin ‘1; Zech. 10, 8; see also Ex. 33, 19.
Ezek. 12, 25. A Semitic idiom, copiously illustrated by Lagarde,
in a note at the end of his Psalferitum Hieronymi (1874), p. 156 f.,
especially from Arabic authors, and employed where either the
means, or the desire, to be more explicit does not exist. ‘And they
went about where they went about :’ in the present case, no doubt,
the vagueness of the expression corresponds with the reality.
From Lagarde’s instances may be quoted: DIMI pn propa
(Rashi on Gen. 20, 13, and elsewhere) Ongelos renders as he does
render; lS le mee fuit quod fuit=missa haec faciam; le rrols
δ». wl age quod agis=non curo quid facturus sis, et liberam
agendi ut volueris potestatem tibi concedo ; ab wy ale emersit
[ex undis] qui emersit=non attinet exponere qui et quot emer-
serint; ale δὰ» οὖ Lad po pl as, ie Δὸς ad regem Persarum
Parwézum profectus est eo consilio quo profectus est=nil attinet
explicare quaenam itineris causa ac ratio fuit: Arnold, Chresfo-
mathia Arabica, p. 143, 7 nisi forte rae Le rast mutaverit
eos quod eos mutavit = nisi forte nescio quae res eos mutaverit.
14, NYWH2| See Is: 33, 16.
15. NW] ‘Here, in spite of 26, 3, we must with Ew. 171]. iii.
"Ὁ ΕΠ ch. 11, 3; '5 mann Hos. 10,13; “Ὁ priya Is. 53, 11 20 give right to.
Comp. Ew. § 282°, and Giesebrecht’s careful study on this preposition, Dze
Hebriische Praeposition Lamed (Halle, 1876), p. 8ο f.
1 Comp. in Phoenician C/S. 120 °n332 ndya ΠΣ Irene citizen of Byzantium
(in the Greek Ἐρήνη Βυζαντία).
XXIII, 11-23. 147
127 (E.T. 92) vocalize ST, not only in order to secure a con-
nexion with what precedes, but especially to obtain a motive for
what follows: cf. v. 16 “strengthened his hand,” and v. 17 “ fear
not” ’ (We.). And so Dr. Weir: ‘ Rather, was afraid; see’ next
verse.’
nvan3] The prep. 3 and the m Jocale combined. So 19; 31,
13 MWD; Jos. 15, 21 79333; II 20, 15 MOAN; Jer. 52, ro ANDI,
And even with }, as Jud. 21, 19 5 MHD; Jos. 15, 10 ΠΟΙ ΒΝ,
Jer. 27, 16 nbaap. Here the n was already read by LXX (though
wrongly understood) ἐν τῇ Καινῇ - ΠΦΊΠΞ.
17. JNson] Cf. with Ἴ" 15. το, ro. Ψ. 21, 9. But xy does not
correspond phonetically with Aramaic 80, with which Miihlau-
Volck, in the roth edition of Gesenius’ Lexicon, compare it: Ny
=)ps = ORAS advenre: SOI= EDM\M:—in conj. I. 2 (= Pre/)
porrigere, praebere. See Néldeke in the ZDM/G. 1886, p. 736.
1] 90, in accordance with what has just been stated. Cf.
Ψ. 90, 12 so—i.e. in accordance with v. 11—teach us ete.
20. 5) ΠῚΝ 595] ὃ = a accordance with: elsewhere the phrase
is used with 3; comp. on 2,16. With the rhythm or run of clause
a, cf. Qoh. 9, 10 (accents and RV. margzn).
ὉΠ 24] ‘and ours (will it be) to deliver him,’ etc. Not a
common use of 5. Cf. (with ὃ before the inf.) Mic. 3, 1; and in
late Hebrew, 2 Ch. 13, 5. 20,17. 26, 18. Comp. Sy in ID 18,11.
22. OY INN 2] The Hebrew is abrupt (comp. on 2, 35). LXX
for 187%) has ἐν τάχει, whence Th. We. restore, perhaps rightly,
7)159—* know and consider his place where his fleeting foot may
be.” For Wt) as an adj., cf. Zeph. 1, 14.
ἼΩΝ] sc. WINT (τό, 4).
Nin py’ ow] Ex. 4,14 xin ἼΤ᾽ 139; ch. 22, 18>; 27, 2;
28, 8.
23. wy) INT] In this order, only here and Jer. 5, 1. Elsewhere
regularly 387) 1}, AN Yt.
bop] any of ..., whatever there be of, with ἃ strongly individualiz-
ing force. Cf. Gen. 6, 2. 7, 22. Ὁ, 10. 17, 12: Ew. § 278¢.
ἢ) 5x] 5x must here be used as the equivalent of by, which is
12
148 The First Book of Samuel,
joined sometimes with substantives to express an adverbial relation;
y. 31, 24 70 by according to the rule of abundance = abundantly ;
Jer. 6, 14 np) >Y = lightly ; Is. 60, 7 px Sy = acceptably. Here
= assuredly.
25. wpad] ‘read wpad with LXX’ (We.). 1 has dropped out
before the % following. So Klo.
_ ybpn 3] In illustration of the fact, Dr. Weir refers appositely
to Jud. 15, 8 poy yoo Hypa aw; 20, 45. 47 por yooa aw
ὉΠ AyIAN; and ch. 13, 6.
aw] LXX WN: ‘and came down to the crag which 7s in,’ etc.
This is probably right, ybon not being a proper name (We.).
26. bxw] LXX poor die: probably rightly.
man) WI AN] ‘And David came to be (on 18, 9) hasting im
alarm, ...and Saul and his men were surrounding David and his
men to take them,—the ptcpp. describe the situation, into the
midst of which the message, v. 27, came. For the idea expressed
by tana, cf. IL 4, 4 (Qal), 2 Ki. 7, 15 (Nif.).
28. 12] Is. 14, 3; Ges. § 22. 5>.
mipbnnn] prob. of diviséons', Saul and David there parting from
the neighbourhood of one another: cf. the Nif. in 1 Ki. 16, 21.
Gen. 14, 15. : Tenses, § 123 B.
Δ) ΠῚ] ‘7 return for this day—the sense being explained
by what follows—wherezn (on v. 5) thou hast wrought for me. AV.
RV. express ΠῚΠ on anwy wx nnn: cf.on 23, 6. Against
LXX and Th. see We.
21. nop] = and be confirmed, as 13, 14; Gen. 23, 30. Nu.
39 5:
152 The First Book of Samuel,
25, τ. }IND] In all probability an error for ἡ], as LXX. Other-
wise it must be supposed that Paran is used widely, and that the
extreme N.-E. part of it is here intended. Dr. Weir: ‘ LXX right,’
2. wi] without a verb; see on 17, 12.
ywwy1] of work in the fields: cf. Ex. 23, 16 Pwyd "Da.
[γ1}] So II 19, 33 of Barzillai; 2 Ki. 4, 8 of the Shunammite
woman.
man] apparently=and he was (engaged) zm the shearing of
his sheep,—a most unusual type of sentence. 13 7" is what would
be expected in that sense.
5: bay] insight, shrewdness: Pr. 16, 22 poys Sow nn “pd.
1205] Qri "253, a Calebite, the » being the usual patronymic
termination. So Targ. (25 n'a) Vulg. (de genere Caleb), Rashi,
Kimchi (}2 i83p 293 nnawn mw > o> I’), The inhabi-
tants of the district in question in South Judah claimed Caleb as
their ancestor; see Jos. 15, 13 ff.; and cf. 30, 14 (the 205 355).
τ ΠΡ 5] Cf. mA Gen. 14, 10; Ew. § 216¢.
6. nD] A most perplexing and uncertain word. (@) The text
can only be the pausal form of 240 him that liveth. But the
rendering ‘And ye shall say thus to him that liveth, Both thou,’ ete.
affords a poor sense; hence it is thought by some to be a form of
salutation, of which no other instance occurs, ‘And ye shall say
thus, To him that liveth! Both thou,’ etc. So substantially Ge. Ke.’,
the former comparing the common Arabic formula of salutation
1 WES God keep you in life=grant you good health. (6) Vulg.
renders fratribus mets (ND), following which We., admitting the
difficulty of the passage, thinks that re/afively the best explanation
of it is to punctuate ‘ne ?. and to render ‘And ye shall say thus
1 Except that the rendering 771 vitam is doubtful. »m (constr. 7 Dan. 12, 7)
is always an adj. /veng ; in the phrases wb) ἽΤ and Typ 1, ΠΤ can scarcely
be anything but an artificial variation of "Π, introduced by the punctuators.
2 In this case, however, it is almost necessary to vead nx). Though, no
doubt, examples of the elision of δὶ occur (e.g. not only 121 for 13x13 v. 8, but
also ΠΟ 1, 17 for Toxw from πο, on) Ψ. 22, 22 for DDN] from DDN,
XXV, I-11. 153
to my brother’ (cf. Il 20, 9 where Joab uses the same term in
addressing Amasa, and 1 Ki. 9, 13 Hiram addressing Solomon)’.
The other versions evidently presuppose nothing different from the
MT. LXX εἰς épas?(= AN nya Gen. 18, 14); Targ. pnd ; Pesh.
wes Joows oo.
7. pbs xd] So Ὁ. 15; cf. Ruth 2, 15 end.
8. aw oy dy] dy of time is most unusual. 21) OY recurs in
Esther (8, 17. 9, 19. 22).
ro. OS |anDA aAMAy| The combination of a ptcp. with the art.
and a subst. without it occurs sporadically in OT., often (but not
invariably) where the subst. is definite in itself or defined by the
context. Thus Gen. 1, 21. 28. 7, 21 (with ΠΤ. and swab) :
Di 2, 25: jude 15.5 (with an. pr): τὸ: 247. 761: 2» 5: 40, τὸν
ΕΣ ΤΠ 22°. Prob, 19. Ψ 62; 4. τὺ, 21 (accents) ®,. Here
the idea ‘slaves’ is virtually limited by the words 139 on, which
shew that the speaker has only a particular class of them in view.
II. ἬΠΡΡῚ] and shall I take? cf. Nu. τό, το. Is. 66, 9Ὁ (tone
mil‘el on account of Tifha, Zenses, § 104).
1D | LXX ‘", which is generally preferred by moderns. "22
is probably, as Abu’lwalid (Rzgmah, ed. Goldberg, p. 175) sug-
gested long ago, due to a /apsus calamz. It is true, in a district
_
nonin Gen. 25, 24 for OD INA from Ὁ ἽΝ, 72U0N 10. 31, 39 for TINBON,
yw-na ch. 31, 10 by the side of yRw-na Jos. 17, 11), they are nevertheless
rare, nor is there any example of such elision after a preposition with —.
Drs Weir: Or is it TIN) to my brother? But see v. 8 thy soz David.
7) may follow the verb, as Ex. 5, 15, though rarely.’ Against the view that
treats »™> as commencing the speech is the extreme abruptness which attaches
then to 73 ON ON): what is regularly said is (77 ΝΠ) WANN 179, e.g. ch.
11,9. The objection derived from v. 8 against ‘my brother’ is not conclusive :
for both érvother and son being used metaphorically, the terms may be inter-
changed (especially when not addressed to the same person).
2 1,6. next year: comp. Theocr. 15. 74 (quoted by Liddell & Scott, and also
by Field here) «ys ὥρας κἤπειτα, φίλ᾽ ἀνδρῶν, ἐν καλῷ εἴης.
3 Where, however, 0°12 5x should probably be omitted with LXX.
* Where Comnill is probably right in vocalizing with LXX, Pesh. Symm. Vulg.
D’Nvinn.
5 Some other instances are noted in the Journal of Philology, xi. 229 f.
154 The First Book of Samuel,
(Jos. 15, 19) in which it was scarce, water might have been a
commodity which would not readily be given away; still, among
the viands provided for the oN, some more special beverage
than water might not unnaturally find a place (cf. v. 18), and the
change to "25 is readily explained as a consequence of the
frequent collocation of ow ond. For other instances of error
due to Japsus calamt, see ch. 12, 15. II 21, 8. Jer. 27,1; and no
doubt also 1 Ki. 2, 28.
14. OY], from Bry (14, 32 Qri. 15, 19), here pointed regularly.
The Versions mostly guess. LXX ἐξέκλινεν (but with ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν) as
14, 32 ἐκλίθη ; Aq. ὠτρύνθη ; Symm. ἀπεστράφη ; Theod. ἐξουδένωσεν ;
Targ. }\72 yp; Pesh. yeas oS Nise; Vulg. (after Symm.)
aversatus est eos. Th. considers that these renderings point to DP"
(cf. Ψ. 95, 10); on which We. remarks: ‘pp, even if Pesh. ete.
read it, would not help the verse: all turns here on the expresszon
of Nabal’s feeling.’
15. W29ANn 103] So (in the sé. cs/r.) with a finite verb Lev.
14, 467. ψ. 90, 15 (1): with wwe, Lev. 13, 46. Nu. 9, 18 (Ges.
§ 116. 2, 3). Elsewhere, the inf, as vv. 7. 16. 22, 4.
τη. nnd>] 20, 4 —by and 5x here interchange in one and the
same clause: for other remarkable instances of the same variation,
sce. 25. ΠῚ 2, ἢ; 5 20): Wer ΣΟ 85. 28, ὃ:
18, NNWY] i.e. ‘asdawoth. So Kt. On the form, see Ew. ὃ 1894;
Stade, §§ 119», 319°: and comp. Ni) Is. 3, 16. The Qri substi-
tutes the normal MWY ‘asiyarh.
21. WON TN] Note the δέχ: (on 9,15). The clause expresses
David’s thoughts as he went along before he met Abigail.
ἽΝ] as Jer. 5, 4; see on 16, 6.
22. TNT syd] LXX τῷ Δαυειδ--- 17, certainly rightly. Analogy
(cf. e.g. 20, 13) requires the imprecation to be uttered by the
speaker against himself. The insertion of "2" is probably inten-
tional, to avoid the appearance, as the threat in ὁ was not carried
out, of the imprecation recoiling upon David himself.
1 But some treat 1207 here as an zf.: Ew. § 238%; Ol. ὃ 192f; Konig, p. 212.
—_—--
AXXV. 14-28. 155
24. ὮΝ 3) Cf. 1 Ki. 1, 26 and see Ges. ὃ r21. 3; Ew. § 3113.
28. 02] ‘Fool’ is an inadequate rendering. The word in
Hebrew suggested one whose disposition was churlish and illiberal,
and who had no regard for God or man: see Is. 32, 5f. (where
v. 6 unfolds the character of the 523 in terms which recall at once
the conduct of Nabal described in this chapter).
26. Anyi... Anyi] The word repeated after the long intervening
clause. Such cases of resumption are not uncommon in Hebrew :
cf. on 17, 13; 20, 14-15.
Ys Sy) wx] The antecedent ’ is repeated in the relative
clause, because it is separated from WN by the addition JW) "ΠῚ:
contrast v. 34.
oI ywin}] The inf. abs. in continuation of an inf. c., as
22, 13>; and followed by a subst. standing to it in the relation
of subject (rare), as Ὁ. 33, Lev. 6, 7. Ψ. 17, 5 (Ew. ὃ 3289 towards
the end). The phrase itself, implying an exploit or success,
achieved against opposing obstacles by force, recurs Jud. 7, 2. Job
40, 14, and with reference to Jehovah, Is. 59, 16. 63, 5. Ψ. 98, I.
27.273] i.e. a present, called a d/esseng from the feelings of good
will, of which it is the expression: 30, 26. Gen. 33, 11.
827] Probably an error for ANIA, as v. 35.
monn} As in II 14, το. Is. 9, 4, the waw conv. with the pf.
introduces the direct predicate (Zenses, ὃ 123): here, as 20, 5.
Jud. 11, 8, with a precative force, ‘And now this present,.... ,
let 11 be given,’ etc.
ΣΝ 5373] at the feet of my lord=following him, Ex. τα, 8. Dt.
τι. 6. Jud. 4, το.
28. 2.2] An idiomatic expression = all the days that thou hast
lived, since thy birth: 1 Ki. 1, 6 0%) AN jayy x ; Job 38, 12
“pa ANN JON. «JN having this sense, the pf. ΠΝ) xd would
be the tense naturally used with it: probably xypn xd is chosen
with the view of generalising the statement as much as possible, so
as to allow it to include a possible future,—‘ zs mo/ 20 de found in
thee,’ etc.
ΣΟΥ (Com ον €®, Wright, Apocr. Acts of the Apostles, p. 88, ll. 15-16.
156 The First Book of Samuel,
29. nn)... Op] ‘And man has (as a fact) risen up, etc... .:
but the soul of my lord shall be,’ etc. If it be thought that the
sense, ‘and should a man rise up... then may the soul of my lord
be,’ etc. is required, ὩΡῚ must be read (Is. 21, 73 Zenses, ὃ 149).
MWY] Zound up for safe custody zn the bundle of life.
nx] w2/h=in the care and custody of, as Lev. 5, 23; Dt. 15, 3;
Is. 49, 4.
mayor... ΓΝ] The object resumed, and connected directly with
the verb by the suffix; a frequent elegance of Hebrew style, as
Gen: 13, 15) 21, 13: Lenses, $197. 7,16.
30. “ 522] RV. ‘according to all the good that he hath spoken
concerning thee,’ which in Hebrew! would be 735 wx Anon 555
py. Perhaps "WS S35 was used sometimes with the force of a
stronger and more emphatic WN, wth the like of all that=
altogether, exactly as: see esp. Ex. 25, 9.
31. ‘Then let not this be to thee a (cause of) tottering (or
staggering), or a stumbling of heart, (viz.) to have shed innocent
blood, etc. Both expressions are peculiar: but the meaning
appears to be, ‘Let David avoid the difficulties which shedding
innocent blood might hereafter involve him in, and the qualms
of conscience which will inevitably follow it’ The kind of
‘tottering’ expressed by the root pip may be learnt from a com-
parison of Is. 28, 7; Jer. 10, 4; and Nah. 2, 11 (0°973 p'5). The
ancient translations seem merely to have conjectured for APD a
meaning more or less agreeable with the context: LXX βδελυγμός";
Aq. Symm. λυγμός, whence Vulg. in szmgulfum et scrupulum cordis:
Targ. Dy (solicitude), Pesh. [λιν 91 (terror). A curious Midrashic
exposition of mpiad may be seen in the Midrash Tillin on Ψ. 53
(quoted by Levy, VHW2B., 5. v. Papp).
yonndy,.. yaw] et...et=both...and. But no stress seems
to rest here upon the combination ; and probably the first } is to
be omitted, with LXX, Vulg. Pesh. After ywind; LXX express -
1 In Ethiopic a different construction is possible, the antecedent being there
frequently introduced into the relative clause: Dillmann, 4eth. Gr. p. 413f.
* Possibly (but not certainly) a corruption of the unusual Avypds.
AXXV, 29-39. 157
Ἵ (which the translators are most unlikely to have done, had not
the word stood in their text); and the insertion, as We. remarks,
is a necessary one: for it just gives to the expression used the
sense of force (v. 26) which is required.
33. Joyo] ΕἸ as Pr. 11, 22.
yum] See on Ὁ. 26.
c. 0 a οἰ sy 2] as 14, 39: the first ‘3 introduces the asser-
tion sworn to, the second is resumptive. ‘Thenius, following LXX
literally, gravely proposes, for the second "5, to read "Πὲς tN!
*nxan\| By error for 83M), through the influence of the following
‘ANd (so Dr. Weir).
“m2 ON] if there Aad been left ...!=surely there had not been
left. The pf., after the oath, as II 3, 27 (though not there intro-
duced by Bx).
35. Wx ΠῚ] The pron. is emphatic.
36. AnNwY "Ὁ nom] For the position of 5, ch... δι Ὁ. as Thm,
ΠΟ 17,10); 25: 18: 22; and omich! '¥, 2:
512] 31) of the heart=glad, merry: II 13, 28: Pr. 15, 15 30)
son πη 2d. So the subst. 39 20 Dt. 28, 47. Is. 65, 14; and
ab "8 1 Ki. 8, 66.
wy] lit. upon him, in accordance with Hebrew idiom: see on 17,
32. Keil is wrong in referring the suffix to Anw», and rendering,
after Maurer, αὐ 2f=at the feast.
37. 125 n)] opp. is poad sn ‘may your heart /ve’=take
courage, Ψ. 22, 27.
38. DOA Nwys My] ὉΠ Mwy is subject: ‘And there was
the like of ten days, and, etc. For the art., Dr. Weir compares
9, 20. Is. 30, 26.1 Ch. 9, 25. Ezr. το, 8. ‘And it came to pass affer
ten days,’ would, of course, be ὮΝ) ΠΝ yp ὅπ. Comp. 1 Ki. 18,
1 ὩΣ OND) ὙΠ), where O19 is similarly the sadject of (for the sg.,
see on I, 2).
39. 5) 2] Dr. Weir, on the ground that } 3 occurs but once
Ψ. 43, 1, would join 9%) with *np1n: but though Sa 000 yn|1n might
be said (ψ. 74, 22), would ba) ΤῊ ΠΒῚΠ be a probable idiom ? 9
acquired by usage so strongly the force of ‘from the fower of,’
158 The First Book of Samuel,
that it is no doubt here construed with 39 on the analogy of pay
D247 16. 11 18, 19. 31. :
vs awn] The subj. repeated, the Ws at the beginning of the
sentence having been forgotten.
wea... awn] as Jud. Ὁ; 57. 1 Ki. 2, 44: cf. WN WT Jos.
2, 19 al., and the phrase in 1 Ki. 8, 32 and often in Ez. nnd
WNT 131.
ὈΡΝᾺ a4] ‘and spake concerning Abigail,’ 1.6. (as the phrase
was understood to mean) asked her in marriage. Cf. Cant. 8, 8.
42. 3) won| ‘and also her five damsels that followed at her
foot:’ 1=and also; cf. on 6, 11. If nabnn be treated as predicate,
the article must be omitted.
mbanb] is not quite the same as bina τ. 27: the ὃ is the so-
called 5 of norm, ‘ going according to her foot, i.e. guided by her
foot=attending upon her. Comp. for this sense of bind Gen. 30,
30 hath blessed thee bind αἱ my foot=whithersoever I turned
(RV.): 33, 14 and I will lead on softly moxdion b3nb according to
the pace of the cattle, etc.
43. bxyv] Not the ΝΡ in the N. of Palestine, but the one—
also not far from another ‘Carmel ’—in the Negeb of Judah, Jos.
15, 56 (v. 55 yD and Sra, as v. 2 here).
jwnw oi] The 3 is idiomatic in this phrase, =‘both adhe:
101. 22; 55. Ῥ5, 15. Ru: 4,15, ἘΠῚ 1} 15: 20, rose:
44. D3] Is. 10, 30 ἢ.
26, 1. pwn 5. Sy] The same hill is described in 23, 19 as
noun jo, which shews that "35 Sy does not always denote the
East (comp. on 24, 3).—The v. is nearly identical with 23, 19:
and the narrative following in ch. 24 exhibits such numerous points
of resemblance with ch. 26 that the two have been held by many
scholars to be in reality different versions of the same incident.
If this opinion be correct, the more original version will be that
contained in the present chapter.
4. nab] The same somewhat singular expression in 23, 23.
Here, however, immediately following “3, the name of a place
is expected,—the more so, since the text, as it stands, adds nothing
᾽
AXAXV. 4g2—X XVI. ro. 159
to what has been already stated in 3b,—unless indeed it can be
argued that y marks any more certain knowledge than x1). It
is probable therefore that fi) here is the corruption of the name of
some locality, though what that may have been it is impossible
to conjecture. LXX ἐκ Κειλα, as We. points out, is altogether
too vague.
6. ‘nnn jbovny] This Ahimelech is not mentioned elsewhere.
For his nationality, cf. ‘nnn AMIN.
7. INWNW] prop. the parts at or about the head, hence construed
in the accus. adverbially, like ΓΔ 3 and the corresponding
ymibinn, Ru. 3, 8.14. So Gen. 28, 11 77. and placed it af the
parts about his head.
8. We have had before 18, 11 P31 TTD ADN; 19, 10 mand
pd) T52 ΤΠ, to smite with the spear “πο David and into the
wall, i.e. to pin him with the spear fo she wall, The analogy of
these passages would have led us to expect here MINI {2 Nanas
y1N2): but the lighter form 4“) δὲ) 33 is used instead. The
parallels quoted shew that ‘ yN3) is co-ordinate not with 2 Π2, but
with the suff. in 298’ (We.). With 1d maw by cf. II 20, το.
9. npr... mow 5,2] ΠΡῸῚ is the pf. with waz conv., and nbw has a
modal force (cf. the pf. in Gen. 21, 7. Ψ. 11, 3): ‘who zs fo have
put forth his hand, etc., avd de guiltless?’ The sentence is of a
type that must be carefully distinguished from that of Job 9, 4
pow YON nWPA 1 Who (ever) hardened himself [as a fact] against
Him, and escaped sound? Dt. 5, 23. Comp. Zenses, §§ 19. 2, 115.
To. ON 13] 3 here cannot, as often, introduce the terms of the oath,
for this (with ox following) would yield a sense the very opposite
of what is required, viz. Surely J. will 20/ smite him! O8 "5 must
therefore be construed together, though not in the manner adopted
by Th. Ke. (‘ Lxcep¢ J. smite him, or his day come, etc., far be it
from me to put forth my hand against him’); for this both implies
an un-Hebraic inversion of principal and subordinate clause, and
yields an improbable sense—David cannot have meant to imply
that if one of these contingencies happened to Saul, he would then
be ready to put forth his hand against him! Either DX "2 must be
160 The First Book of Samuel,
understood to have the force of surely (as above, 21, 6), or (Ges.
Dr. Weir) the negative (such as usually precedes it) may be sup-
posed to be suppressed: (minime ego Saulum caedam,) sed Deus
caedat eum: cf. II 13, 33 Kt. (minime,) sed solus Amnon mor-
tuus est.
II. NWN] is the predicate of Wwx, and cannot therefore here
be an accusative. Render (lit.) ‘ which (is) what-is-at-his-head.’
y>-n2591] ‘and let us ge¢ us away.’ So 12 pnd 125".
12. NWN] ‘Is a contraction ‘819 for ‘8113 admissible ?’ asks
We. Hitzig thought it possible for the 2 of j2 to be omitted before
a formative Ὁ (Hos. 4, 19 Onna for anna; Zech. 14, 10 Sean
for 5431019) : but the cases are too uncertain to establish a principle.
It is better simply to suppose (with We.) that a third Ὁ between
two others has fallen out: and to restore NUN, The » at the
end, if correct, would be the one instance in OT., parallel to ‘7123,
of that letter attached to the st. c. of the fem. 21. before an inde-
pendent word (otherwise only before suffixes): Stade, ὃ 330%. But
LXX has αὐτοῦ: so probably We. is right in arguing that ‘the *
at the end confirms the reading TUN of LXX, instead of
Saw ‘nwo. In this case, of course, the anomaly will dis-
appear.
+ mown] a slumber so profound and unusual that it was
regarded as sent directly from Jehovah. Cf. the pds non in
14, 15.
14. NSP ANN 2] In the /hzrd ps. comp. Is. 50, 9 YW NIN;
Job 13, r9 “OY AW NIA (Zenses, ὃ 201. 2): unless I am mis-
taken, no parallel in the second ps. occurs in the OT. (the sentence
Is. 51, 12 is framed differently).
15. bs my] In v. τό Sy, An unusual construction: yet
comp. (of watching in a hostile sense) II 11, 16: also Ψ. 59, 10
(unless ΠΝ pox ‘ty, as Ὁ. 18, should be there read).
16. wx] See on II 2, 5.
nnay ΠΝῚ] must be explained, as the text stands, by Ew.
§ 2774 end (noticed on 17, 34). Probably, however, in spite of
what is urged by We. to the contrary, nx) is a transcriptional
AXVI, 11-22. 161
error for 81, due to a scribe influenced involuntarily by the recol-
lection of ANT at the beginning of the sentence.
17. yp] In Hebrew, the repetition of a word is a mode of
signifying assent (1 Ki. 21, 20): LXX, for yp, express ἼΩΝ,
which is used for the same purpose, as II 9, 2. 15, 15. The one
is thus just a synonym of the other: ‘the more courtly ’— that of
LXX [cf. 27, 5 in lieu of the pron. |—‘is the less original’ (We.).
18. AY 2 ΠῚ] The order is idiomatic: cf. 20, 10. II 19, 29.
245/593 1 Ki τ. ¥6. Jer. 2; 5. Qobt. 1m,'2.) Hot. 6, 3.
19. ANID NV] Cf. Gen. 8, 21 7: m7, followed however by
nna ΠῚ ΠΝ Dr. Weir writes: ‘MY, perhaps Ὁ as Am. 5,
22. Jer. 14, 12. Mal. τ τὸ On nanon, cf. on 2, 36.
“yy 7b and] For the god of the country, according to ancient
ideas, could only be properly worshipped in his own land: hence
banishment was equivalent to being told to go and serve foreign
gods. Cf. Hos. 9, 3.
20. Y% 196 1155) Cf Pry T3319 Am. Ὁ; 3. Ψ 31, 23.
ns wytp ΠΝ] For nx, cf. on 9, 3. “INN wy tb appears, however,
to be derived here from 24,15: LXX express WD) —no doubt
rightly: for (1) the comparison wfh7m a comparison (to seek a
flea, as when one hunts a parfridge/) is not probable; and (2)
MT. agrees but imperfectly with clause a,—the ground (%3) for
ΠΥῸΝ ἸΟῚ Sa 5x being only fully expressed in the reading of LXX,
‘ for the king of Israel is come out to seek my lzfe.’
ΠΤ] sc. 799. The art. in spn is generic, such as is often
found in comparisons, where a class, not a particular individual, is
naturally referred to: so 11 17, 10 ANA 05: Jud. 8, 18> 23 ΝΠ
soon; 14, 6 9 OWI; τ ΚΙ. 14, 1g DA Aap NWN; Nu. τι,
12 PT ΓΝ FONT NY IWS, etc.
21. myn] Cf. 14, 24 LXX. Lev. 4, 13 al.
IND IIT AWN ‘307 ] The accents treat HAW as qualifying
both the preceding words.
22. sbnn monn min] Kt. ‘behold the spear, Ὁ king!’ Qri
‘behold the spear of the king,’ which is better adapted to the
context, 7 being repeated accidentally from 73m.
M
162 The First Book of Samuel,
23. VAN] The art. has a distributive force: 1 Ki. 8, 39. 18, 4.
Gen. 41, 48>.
ta] ‘N2 would be more agreeable with general custom (comp.
on 19, 9): for the cases in which 73 occurs without a suffix are
mostly those in which the reference is general (II 23, 6. Is. 28, 2.
Job 34, 20: similarly 1% Pr. 6, 5), not, as here, specific. At the
same time, it is possible that 3 may have been here written inten-
tionally, for the purpose of avoiding the assonance (which is here
an awkward one) with the following 51). 1 Ki. 20, 42; Ez. 12, 7
(though here LXX, Pesh. omit 993); 2 Ch. 25, 20 would support
the text. ‘ Keil connects 193 with vend, “in whose hand ;” but this
would require 112 : read rather "2, with many MSS. [more than
30, ap. De Rossi]’ (Dr. Weir).
25. ΠΝ] used with a pregnant force, such as is more common in
poetry: Is. 10, 13. y. 22, 32. 97, 5: cf. above, 24, 20.
Ssyn 55) on] Cf. τ Ki. 22, 22 ὈΞῚΠ om.
27—381. David seeks refuge in the country of the Philistines with
Achish. The Philistines resolve to attack Israel ; their army
advances to Apheg. David is released from the necessity
of fighting against his countrymen through the opportune sus-
pictons of the Philistine lords: his vengeance on the Amalegites
who had smitten Ziglag. Saul consults the witch of ‘En-dor.
Death of Saul and Jonathan on Mount Gilboa',
PA (es δ Ὁ by] Gen. 8, 21. 24, 45; and with by — bye ch. 15.
MPDN] 12, 25; 26, 10.
ἽΠΝ oy] Tnx unemphatic as Gen. 33, 13; and (of the past)
ch. 9, 15. (Not as Is. 9, 13 al. a szngle day.)
99 a Ὁ x] can only be rendered, ‘I have no good: for
(= but) I must escape into,’ etc. The first clause is, however,
harshly and abruptly expressed; LXX have οὐκ ἔστι μοι ἀγαθὸν
ἐὰν μὴ σωθῶ, i.e. ‘I have no good ΟΝ DN *D except I escape,’ etc.,
which is preferable.
ΣΟ WN] a pregnant construction, occurring with this verb
only here, but analogous to that of wnn, noticed on 7, 8.
XXXVI, 23—XXVITI_8, 163
2t man] LXX ‘Sp 197, in agreement with 30, 5. II 2, 2.
4. δ᾽ NPY] So Kt., the impf. having a frequentative force, as
2, 25 (see oni, 7). The Qri substitutes the more usual tense
ἢ) NP: comp. a similar case in Jos. 15, 63.
5. NJ] ΝῺ belongs logically to 13n*; but it is thrown back into
the protasis and attached to ON, as regularly in this formula
(Gen. 18, 3; 33, 10 al.), for the purpose of indicating as early as
possible that the speech is of the nature of an entreaty,
7. DWIN AySINi OM] OD’, by usage, suggesting a year; see
I, 3, and more distinctly, Jud. 17, 10 no DI Mwy; Lev.
25, 20.
8. (Qri 3m) 7} mwin}| LXX have πάντα τὸν Τεσειρι, reading,
therefore, only one name. Geshur is elsewhere a country on the
Last of Jordan ; nor does Jos. 13, 2 make it clear that there was
a tribe of this name in the neighbourhood of the Philistines (see
vv. 11, 13). It is not improbable that LXX are right in reading
but one name, viz. 1137) (a Canaanite tribe resident in Δ; Jud. 1,
20} 1 Ki. 9; τύ):
4) nyaw min 5] Very difficult. In the first place, the fem. is
extremely anomalous. If the text be sound, this must be explained
on the analogy of the usage noticed on 17, 21, by which sometimes
a country, or the population of a country, is construed as a fem. ;
but no case occurs so extreme as the present, in which the fem. is
used with immediate reference to a gen/ile name, expressed in the
masc. And even the fvetical use of ΠΣ" (noticed 2214.) is not
extended to the plural. Nevertheless, as the text stands, nothing
remains but to explain the passage in accordance with this poetical
usage, and to render (with We.): ‘For those are the populations
that inhabited the land from’ etc. The gender of 3/7 will then be
determined by that of the predicate (maw) following, by a species
of attraction to which there are at least approximate parallels in
Hebrew: Ez. 10, 15. 20 9) ΠῚΠΠ NN. Zech. 3, 2 ΠῚ (referring to
Jerusalem): comp. Lev, 25, 33. Jer. 10, 3 sin San p nya mipn "3.
Job 15, 31: Ew. ὃ 3199, In the words which follow 1) diy ws
there is a further difficulty, Keil’s construction, ‘ where from of old
M 2
164 The First Book of Samuel,
(has been) thy going to Shur,’ etc., is improbable in itself and
contrary to analogy (Dr. Weir quotes it with?!). ἽΝ is used
regularly to denote the drection in which a land or tract of country
extends (see 15, 7; Gen. τὸ; 19. 30; similarly in ἽΝΙΞ Sy Jud.
6, 4 41.); hence (since ‘as thou comest to the land which is of old’
yields no suitable sense) it follows almost of necessity that in
ΡΝ must lie concealed the definition of the limit in the opposite
direction. LXX in cod. B exhibits a doublet twice over (ἀπὸ ἀνη-
κόντων [apparently = pbyn] ἡ ἀπὸ Τελαμψουρ [=nby again + Ww] re-
τειχισμένων [clearly a second representative of ὙΦ wad/|); but the
reading Τελαμ, found in many cursives? in place of Γελαμ, points to
ndwn for pbyn—: for they inhabited the land which is from Zelam
as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.’ From Jos. 15,
24 Telam (pointed there ped) appears to have been a place in
S.-E. Judah (bordering on Edom): in ch. 15, 4 it is named as the
spot where Saul assembled his forces before attacking the Amale-
qites ; so that it would seem to satisfy sufficiently all the conditions
required of the present verse. In form, the sentence, as thus
restored, will almost exactly resemble Gen. ro, 19; comp. 25, 18.
Respecting Ἢ), see on 15, 7.
9. npdy,.. mom] In a frequentative sense, describing David's
custom whenever he engaged in one of these raids. Notice the
impff. interchanging here (7'm δ Ὁ) and in ὅς 11.
Io. ONYWE by] Either we must suppose that a word has dropped
out, and read ΟΝ with LXX (ἐπὶ riva;), Vulg., or, which is perhaps
better, we must read ἰδὲ (see 10,14) with Targ. Pesh. (xd, μ,Ὁ).
The text is untranslateable. It is a singular fallacy to argue that
because μὴ in Greek may ask a question, therefore bx in Hebrew
may do the same: for the two words are not in the least parallel.
Μὴ is a particle expressing generally the idea of sudbjech've negation,
from which its interrogative force is at once readily deduced (μὴ
τέθνηκεν ;=‘he is not dead, 7 suppose ?’—implying that a satisfying
1 Τελαμψουρ XI. 44, 55, 71, 106, 120, 134, 144, 158, 245; Τελαψουρ 29; τέ
Λαμψουρ 64, 119, 244; Te Λαμψουν 74 (from Holmes and Parsons). }
AXVIT, 9—X XVIII, 3. 165
answer is expected). 5x has no such general signification, but
is simply a particle of dissuasion or prohibition. In other words,
the interrogative use of μὴ is dependent upon an element in its
signification, which does not attach to the particle ON at all.
333] prop. the dry country, the root 34) (29, ag) Σ be dry
is in use in Aramaic (e.g. Gen. 8, 13 Ong. 8 12919). Hence,
from the dry country κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν being on the South of Palestine, the
word acquired generally the sense of South, and geographically was
applied in particular to the South tract of Judah (see Gen. 12, 9
RV. marg. In RV. in this special geographical sense, always with
a capital S: e.g. Jos. 15, 19. Is. 21,1). Here particular districts
in the 5. of Judah are called the Negeb of the Yerahme’elite, the
Negeb of the Qenite, from the names of the clans settled upon them
(cf. 30, 29 ‘ the cz#es of the Yerahme’elite and of the Qenite’), The
Qenites are named in the same locality, 15, 6; Jud. 1, 16.
11. The athnah would be better placed at 115, what follows
(2) WWD 73)) being no part of the speech, but the remark of the
narrator.
28, 1. N¥N ‘NS 5] ‘n& has some emphasis: cf. II 19, 39 ‘AN
ond “ay. Gen. 43, τό OMAYD DWNT yan ‘AN 12.
2: 130] in answer to the remark made by another, as Gen. 4, 15.
30, 15 [where LXX, not perceiving the idiom, render οὐχ οὕτως:
comp. on 2, 14]. Jud. 8, 7. 11, 8.
ΠΝ] LXX, Vulg. Any rightly. Comp. II 18, 3; 1 Ki.1, 18. 20.
3-25. Saul consulis the witch of ‘En-dor. This section (which
forms an independent narrative) appears to be out of its proper
place. In 28, 4 the Philistines are at Shunem (in the plain of
Jezreel); in 29, 1 they are still at Apfeg (in the Sharon, Jos. 12, 18),
and only reach Jezreel in 29, 11. The narrative will be in its right
order, if the section be read after ch. 29-30. V. 3 is evidently
introductory.
3. yya|] The waw, if correct, must be explicative: ‘in Ramah,
and that in his city” But such a construction is very unusual, and
probably it has been introduced by error: it is not expressed by
LXX. However, 7013 y3 rather than Wy3 ΠΟ 2 would be the
166 The First Book of Samuel,
usual order, 1, 3 LXX. II 15, 12. Jud. 8, 27 (2d. 20, 6 is rather
different), Both the perfects in this verse have a pluperfect sense
(see on 9, 15).
ὮΝ} See Lev. 20, 27 (a man or a woman when there is 7”
them %3Y7") WN’), which appears to shew that the term properly
denotes not a wzzard, but the spirit—the ‘ familiar supposed to
inhabit the persons in question.
7. aN ΤΟΥΣ ΓΌΟΝ] An instance of what may be termed a sus-
pended construct state—nws, not less than nbya, being determined
by 3)s, but the genitive which determines it being deferred, or held
in suspense, by the introduction of the parallel nby3. So in the
common phrase... M2 nbina Is. 23, 12; a7, 22 al.; and occa=
sionally besides in poetry, as Dt. 33, 19 bin nn 25Y; Job 20, 17
wat ‘Sma ana: Ew. § 289°; Ges. ὃ 116 Rem. 5.
8. iDP] The Kt. has the fuller form of the imperative, as
Jud. 9, 8 MBiD. ψ. 26, 2 NB; in each case the Qri substitutes
the ordinary form, Ges. § 46. 6 Rem. 2.
9. ‘sytn] Twenty-three MSS. have ὩΣ ΝΠ; and it is true that
the may have fallen out before the Ὁ of 2. The plural would
have the advantage of greater symmetry with mann (cf. v. 3. Lev.
19, 31 al.), and is probable, though not perhaps absolutely neces-
sary, as ΝΠ may be taken in a collective sense.
10. ΤΡ] With dagesh dirimens. It must have become the
custom, as the OT. was read, to pronounce the same word or
form, in different passages, with a slightly different articulation,
which is reflected accurately in the varying punctuation. Here
the dagesh dirimens has the effect of causing the Pp to be pronounced
with peculiar distinctness: cf. Hos. 3, 2 7138); Ex. 2, 3 1°53,
15, 17 WP (in which cases the dagesh involves the softening of the
following B and 5), etc.: Ges. § 20. 2».
14. boy] such as was worn by Samuel, 15, 27.
15. nw] The same word, in the same connexion, Is. 14, 9
TSia nea ap AND NAD oiNy,
dyn 1p] So v. 16. by is, however, more natural in this con-
XXVIII, 7-16. ᾿ 167
nexion (16, 14. 18, 12); for in Jud. 16, 19. 20 the use of by is
evidently determined by the fact that Samson’s strength was
regarded as resting pon him in his hair, in Nu. 14, 19 (cf. Neh.
9, 19) it is determined similarly by the figure of the shade, and in
ch. 16, 23 by the common thought of a spirit coming 071 a person.
Here probably Sy denotes the idea of protecting accompaniment
(cf. ψ. 110, 5 720 ὃν: 121). 5 Ja" Ἵ" by) ; and by 1D expresses
the cessation of this’.
ΠΣ ΡΝ] Very anomalous: Ew. ὃ 228¢; Stade, ὃ 132; Konig,
p- 608, who suggests that the — may. be due to dissimilation, after
the preceding unusual —; cf. on 21, 2.
16. Wy ‘| Is there a Hebrew word ἊΝ with the signification
adversary or enemy ? The common Heb. ἋΣ (root ¥) corresponds
to Arabic 5.2 fo harm (Qor. 2, 96. 3, 107, etc.): and this (according
to rule*) corresponds to the (isolated) Aramaic 1Y Dan. 4, τό.
The same word may also possibly be found in Ψ. 139, 20—the
Psalm is a late one, and is marked by several other Aramaisms—
but this cannot be affirmed with certainty, the verse being a difficult
one, and probably corrupt. At any rate, philology forbids im-
peratively the assumption of a Hebrew word WY adversary, the
equivalent of "¥*. Can, however, a sense, suitable to the context,
be rendered probable for \Y, from any other source? (4) Symm.
renders ἀντίζηλός σου, and in Arabic ,l¢ (med. i) means actually /
be jealous or a rival Vea ΝΡ Ex. 20, 5 Saad.; lp sles = ζηλοῦτε
1 Cor. 12, 31 Erpen.). Still there is no other trace of this root in
1 5y is used in several idiomatic applications: not only as signifying from
attendance on (comp. on 13, 8. 17, 15), but also from attachment to (Jer. 2, 5
yD pnd. 32, 40 ya Wo ena» Ez. Ὁ. Ὁ 9d Wp 537; 8,6; 14, δ᾽ 44,
10); from companionship with (Job 19, 13); from adhesion to (2 Ki. 17, 21;
Is. 7,17; 56, 3; Hos. 9,1; and twice, for the more usual 1, in the phrase
mixon ἢν Ὁ 1D 2 Ki. 10, 31. 15, 18); from standing over or beside (Gen. 17,
22. 35, 13: cf. 18,3. 42,24); from being a burden upon (see on 6, 5. 20), esp,
of an army retiring from a country, or raising a siege (see the passages from
2 Sam. 1-2 Ki. cited on ch. 6, 20; and add II 10, 14. Jer. 21, 2. 37, 5. 9. 11).
3. See on 1, 6 (p. 8 foot-note).
* Nor can this be the meaning of Ὃν in Mic. 5, 13 or Is. 14, 21.
168 The First Book of Samuel,
Hebrew: nor would the idea of Jehovah’s becoming Saul’s rival be
probable or suitable. (4) Ges. Keil seek to explain 1p by a reference
to Arabic ἐᾷ (med. ἃ) ferbuit (one of many meanings), zmpetum
fecit, spec. excursione hostili adortus fuit (aliquem), IV (Lane)
ae ἘΞ to make a raid or predatory incursion upon (comp. 13, 17
note): ge a raid or hostile incursion: hence, the cognate subst.,
it is supposed, would properly have the sense of aes¢us (sc. doloris,
curae, sollicitudinis), whence in Hebrew \y Hos. ΓΙ, g aestus zrae ;
Jer. 15, ὃ aestus dolorzs. But the sense of hosélity expressed by
the Arabic root is, it will be observed, a special and derived one:
is it likely, or indeed credible, that from a root meaning ferbudt
a simple participial formation should have acquired the definite
sense of enemy? ‘The etymology proposed is well intended: but
it cannot be said to have probability in its favour.
It follows that if Jay has here the sense of ‘hy enemy, it must be
an example of a strong and pronounced Aramaism, such as, in
presumably early Hebrew, is in the highest degree improbable.
Only two alternatives are open to us. Either J>y is an error of
transcription for ¥* (cf. in that case, for the thought, Lam. 2, 4;
Is. 63, 10), or, with LXX and Pesh. ἼΜΕΝ ΠῚ ‘and is become
on the side of thy neighbour’ must be read (cf. ¥ with reference to
David, v. 17, and 15, 28, and for the thought 18, r2 77" m9 5
Ἴ bixw pyr WY). Ἵν py is accepted by most moderns (Th.
Hitzig, Néldeke, Gratz, Reinke, Kp., Dr. Weir [‘ LXX seems to
be right’]): Klo. prefers ΤΊΝ.
17. Ὁ v% wy] ‘And J. hath wrought for himself, according
as’ etc. Or, if Jy py be adopted in v. 16, the suffix may be
referred naturally to Ἵν (for fim). However, the point of the
sentence lies in what is done to Saw/, rather than what is done to
David: so, in all probability, oP to thee, expressed by LXX, Vulg., is
the original reading. With 17> comp. 15, 28.
1 It is possible that this was read by Symmachus. At least ἀντίζηλος as used
elsewhere in the Greek Versions expresses the root 11": Lev. 18,18 LXX;
ch. 1, 6 LXX (Luc.). 2, 32 Aq. (¥. 139, 20 Aq. for 719).
XXVIII. 17—XX1X. 8. 169
19. In MT. clauses a and ¢ are almost identical; and the verse
is decidedly improved by the omission of one of them, and by the
adoption in ὁ of the reading of LXX, viz. TY WIT OAS AND
Ἢ ὍΣ 0°55), 1, 6. (immediately after v. 18) ‘ To-morrow thou and thy
sons with thee will be fallen; yea, also, the camp of Israel will
Jehovah give into the hand of the Philistines” As We. remarks,
a is out of place where it stands, neither ὩΣ nor Jy being properly
understood, until afer it has been said that Saul himself has
fallen.
20. m0] LXX ἔσπευσεν, not only here, but also in v. 21 for
Snax, which makes it not improbable that their reading was the
same in both verses. Preceding Pa bray is more suitable than
TDN.
23. 875] ‘pp is translated pressed in II 13, 25. 27 and urged in
2 Ki. 5, 23, but elsewhere break forth, burst forth, etc. Ought we
not to read [in these passages] ΝΒ δ᾿ (Dr. Weir.)
24. pnp] ‘four times, always connected with bay: Jer. 46, 21.
Am. 6, 4 pan) nd ordiy. Mal. 3, 20. The root is not found else-
where in Hebrew, but in Arabic 33) jirmiler alligavit’ (Dr. Weir).
29, 2. ὈΝ2}] were passing by. The participles suggest the
picture of a muster or review of troops taking place.
mind] according to, ὧν hundreds: 5 as Il TS, 4. ἢ Kip 20. 10
ordyyd. Jos. 7, 14 ona.
3. Dd] LXX adds πρός pe="ON or ‘by, which is needed. Falhking
gives no sense: falling 10 me agrees with the usage of (by) bx bay
elsewhere (Jer. 21, 9. 37, 13 al.) ὁ fall over to=to desert to. The
nearer definition cannot, as Keil supposes, be supplied from the
context. (Dr. Weir agrees.)
4. mondo... 7] See on v. 9.
jow] The use of the word may be illustrated from II 19, 23;
also, 1 Ki. 11, 24. 23. 26.
6. 1] after the oath, as 14, 39.
7. Dow 1] as Il 15, 27. The usual expression is pydw.
8. ‘Mwy Md 3] 3 states the reason for a suppressed (Why do
170 The First Book of Samuel,
you say this?): it recurs in a similarly worded expostulation, 1 Ki.
Pi ee. 2 Kini 12]
‘myn awe ovo] As We. remarks, we should expect naturally
either ‘07 DD (or, as would be more usual, ‘i ΟἿ 3) or
ὙΠ δ (ΟΠ ΠῚ DD *. However, oY may have been conceived
as being in the construct state before 1ws (Ges. ὃ 116. 3), and so
defined. At least "WX HY recurs similarly, Jer. 38, 28, and (in late
Hebrew) Neh. 5, 14. But oy would certainly be better.
snobs] The waw being conversive, the tone should properly
be mira’ ΠΡΟΣ: but it is held back by the distinctive accent
Zagqef, as happens occasionally (Dt. 2, 28: Ez. 3, 26: Zenses, § 104).
As a tule, only athnah and soph-pasug imply a sufficient pause thus
to hold back the tone of 1 and 2 sing. pf. with waw conv.
9. ods yoo] The same comparison, in popular speech, II 14,
17. 19, 27.
bys] In v. 4 the Philistines speak from the /sraelit’sh point of
view (cf. v. 6, where Achish is represented as swearing by Jehovah):
here nby’ is spoken from the point of view which would be
adopted by the Philistines generally, with reference, viz. to the
situation of their country, from which they would naturally ‘go up’
into the high ground occupied by Israel. Cf. v. ταῦ; II 5, 17. 22;
Jud. 15, 9. 10: also 31 2. 14, 1. 5 of the journey from Zor‘ah to
Timnah, and conversely mby v. 2, of the journey in the opposite
direction.
ro. 73) “Tay ἽΡ23 o2wn Anyi] ‘And now, rise up early in the
morning, avd also the servants,’ etc. ‘The text may in a measure
be defended by 25, 42. Gen. 41, 27. Nu. τό, 2%. 18>; but the
sentence halts considerably, and the omission of the pronoun before
‘Jay) is contrary to standing Hebrew usage, when the verb is in the
imperative (e.g. Gen. 7, τι Ex. 11, 8. 24, τὴ. LXX, Vulg. express
rightly NAN before ay). The only parallel to the present passage
1: Jer. 36, 25 cheIL 29, 15D. 4515:
HUA OR aa (RAR 8, 8.) UUs 52. εἰς:
3 II 19, 25; 1 Ki. 8, 16; 2 Ki. a1, 15.
XXIX, 9—-XXX. 3. 171
would be Jer. 19, 1; but there also it can scarcely be doubted that
the reading of LXX is what Hebrew idiom requires, viz. *2P19 rnp
“3 pyn. In this verse, further, clauses a and ὦ are nearly identical:
but, as We. observes, the repetition of the same thought would
become perfectly natural, if only words of different import separ-
ated the two similar clauses. Such words are expressed in LXX,
Viz. καὶ πορεύεσθε εἰς τὸν τόπον οὗ κατέστησα ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖ" καὶ λόγον λοιμὸν
μὴ θῆς ἐν καρδίᾳ σου, ὅτι ἀγαθὸς σὺ ἐνώπιόν μου-- WS Dipion-PN pz
ἜΒΡ MAS 21}. ἼΞ5)5 ὈΡΏΓΟΝ Oy7a WIR OY DINE APE. The
sentence is in style and form thoroughly Hebraic, and may well be
assumed to have fallen out accidentally in MT. Λοιμὸς is often the
rendering of dda (e.g. 25, 25): for the combination of 129 and
bynba see Dt. 15, 9 (where they occur in apposition).
1051] Unusual. The normal construction would be prom psd 7N)
(on the analogy of Gen. 33, 13 1ND) INN oO DPD, 44, 22 Ay
ny VAN, etc.: Zenses, § 149).
11. byyw iby] The Apheq of z. 1, as We. points out, is not
in the neighbourhood of ‘En-dor, but is the place of the same
name mentioned in 4, 1, much nearer to the Philistine territory
itself, and not more than three days’ march (30, 1) from Ziqlag.
Hence it can be here correctly said, ‘And the Philistines went up
to Jezreel.’
80, 1. 333 without the art, as v. 27. Unusual, except when
33) denotes merely the southern quarter of the compass.
2. NI ΣΝ ὉΠ NN] Read with LXX (cf. RV.) δι owan-ne
ma aws-55: we thus obtain a suitable idea to which to refer the
following bay yop; see also τ. 3 (AM 32) D731).
ws inn xb] A circumstantial clause, connected ἀσυνδέτως with
the clause preceding, and defining ἄστυ 12W% was effected, viz.
(Anglice) ‘zwz7thout slaying any. Cf. Gen. 44, 4 ὙΠ NN ONY
span xd; Jer. 7, 26>; 20, 15> (see RV.): Zenses, ὃ 162.
17794] of leading captives, as Is. 20, 4.
3. Π)ΠῚ] without suffix, as Ὁ. 16.
2.2] were faken captive. MAW is to take caphive, NAW) to be
taken captive : nda is to go into exile, nd3n to carry into exile.
172 The First Book of Samuel,
The distinction between the two words should be noticed. Though
they may be often applied to the same transaction, they denote
different aspects of it: nby migration from one’s own country,
exile, MAY capture by another, capfvity. Through forgetfulness
of the proper meaning of nba, Jud. 18, 30 has sometimes been
strangely misinterpreted (e. g. by Mr. Lias, in the ‘Cambridge Bible
for Schools,’ who actually understands the words paxn mda of the
Philistine domznation !).
6. 395 rym] The fem. as Jud. 10, 9: cf. Jer. 7, 31 mandy xdy
Ἐν, by; Mic. 3, 6 navn; Am. 4, 7 (unusual) ὙΠ; Ψ. 50, 3
IND ΠΡ): Ew. ὃ 2952; Ges. 137% This use of the fem., espe-
cially with words denoting a mental condition, is particularly
common in Syriac: “NS Mh, “S Mas, “S rel (Noldeke,
Syr. Gr. § 254).
NOPD? -s ες WN] ‘ spake of (AV.) stoning him :’ or with the sense
of ‘thought’ (25, 21), as Ex. 2, 14. II 21, 16 37 mind DN;
1 Ki, 5, 10. 8. 12: Comp. Ez. 20, 8: 19: 21. Ψ. 106, 25 5 =p
in the sense of command occurs II 1, 18. 2, 26: but more fre-
quently in later books, especially in Chronicles, as I 13, 4; 15,163
Est. 1, 17, etc. (comp. Ew. ὃ 3382).
8. ΤῚΝ] Though 7 can be dispensed with (11, 12), the parallel
ὭΣ ΝΠ supports the restoration of FIANNA: cf. 14, 37. 23, 11.
7173] of a marauding or plundering band: see 2 Ki. 6, 23. Hos.
6, 9. LXX here (mis-reading) γεδδουρ: elsewhere rightly πειρατήριον
(Gen. 49,19; Ψ. 18, 32), Or μονόζωνοι (2 Ki. 5, 2. 6, 23 al.).
ro. 15} only here and z, 21.
12. N11 awn] The spirit, which seemed to have left him, re-
turned, i.e. he revived. So Jud. 15, 19.
13. πο nn] See on 9, 20.
14. 229 Dowd] by, which is expressed by LXX, appears to have
accidentally dropped out. wb, when an object follows, is always
construed with 5y (or the alternative 5x); and here the restoration
is still more commended by the two by following.
n37 333| A district in the south of Palestine (see on 27, 10)
inhabited by the ‘n3, who, from a comparison of Ὁ. 16>, appear
AXX. 6-19. 173
to have been closely connected with, if not a sub-tribe of, the
Philistines. Elsewhere the name is used synonymously with
Philistine: Ez. 25, 16. Zeph. 2, 5. A contingent of *n72n formed
afterwards part of David’s body-guard, II 8, 18. 15, 18. 20, 77.
It is quite possible that the name may be connected with Creée -
the Philistines themselves are expressly stated to have been immi-
grants from Caphtor, i.e. Crete, Am. 9, 7 (see also Gen. Io, 14,
where in accordance with this passage O' NDI nN} should probably
be transposed so as to precede onwop own mny’ ἽΝ).
16. OMIM] ΚΙ. AMMwa prs sy PMD PIP AD ands. Whether,
however, the sense of dancing is really expressed by the word
is very doubtful. Modern lexicographers only defend it by means
of the questionable assumption that 33m may have had a similar
signification to 33n, which, however, by no means itself expresses
the sense of fo dance, but /o make a circle Job 26, 10: in Syriac
(PS. col. 1217) cércumivit, especially, and commonly, with φῦ,
circumivit ul υἹ147 ο΄ Ξε υθνουϊίαβ. est, cavit. The Aram. 33m 40 dance
is of course an altogether different word. It is best to acquiesce
in the cautious judgement of Néldeke (ZDMG. 1887, p. 719), who
declares that he cannot with certainty get behind the idea of a
Jestal gathering for the common Semitic 49. Here then the mean-
ing will be ‘behaving as at a 3n or gathering of pilgrims,’ i.e.
enjoying themselves merrily.
17. onnns] Only so here. The Ὡ- is probably the suffix, ‘ of
their following day,’ not (as Keil and Miihlau-Volck [‘ perhaps’ |)
an. adverbial termination, as in O91’, in which case Ὁ would be
superfluous.
“yi wx] used collectively—after the numeral. So mina ΠΣ
Jud. 21, 12; ἫΝ bP 1 Ki. 20, τό.
19. bun] The Zagef should stand rather on moa. But pro-
bably the word is displaced, and should precede ny32) D332 Ty), as
in LXX.
1 Cf. W. R. Smith, Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 249.
174 The First Book of Samuel,
ond ynpd] the reflexive δ as'Gen; 15, 10. [πὸν. 25, 40; πὶ. Ὁ. ΤῊ;
and often in the imper. 7>"np Gen. 6, 21. 14, 21 etc.
20. 2) 1373] The verse as it stands can only be understood as
follows: ‘And David took all the sheep and the oxen (viz. those
belonging to the Amaleqites): they drave (them) before that cattle
(viz. before the cattle belonging to David and his people, which
was recovered from the Amaleqites); and they said (viz. the people,
when they saw the former driven along in front), This is David’s
spoil.’ But the meaning is obscurely expressed: the reference of
Nun APN to Ὁ. rg is artificial; and 13, both ἀσυνδέτως and
without an object, is suspicious. The text, it can hardly be doubted,
is not in its original form. ‘The least change that will suffice for
the requirements of style and sense is to read for ΞΟ ἼΠ) with
Vulg. y0d yn ‘and they drave Jefore him that cattle (the cattle
viz. named in clause a), and said, This is David’s spoil.’ But LXX,
Vulg. do not express 115 after np, and for Sinn mpoA LXX have
τῶν σκύλων i.e. S>wn, the variation seeming to shew that both are
alternative (false) Kpliczta, added after wad had been corrupted
into 295. It is quite possible, therefore, that we should go further,
and with We. read the entire verse thus: 7pm) mxyn-bo-ns InP
sya ΟΡ ΠῚ on vad umm. This text states undoubtedly all
that the verse is intended to express, and states it at the same time
more naturally and simply than the reading presupposed by the
Vulgate.
21. ὮΝΠ nN] ‘wth the people’ (viz. those just mentioned as
being with him).
Sxwn] As the verb is sing., the subject can hardly be any other
than pyn just mentioned, whereas v. 22 shews that the speakers
are not the men with David, but the men left behind at the brook.
It is necessary, therefore, to read with LXX x.
22. ὯΝ] The group regarded as a unity, and spoken of accord-
ingly in 1 ps. sing. The usage is thoroughly idiomatic ; and there
is no occasion, with Gratz, Dze Psalmen, p. 134, to substitute 3310p.
See on 5, 10: and add Gen. 34, 30 1BDD ‘nd NI; Jud, 18, 23
npyn °> ἼΡ-ΠΌ.
AXX, 20-30. 175
23. WN ΓΝ] Ewald (ὃ 329%: comp. Avs¢. 11. 145 [E.T. 105])
would treat the words introduced by ns as an exclamation, explain-
ing NN as an accus. with reference to a suppressed verb,—(Think of)
that which ,..! and-comparing Hag. 2, 5. LXX for "WN MN ‘NN
express WYN "INN, which We. prefers: ‘ye shall not do so, after
what Jehovah hath given unto us, and preserved us,’ etc.
24.44. +++ 5] A variation for the more common type,
Be ag ee JOS, Tad Ἔνι 18,4. Dan: 13,26;
25. ndyny] 85 1ύ, 12. pawndy pnd as Gen. 47, 26. Jud. 11, 39.
26. ynyd] ‘to his friends.’ 1 attached to a 247. as 14, 48
πο (Stade, p. 355).
27. Ss"na] i.e. not the better known Beth’el, N. of Jerusalem,
but the place in the Negeb of Judah, not far from Ziqlag, called
Βαιθηλ in Jos. 15, 30 LXX (MT. corruptly 5505), bina in Jos. 19, 4
MT., and bana BaOound in 1 Ch. 4, 30, and evidently (from these
passages) in the immediate neighbourhood of the other places here
mentioned. LXX have here Βαιθσυρ; but the situation of ΝΣ
(Jos. 15, 58 al.) is less suitable than that of bona (We.).
23) ΓΛ] Ramoth of the South: see Jos. 19, 8 (33) N29). LXX
here also read the sing. : ‘Paya νότου = 332) ND,
28, ayiya]| LXX have here a double rendering: καὶ τοῖς ἐν
*Aponp καὶ τοῖς ᾽Αμμαδει. ‘It is clear that LXX after ayy (=’Appad)
read still another letter, viz.n. The form my y, now, is confirmed
not only by Jos. 15, 22 '—where, to be sure, LXX conversely omit
the M—but also by the present pronunciation ‘Ar‘arah (between
Beersheba and Kurnfib)’ (We.): see Robinson, 4707. Res., ii. 199.
(AV. marg. refers to Jos. 13, 16 which is quite out of the question.)
29. 5.2] LXX bnaa, no doubt, rightly: see Jos. 15, 55, and
above, ch. 25, 2.
30. Jwy-33| This, not jwy~W92, is the Mass. reading: the 3
1 MT. m7y7y. But 1 and 4 in the old Phoenician characters are seldom
distinguishable, and the context alone decides which is to be read. In proper
names, unless the orthography is certain upon independent grounds, either letter
may often be read indiscriminately.
176 The First Book of Samuel,
is recognised both in the Βηρσαβεε of cod. B, and the Βωρασαν of
cod. A. The place may be the same as jwy of Jos. 15, 42. 19, 7.
Jny] ‘is called in Jos. 15, 42 MT. “ny, but in LXX 4ny (‘16ak).
In το, 7 on the contrary both have any. A decision between the
two variants is not possible ’ (We.).
81. The chapter is excerpted, with slight variations, by the
compiler of the Chronicles (1 Ch. 10). The variations are partly,
it seems, due to accident, partly they are to be attributed to an
intentional change on the part of the compiler of Chronicles,
partly they have preserved the original text of the passage in a
purer form than it has been transmitted to us in Samuel.
τ. ponds] C. yond.
WIN IDIN] C. ΦῸΝ DIM.
yadin] C. yada.
2. p32 ney Sew ΠΝ] C. a sans Siew vane.
yn] C. 72}.
3. brew dy] C. διὰ ὃν.
nypa owes omy] C. nwpa anyon. The rendering of LXX,
however (οἱ ἀκοντισταί, ἄνδρες τοξόται), appears to presuppose ΣΝ ;
though, as it is difficult to construe nwpa ΣΝ together—‘ men
with the bow’ being hardly a Hebrew construction—the word
must be misplaced. Probably, the order nwpa onan ΣΝ ‘men,
shooters with the bow’=some shooters with the bow, should be
restored. Comp. D1) DWIN Gen. 37, 28; Syba-o9 own Dt.
ΤᾺ 04 ;andtor the art. 25,10.
brn] from δ1Π--- trembled’
ome tx] C. ΛΠ 2.
j2|=Jecause of, as Ruth 1, 13. Is. 6, 4. 28, 7.
4. xvid] C. nore.
IPT] C. omits.
Δ Syn] and wreak their caprice upon me=mock or abuse me.
See on this word Fleischer af. Delitzsch on Is. 3, 4, who compares
in particular the Arab. © juss prop. /o engage oneself with, then
to entertain, divert, amuse oneself with, in Heb. in a bad sense,
to abuse or mock. See Nu. 22, 29; Jud. 19, 25: and (where it
AXXI, 1-9. 177
is applied anthropomorphically to Jehovah’s treatment of the
Egyptians) Ex. 10, 2, and above 6, 6.
5. waan-y] C. ainn-by.
wy] C. omits.
6. I SAA oa ywaseds or yds Nw] C. ἸΠ yn inva-bay—
a generalizing abridgement of the text of Samuel. LXX in Samuel
do not express YWIN b> pi.
4. ἌΝ] C. wendy.
poyn rays] C. poy. The poy—a broad depression between
hills (6, 13)—is the bxyn poy (Hos. 1, 5). This poy was bounded
on the east by the Gilboa‘ range, and did not extend to the Jordan.
The sense of the text appears therefore to be that the Israelites
dwelling on the other side of the poy (to the E. or N.-E.), and (more
than this, even) ov she other side of Jordan, fled through the panic.
ΤΠ Aaya is used regularly to denote the territory east of Jordan.
fA Aaya awe] C. omits.
‘2)...°D] So, whether in the sense of /hat or because, Gen. 29,
Bao 753, ire ΕΝ. 9, ΕἸ. 4, 915; JOS. 2, 02/7, 18: 8; 21: τὸ, τ΄ πα: 6;
ae eh. τοῦ ἅ: 8.2, τῆ. Le sore. ¥ KG. 2,26) ΤΙ 21. 18; 27 ab} and
even (though this can hardly be reputed an elegancy) '3).., snd
Gen, 45, 26. Jud. το, το. The remark of Stade, p. 14, that "21 is
‘unhebraisch,’ can only be due to an oversight.
Syeawy won] C. omits.
onyn-ny] C. any.
ja] ἘΞ on.
8. 12 ΠΟ ΤΙΝῚ] C. ans).
yadin] C. yada (as συ. 1).
9. MOONS YEN WNITNN INN] Co wWNTTNN Ne) TN!
o>"). | ,
snw] The object can be only the head and armour of Saul’.
It is a question whether the word should not be pointed Qa/ nw,
in which case the meaning would be that they sent messengers
throughout the land of the Philistines. And this would agree with
1 See, for the sense of the Pre/, 11, 7. Jud. 19, 29.
N
178 The First and Second Books of Samuel,
the aim of inbw, viz. /o dell the tidings (rwad) to their gods and
people.
omayy na] C. ΠΥ ΠΝ. nx (‘to acguadnt their ¢dols with the
news’) is much more original than ΠΤ (‘to announce the tidings 7
the house of their idols’), is supported by LXX here, and agrees
with the ΤΙΝῚ following.
το. ΠΌΤ na] C. oAnbds ma,—_ninnviy ma will hardly be the
pl. of MMAVY-N2, as Keil suggests, on the analogy of max ΠῚ
(Ew. § 270°): in all probability the frequency of the plural in other
connexions (e. g. 7, 3. 4. 12, 10) led to the sing. nanwy here being
incorrectly read asnyinwy. LXX εἰς τὸ ᾿Ασταρτεῖον. It is, no doubt,
this temple of the Phoenician goddess ‘Ashtoreth (7, 3) in Ashqelon,
which Herodotus (i. 105) mentions as τῆς odpavins ᾿Αφροδίτης τὸ ἱερόν,
and which, as he tells us, his inquiries shewed him to be the most
ancient foundation of the goddess: the one in Cyprus (probably at
Kition), he adds, was reported by the Cyprians themselves to have
been founded from Ashqelon, and that in Cythera [Paus. iii. 23. 1]
was built by the Phoenicians. ‘The proper name of a native of
Ashqelon, compounded with ΠΤ), occurs in an Inscription: ow
ΡΩΝ ΠΤ Ων ja: in the Greek parallel text ᾿Αντίπατρος ᾿Αφροδι-
σίου ᾿Ασκαλ[ wvirns|. Here, ‘Ashtoreth seems to have had the cha-
racter of a martial goddess, of which there are other indications ;
see Preller, Grzech. Mythologie® (1872), i. 249; Scholz, Gotzendienst
und Zauberwesen bet den alten Hebréern (1877), p. 269 (cf. 272 f.).
w ΤΣ noma wen inweensy] C. prt ma yen indadsenys. On
the originality of the text of Samuel, and against the view of Ew.
and Bertheau that the original text embraced Jo/A readings, see the
convincing note of We. But for sypn Lagarde’, it can scarcely be
doubted, is right in restoring *YPN exposed (cf. II 21, 6, and the
allusion 73. Ὁ. 12 non): ypn is Zo drive or fix im, as a tent-peg,
or nail, Jud. 4, 21. Is. 22, 25, a dart, II 18, 14, of locusts pztched
into the sea, Ex. 10, 19, and would not be applicable to a body
merely attached to a wall. So also We. Gritz (G. i. 439), Klo.
1 In his instructive Anmerkungen zur Griech. Uebersetzung der Proverbien
(1863), page v.
XXX, ro—T. 9. 179
rr. Syd we sae pos] C. yds war do.
awe ΠΝ] C.qwe-b> nx.
12. md%>n-b5 1054] C. omits.
mp] C. ww.
nya, . m3] C. nba, , , M58. (ma only here in OT. A word
belonging to Aramaic and the later Hebrew.)
jw ma nin] C. omits.
ΠΣ 384] Ο. ΠΟ Δ) ON .—Probably wa here should be
vocalized 382" (so LXX, Pesh.): the suffix, though added by the
Chronicler, is not needed.
py ons sanw] C. omits.
13. PY ΠΟΥ ΤΙΝ Inpy] C. omMyxy-ns Np».
nwa Sunn] C. wya nbn. On nwa, see on 23,15. (Vu. 13-
14 in Chronicles are an addition, made by the compiler of Chron-
icles himself, and exhibiting throughout the marks of his style.)
ἼΩΝ} C. wry.
II 1—5, 16. Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan. David
made king at Hebron over Judah, and subsequently, after the
murder of Ishbosheth, over all Israel. Capture by Joab of the
stronghold of Jebus, which David henceforth makes his residence.
τὸ pbnyn] is altogether isolated, the arz. being used only with
the gentile name. According to usage elsewhere, either pony or
»pbnyn should be restored (We.). So Dr. Weir: ‘Is it not ‘p>yyn?’
2. xw nyo] nyo as 1 14, 17. ws dy noo as I 4, 12°.
4. 1297 MAND] I 4, 16>. On wer, see on I 15, 20.
nai] Almost=0'3. Strictly, of course, 7297 is an inf. abs.
qualifying ὅθ), 211. ‘with a much-making there fell.’
6. ‘np NPI] The inf. abs. as I 20, 6.
YW] ptcp.: was 2 the condition of one leaning =was leaning.
Ὁ ΒΜ *y3] An unusual expression, inconsistent with at least
the common, if not the universal, meaning of DW 5 horsemen.
Comp. on v. 18.
8b, aN] Qri WIN}, evidently rightly.
9. nna] and despatch me (I 14, 13).
N 2
180 The Second Book of Samuel,
yawn] Only here. What exactly is denoted cannot be ascer-
tained. The root denotes some kind of zx/erweaving (Ex. 28, 39):
2-55 is quoted by Freytag, apparently as a rare word, in the
sense of ‘perplexus fuit (de ardoribus). It is not apparent what
meaning, suitable to the present passage, a derivative from such
a root might express. The versions afford no real help. LXX
σκότος δεινόν; Targ. smn zerror ; Pesh. βϑογι; Aq. (who renders
the root Ex. /.c. by συσφίγγω, cf. 28, 13 AYIWI σφιγκτῆρας) ὁ σφίγκτηρ;
Vulg. angustiae. Moderns generally suppose the word to denote
either the cramp (Ew. Th. Ke.) or gzddiness (as though properly a
confusion of the senses), so Ges. Klo. RV. marg.,; the former
(though not certain) is, perhaps, the more probable.
Δ war Ἤν" 5 2] A singular expression, an inversion, as it
would seem, for the normal ‘way 55 ny, which, to judge from its
recurrence in almost exactly the same form Job 27, 3 ay-ba->
‘2 2), was in use in Hebrew in this particular expression, being
intended probably to emphasize the by. Hos. 14,3 NY xwn-bp | if
the text be sound, must be similarly explained: but the separation
of a word in the consér. st. from its genitive by a verd must be
admitted to be wholly without analogy in Hebrew, and to be less
defensible than its separation by a word like “iy.
το. NN] The 1 ps. impf. Piel, with waw conv., pointed
anomalously with pathah: so Jud. 6, 9. 20, 6 (see Tenses, § 66 note).
5] Elsewhere 155), The peculiar punctuation is attested and
secured by the Massoretic note ΠΩ }\2.
Mmysxi] The omission of the art. in such a case as the present is
very unusual, and hardly to be tolerated (I 24, 6). Probably, sub-
stituting the other form of the word (Is. 3, 20), we should read with
We. TWN,
16. PT] Qri 727 in accordance with predominant usage (1 Ki.
2, 32.37). However, the correction seems a needless one ; for the
plural also occurs, as Hos. 12, 15; Lev. 20, 9.
18. Nwp]| is generally held to be the name given to the following
1 =pyy Is. 13, 8. 21, 3; nizdp 2. v. 4 (Michaelis’ Castle).
I, 10-19. 181
Song, from the fact the word occurs in it somewhat prominently in
v. 22: ‘and he bade them teach the children of Judah she Bow,
But there is no analogy or parallel for such a usage in Hebrew;
and nwp standing nakedly—not nwpn nv, or even nwpPA7~nN—
is not a probable designation of a song. Ew. supposed nwp to
stand as in Aram, for ὈΦΡ (Prov. 22, 21; cf. Dan. 4, 34), and to
be used adverbially =correcily, accurately. But the word is rare in
Hebrew, and—however written—appears to be an Aramaism, such
as would not probably have been used here: moreover, the word
in Aramaic means always ¢ruth, truthfully, not accurately. We.
holds the word to be an intruder; and offers an ingenious theory
to account for it: ‘ Perhaps, as a correction on ὩΣ in z. 6, there
may have been attached to the text, in agreement with I 31, 3, the
words nwp *Sy3, of which, as v. 6 and v. 18 may have stood oppo-
site to one another in two parallel columns, sya may have found
its way into v. 6 before D'w 5, and nwp into v.18. By the adoption
of this explanation, both verses at once would be relieved of an
encumbrance’—With 1955 cf. Dt. ὉΠ aes
awn] Jos. το, r3 (wn tap dy vans xin Ndn).
1g. ‘3¥n| Ew. and Stade, following Pesh. Le Clerc, Mich. Dathe,
De Wette, ‘the gazelle,’ supposing this to be a name by which
Jonathan was popularly known among the warriors, on account of
his fleetness (cf. 2, 18; 1 Ch. 12, 8 sand onan by D’Nay5). But
there is no trace of such a name in connection with Jonathan : and
throughout the poem the /wo heroes are consistently spoken of
(a3: five times),—only in vv. 25», 26 the singer’s thoughts turn-
ing more particularly to Jonathan,—so that it is unlikely that
he would begin with a word that was applicable only to one of
them. The text must therefore be rendered, ‘ The beauty, O Israel,
upon thy high-places is slain.’ Saul and Jonathan, the two heroes
who formed the crown and glory of the nation, are called its deauty.
The expression is a little singular: but LXX must have already
found the same consonantal text. By their rendering στήλωσον
(Ξ 353), which agrees with the reading ὙΠ (see next note), they
appear to have understood the passage as an injunction to erect a
182 The Second Book of Samuel,
pillar in commemoration of the two departed heroes: cf. 18, 18
(where ay” is rendered καὶ ἐστήλωσεν).
pn. by] LXX has a doublet: ὑπὲρ τῶν τεθνηκότων = PND by
and ἐπὶ τὰ ὕψη cov=MT.: ‘the first is shewn by the following
genitive τραυματιῶν, and by the divergence from MT., to be their
genuine rendering’ (We.).
21. ΝΟΣ ‘in| A fusion of two constructions y2dsa on and
ya; "n, combining the greater definiteness of the former with the -
superior compactness and elegancy of the latter. In such an ex-
pression as y2dia on, on is virtually qualified by yadia in the
same degree as if it were an actual genitive, and is expressed
accordingly in the construct state.
monn wi] and fields of offerings, which is interpreted to mean,
fields bearing produce from which first-fruits are offered. But the
text is suspicious; for min is not the technical expression for
first-fruits, and the produce generally, not the first-fruits, would
naturally be specified. It is difficult, however, to suggest any
satisfactory emendation. LXX καὶ ἀγροὶ ἀπαρχῶν expresses MT.:
Lucian’s ὄρη θανάτου is no doubt based upon other MSS., and wouid
point to M23, But though this is an expression which might
well have been used by the poet, a second vocative ni "n) after
yadia %"n spoils the rhythm. Stade (Gesch. Isr. i. p. 259) makes
the plausible conjecture NiO Ww" ‘nor fields of sheaves.’ Klo.
ingeniously : 797 NW ‘ye fields of decezt,’ the fields on which Saul
and Jonathan were slain being represented poetically as having
betrayed their owners. But the metaphor, though intelligible as
applied to a bow (Hos. 7, 16. y. 78, 57), would be far-fetched with
reference to fields.
by33] by is fo reject with loathing, Jer. 14, 19. Ez. 16, 5 (subst.).
45 dvs. Lev. 26, 11. 15. 30. 43. 441. (Job 21, 10 Hif. differently.)
LXX here προσωχθίσθη (as Lev. 26, 15. 580: 43. 44: ΒΖ τὸ; 4G
arwoapevn). ‘The meaning defiled is less probable: for this sense
is only borne by Syy in Aramarc, and is not common even there
(Is. 1, 6. 6, 5. 28, ὃ Targ. Not in Syriac).
nw 3] ‘not anointed with oil’ The shield of Saul is pictured
7. 21-23. 183
by David as lying upon the mountains, no longer polished and
ready to be worn in action, but cast aside as worthless, and neg-
lected. Shields were avozn/ed in antiquity, in order that the weapons
of the enemy might the more readily glide off them. Cf. Is. 21, 5
19 INWID i.e. prepare for action; and Verg. Aen. 7. 626 Pars daeves
clypeos et spicula lucida tergunt Arvina pingui.
+43] Used alone (except Gen. 31, 20) exclusively in poetry ;
especially to negative a subst. or adj.,as Hos. 7, 8 ADEA ba; Job
8, τὰ oD *a,
nw] The form expresses a permanent state what is required
here is rather the ptcp. mw». An original my (i. e. ΠΡ 2) has prob.
been read incorrectly as ΠΟ, which ultimately became MW,
22. 2195] Exceptionally for 13D), Comp. PaY Dt. 33, 19; ον
1 Ki. 18, 27; Wav Is.17, 11; Ja ch. 18, 9; WW Hos. 9, 12 (MT.);
nw (Poel of MDW) 15. το, 13; WY 2. 28, 2; wyd always (four
times) in Job for py}; ON’ Lam. 3, 9; YOY Neh. 4, 11; BD Ὁ
divide (bread) Lam. 4, 4. Mic. 3, 3 for ΘΒ Is. 58, 7 (=Arab. (53
to tear’), and occasionally besides. The Massorah contains a
mechanical enumeration of eighteen instances (including some
questionable ones) of words written once with w for Ὁ (Mass. on
Hos. 2, 8; above, p. 42 μοί). The converse substitution is rarer
(AID Am. 6, 10; ADI Ψι 4, 75 19D Ezr. 4, 5).
op awn nb] used not to return empty. ‘The figure under-
lying the passage is that of the arrow drinking the blood of the
slain, and of the sword devouring their flesh: cf. Dt. 32, 42. Is. 34,
5f. Jer. 46, 10’ (Keil).
23. OD yIN DANI] (with the α7.1) are plainly in apposition with
ini Siew, and cannot (AV.) form the predicate ; hence there is
some uncertainty where the predicate is. Ew. renders:
Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the pleasant in their lives,
And (who) in death were not divided ;
Who were swifter than eagles, stronger than lions:
(24) Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, etc.—
1 wip ὦ spread out = Arab. us (according to the rule v=, J=Lp).
184 The Second Book of Samuel,
v. 23 being syntactically a casus pendens, resumed by ‘Saul’ in
v. 24, and 1995) being construed by Ges. 134 Rem. ο΄. Th. Ke.
Klo. avoid the difficulty by a change of accentuation, placing the
zagef in a at Dd*ysn, and so making 1175) xb the predicate :
Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the pleasant,
In their lives and in their death were not divided ;
They were swifter than eagles, stronger than lions.
"w) is, of course, strictly not the Hagle, but the Great Vulture (see
Mic. 1, 16°; and Tristram, Wat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 173 f.).
24. nowabin] The suffix being conceived as the odjec/, and not
as the genitive (in accordance with the common construction of the
ptcp.), in which case, of course, the article could not be employed :
cf. w. 18, 33 Sym sNnn, where this is clear from the Sorm of the
suffix.
psy oy] ‘together with pleasures or luxuries’ (comp. on I 15,
32). It is against the usage of the prep. DY to understand the
phrase adverbially=in a pleasurable manner (Keil); and in so far
as OY are not articles of dress, they must be associated with ‘3w
zeugmatically. (LXX pera κόσμου ὑμῶν = ἸΞ ἢν Dy.)
nmbynn] Cf. the use of nbyn in Am. 8, 10; and the opposite
poyn Tain: Ἐπ 33.05 2 also ny in Lev. 10, 10. Ez. 440092
25>. ‘Jonathan upon thy high places is slain!’ David turns
again to address Israel, as in v. 19.
26. nNS?53] The normal form would be MINDED ; but the case is
one of those in which a Ν verb follows the analogy of a verb i:
‘the termination of the 1’ being attached to it externally’ (Konig,
Ρ. 614: comp. pp. 610 ἢ, 625): cf. ANNAN Jos. 6,17; inka
Zech. 13, 4; also MNP Jud. 8, 1; ms Jer. 25, 12; AyNyn 50,
20. Comp. Stade, § 1429.
27. mandn by] i.e. (figuratively) Saul and Jonathan themselves,
conceived poetically as the instruments of war (Ew. Th. Ke.).
1 As Is. 30, 28. Am. 5, 7. 12°: cf. w. 18, 33. 49, 7 (which trust... and boast).
2 Where the ‘ baldness’ alluded to is the dows (in place of feathers) on the
neck and head, that is characteristic of the Great Vulture.
ΠΣ Δ 185
On this Lament, Ewald, Dre Dichter des allen Bundes, i. 1
(1866), pp.148-151, should be compared. There breathes through-
out a spirit of generous admiration for Saul, and of deep and pure
affection for Jonathan: the bravery of both heroes, the benefits
conferred by Saul upon his people, the personal gifts possessed by
Jonathan, are commemorated by the poet in beautiful and pathetic
language. It is remarkable that no re/¢gzous thought of any kind
appears in the poem: the feeling expressed by it is purely
human.
Bets πον ΝΠ] with reference to the higher position of Judah:
BO .. 2...
4. Ws] Difficult. ‘The men of Jabesh-Gilead are they that
have buried Saul’ is an unnaturally worded sentence, besides being
questionable as Hebrew (87377 not y73p “wx would be the form
in which the subject should be expressed). “WN is best taken as
in 1, 4 after "1x. No such emphasis, however, appears to rest
upon sydd wha) WI as to explain or justify these words being
prefixed to "we (see on I 20, 8); and it is simplest to suppose that
an accidental transposition has taken place, and that "Wx should
stand immediately after ΟΝ Ὁ (where, in fact, LXX appear to have
read it).
5. WIN] LXX ἡγουμένους --- ΝΣ, as 21, 12. 1525. 11.123; probably
rightly. bya might easily be changed to the more usual ΣΝ,
especially under the influence of v. 4°.
Ws] ye who... implying, however, a reason (ΞΞ οἵτινες), and so
equivalent to zz that ye... Comp. 6%. I 26, τό. Gen. 42, 21.
wv. 71, 19 Thou who...! 139,15 1 who...! (Germ. Der du..
Dir ich ..<)
mn ἼΦΠΠ] LXX (cod. A: B is here, for two verses, defective)
τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ θεοῦτ-- TIN TDN: cf. 1 20 14 MT.
6. nxin|] There is nothing in the context for this word to be
referred to. The impf. nwyx, not less than the position of the
clause affer “) MN’ wy, postulates an allusion to something /w/ure ;
and does not permit the reference, assumed by Th. Ke., to the
message of greeting sent at the time by David. The proposal of
μὰν
186 The Second Book of Samuel,
We. to read nnn for nxn removes all difficulty: ‘I also will shew
you good, Jecause ye have done this thing,’
ἡ. bn sab ym] 13, 28 end. I 18, 17.
ὟΝ D2] position as I 15, 1.
8... WN NOY WW] Usage requires "ἢ NAYM TW (ch. τ, το;
24506),
nwa-ws] Cod. 93 Holmes Εἰσβααλ ; so οἱ λοιποὶ (i.e. Ag. Symm.
Theod.) in the Hexapla; comp. /sdalem of the Itala. See 1 Ch. 8,
33 and 9, 39 bya, which leave no doubt that this was the true
name of Saul’s son, changed at a later period into Ish-bosheth for
the purpose of avoiding what was interpreted then as a compound
of the name of the Phoenician deity Baal. The change, however,
was not carried through consistently: the original “sh-daal (i.e.
man of Baal—a title of Jehovah [see on 4, 4]: comp. at Carthage
nanws man of Tanith’) remained in the two genealogies in 1 Ch.,
and here in particular MSS. or recensions *.
Notice 5x thrice, followed by by thrice, in one and the same
sentence: comp. 3, 29. Jer. 26, 15. 28, 8; and on I 13, 13.
9. wen] The name is recognised even by Keil as corrupt:
for neither the Assyrians (WS) nor the Arabian tribe of OVWS
(Gen. 25, 3) can be intended; and the name of a tribe so insig-
nificant as not to be mentioned elsewhere is not in this connexion
probable. Pesh. Vulg. express "3W30 (so Th. Ew. We.). The
situation, in agreement with the position of the name next to that
of Gilead, would suit excellently (see Jos. 12, 5. 13, 13): but Keil
objects that Geshur at this time (see 3, 30) possessed an inde-
pendent king, so that Ishbosheth could have exercised no juris-
diction over it. Kéhler, Kp. Klo. read ΝΠ (Jud. 1, 32): cf. Targ.
TWN MDT OY.
ΠΡΞ] The original form of the suffix of 3 sg. msc. is retained in
this word eighteen times (Is. 15, 3. 16, 7. Jer. 2, 21. 8, 6. 10 des.
15, 10 MT. [read »dp pnp2]. 20, 7. 48, 31. 38. Ez. 11, £5; 20,
1 Euting, Punische Steine (1871), No. 227.
2 LXX has in ch. 3-4 the strange error Μεμφιβοσθε for nwa-wx. So Lucian’s
recension throughout, except 4, 4 where the form Μεμφιβααλ occurs,
II. 7-16. 187
40. 36, 10. Hos. 13,2. Nah. 2,1. Hab. 1, 9.15)’; and sporadically
(see on 21, 1) in other cases. For the position of b> with a suffix
after the subst. to which it refers, giving it greater independence
and emphasis, comp. 1 Ki. 22, 28 (= Mic. 1, 2). Is. 9, 8. Jer. 13, 19.
Mal. 3, 9. Ψ. 8, 8. 67, 4. 6; and especially in Ezekiel, Ez. 11, 15.
EA; ΠΡ 20, 40. 29, 2. 32, 12. 30. 95,15, 530; ἢ (853) ; and in the
second person, Is. 14, 29. 31. Mic. 2, 12.
τὸ. INN Yn] See onI 12,14. As We. points out, v. τοῦ is the
natural sequel of v. 9, and ought not to be separated from it. The
chronological statements of v. τοῦ agree so indifferently with the
data stated, or implied, in other parts of these books, that the
entire clause is probably a late and unauthoritative insertion in
the text.
13. N¥’] LXX adds jann: so Th. We. Klo.
15. ἼΒΟΩΞ ys] ‘and passed over by number,—ay of the
individuals passing in order before the teller. Cf. Jer. 33,13: also
Lev. 27, 22, ΗΖ. 20, 57:
nva-wndy] The } is not represented in LXX, Pesh.; and the
passage is improved by its omission.
16. 3“) 139M] a circumstantial clause=‘ wth his sword in his
fellow’s side’ LXX, however, after wx express 11), in which
case the two clauses will be parallel: ‘And they fastened each his
hand upon [Gen. 21, 18] the head of his fellow, and his sword in
his fellow’s side.’
Np] sc. ΡΠ (I τό, 4): so elsewhere with this verb, as Gen.
ΤῊ Ὁ. 16, £4. 19; 22. al.
Dyn npbn] i.e. the Field of Sword-edges : see . 89, 44. LXX
Mepis τῶν ἐπιβούλων = ΝΠ npon, or rather 0°80 'N (the root being
NI 124, 12. Ex. 21, 13), the Pveld of the Plotters or Liers tn wait,
which is adopted by Ew. 7152. iii. 156 [E.T. 114], and We.
! The orthography 193 seventeen times: Gen. 25, 25. Ex. 14, 7. 19, 18. Nu.
a5, 132. Ley. 13,13. 15. 1,23. 9, 8: τὸ: Jer. Ὁ, 1307s. Mal. 3, 9: 29, 9. 53, 4-
Pr. 24, 31. 30, 27. Job 21, 23. Cant. 5, 16.
188 The Second Book of Samuel,
18. DIS INN] INN in a comparison as 6, 20. 13, 13. Job 2,
ΤῸ; py. 82, 7.
20. mt] imparting directness and force, in the question, to ANN:
so Gen. 24, 21. @Ki. 17, ἢ. τῇ.
ie 15 m3] Ὁ. 22 ap ID: Gen. 22,5 pod Ww, 27, 43 πη;
Dt. 1, 7 ps5 yp. 40 095 wp. 2, 13 095 nay. 5, 27 rd row.
22. nd] LXX explicitly ἵνα μή. See on I 19, 17.
ἢ Ji] As both We. and Dr. Weir remark, the text of LXX
contains a double rendering of these words, the second for 135 NWN
expressing 33 ΠΡ, and being evidently the original LXX ren-
dering, though made from a corrupt text.
23. nnn] idiomatically=zn his place, where he stood (on I 14, 9).
yoy, ..830 55 ὙΠ] exactly as I 10, 11.
24. ++. iM) ANI wow] A sentence of the same type as Gen.
19, 23. 44, 3 Now DWINT) WN pan: Zenses, §§ 166, 169. Theod.
for M28, from a sense acquired by it in post-Bibl. Hebr. (as in
Syr.), has ὑδραγωγὸς (hence Vulg. aquaeductus: cf. Aq. on 8, 1):
but were the word used as an appellative we should expect the
art. (ΠΌΝΠ). .
26. xd ‘nd ἽΝ] So Hos. 8, 5. Zech. 1, 12.
27. ombyn tn] LXX min (as always elsewhere, in this oath).
‘As God liveth, (I say) that unless thou hadst spoken, that then
only after the morning had the people gotten themselves up, each
from after his brother,’ i.e. if thou hadst not suggested to them z. 26
to cease from arms, they would have continued the pursuit till
to-morrow morning. For the repetition of 5, see on I 14, 39.
Was 19, 7. ἽῬΩΠ lit. afer the morning: jp as in DY, etc.
mdyo| The Wf is used idiomatically, of getting away from so as
to abandon (Nu. 16, 24. 27), especially of an army raising a siege,
ἼΕΠ 97: 5. τὸ
28. wy ΝΟΥ] See on Ir, 7 daxn ΡΥ: Οὗ 12, 25 wow NP.
31. WIND] Read wsx3 or (with LXX) WIND: cf. v.15. Nd
at the end of the verse is superfluous: WN... why being evidently
the obj. (which is required) to 13m. The insertion in RV. of so chat
in italics is a sufficient indication how anomalous the verse is in
I. 811. 8. 180
the Hebrew. Th. Ke. would understand ws before tn: but the
omission of the relative pronoun in Hebrew rose is almost confined
to the late and unclassical style of the Chronicler; see on I 14, 21.
LXX παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ = iAND, ;
8, 1. MIN] ‘Job 11, ο (A). Jer. 29, 28. The masc. does not
occur. LXX ἐπὶ πολύ, reading N38 (1319),’ Dr. Weir.
oda) oadn... ptm ἽΡΠ] See on I 2, 26.
Ζ. 5] The Kt., as We. suggests, might be pointed my (for
215), on the analogy of the contracted forms which now and then
occur in Peel (Nah. 1, 4 Wan, Lam. 3, 33 7. 53 V7. 2 Ch. 32,
30 " [but comp. Konig, p. 436f.]. However, the contraction
is in all cases somewhat against analogy, and therefore probably
nothing more than a clerical error; nor, in Pz‘al, is there any
instance of it at all. No doubt, the Qri vba) is here right.
5. NT ΠΝ] By analogy (see v. 38) the name of ‘Eglah’s first
husband would be expected: doubtless, therefore, 113 is due either
to a /apsus calam? or to some transcriptional corruption.
6. ‘V. 6? is the continuation of v.1. Vv. 2-5 have been inserted
subsequently, and v. 68 conceals the juncture’ (We.).
"3 pinnd nn] ‘ was shewing himself strong (I 4, 9) in’ [not for],
etc., i.e. was exerting himself in connexion with the house of Saul,
for the purpose of maintaining it. Elsewhere, in this sense, con-
strued with ty3 (10, 12), or py (Dan. 10, 21. 1 Ch. 11, 10).
7. 12x] As Ishbosheth has not been hitherto named in the
present connexion, the insertion of 5)xw-}2 (Oyaws) nwa ws after
WON") is necessary: cf. LXX καὶ εἶπεν Μεμφιβοσθε vids Σαουλ.
8. nmd away] ‘Zelonging fo Judah.’ (Not, ‘ who hold with Judah,
Ke.) The point of the comparison lies in the reference to the
Judaean 205 ws.
on] with emphasis, /o-day, at this ime. Abner protests that at
the very time at which Ishbosheth is bringing his charge against
him, he is doing his best for the house of Saul.
go... ny | ‘wth the house of Saul, viz. owards his brethren,’ etc.
sny0n] followed similarly by 193 Zech. 11, 6. ΝΙΝ or ΠΥ 20
190 The Second Book of Samuel,
arrive, come to, MYM to cause to come to, with 3! 20 place into the
hand of, hand over to.
“pani |=and (yet) thou visitest, etc. For the adversative sense,
sometimes implied in ‘1, cf. 19, 28. Gen. 32, 31: Tenses, § 74 B.
nwa py] LXX Awe py ‘a fault concerning a woman’ (and
nothing more). So We. Klo.
11. Δ ΣΝ ΓΝ ayn] lit. to furn back Abner with (Ew. ὃ 279°)
a word=to reply to, answer Abner: I 17, 30 and often.
12. nnn] Generally explained as = where he was (2, 23). But
the use is singular: for the suffix would refer naturally not to "4
but to the subject of nbumy (see 2, 23; and onI 14,9). Lucian has
εἰς XeBpov= N20 (or 1124), of which snnn is prob. a corruption.
yan aonb] At least NAD? would be required, if the words
were meant to express Whose zs the land? but even so, they are
incompatible as they stand with what follows, δ JN 3 ANS nd,
which is also the purport of the message, and which according to
Hebrew usage ought to follow innn zmmediately. The least change
that will suffice to produce an intelligible sentence, is to read
yan), and to omit the following spond. At the same time, it
must be admitted that the proposal “3) ‘n& Jn3 ANID is complete
without any prefatory introduction ; and probably the three words
are altogether due to error. LXX πρὸς Δαυειδ εἰς Θαιλαμ οὗ ἢν mapa-
χρῆμα λέγων Διάθου κιτιλ., where παραχρῆματε ΠΤ, so that εἰς Θαιλαμ
οὗ ἢν (ets Θηλαμου γην cod. A) must be a subsequent insertion, in
the wrong place, representing nnn again (ΞΞ εἰς av) and 195 ΝΟ
von [pos (1195) 195 =Aapov γην, hence Aap οὗ nv]. Παραχρῆμα λέγων
Διάθου appears to shew that in the Hebrew text used by LXX ἸΠΠῚ
nmnaa 79x stood together.
joy 5] Cf. Jer. 26, 24 (nx); rather differently, ch. 14, 19.
13. Jean Ad oN 3] ‘except before thy bringing’—an unin-
telligible construction. OX 3 and ΘΟ exclude one another ; and
we must read either JN'37 snd before thy bringing, or N83? BS *3
except thou bring: The latter is expressed by LXX (ἐὰν μὴ dydyys).
15. WN DYD] ‘from ἃ man’! Read, of course, with LXX AWN,
1 With », as Is. 43, 23. 2 Ki. 9, 2,
ITT. 11-27. ΤΟΙ
1. ΠΡ ες . ἼΞἼ1] “Ζαα been,’ a plup.: for oy 125 cf. Jud. 18, 7.
mwpan ann] ‘have been (continuously) seeking. Cf. Dt. 9, 7.
22.24; Tenses, § 135. 5.
18. pwn] ‘Evidently a clerical error for px, which many.
MSS. have, and which is expressed by all versions’ (Keil),
20. DW INDY] The men being definite (202), pwnd is certainly
what would be expected: comp. I, 11. 17, 12.
21. TWD] MINN. Wx] See on I 2, τό.
22. 3] No doubt, ‘Joab is the principal person for the narrator’
(Keil): but, with ax ΠΤ "Tay preceding, Νὰ by Hebrew idiom
ought to be plural. Read 8°83 (i.e. in the older orthography x3):
a) has dropped out before the Ὁ of Syn».
24. pon 15] ‘and he is gone (with) a going’=‘and he is gone
off, —very idiomatic and forcible, not to be abandoned in favour of
the more ordinary expression here offered by LXX AY? Non 135.
“Ὁ. (ἐν εἰρήνῃ is manifestly derived merely from vv. 21>, 22, 23?:
but while the narrator, and reporters, use the common midwa 1,
Joab characteristically expresses himself with greater energy ΝῊ
s\n). At the same time, v. 25 would doubtless be more forcible
as an interrogative; and it is quite possible that sibn may have
SJallen out after pon.
25. qN20] Why the abnormal (and incorrect) form ἼΝ 3)
should be substituted as Qri, unless for the sake of the assonance
with ‘JN¥i9, is not apparent.
247. "ywn ‘in by] The middle of the gate would scarcely be the
place in which Joab could converse with Abner quietly. LXX ἐκ
πλαγίων τῆς πυλῆς = WYN PN by (See. ey. th τι INU ἢ 70. 35
Hebrew and LXX) ‘to the szde of the gate,’ which is favoured
also by the verb 170" ‘led aszde.’
bya] A usage approximating curiously to the Aramaic: comp.
N25 in quietude, quieily, in the Pesh. I 12, 11 al. (= 83). 15. 8, 6
(=0n?). Job 4, 13 (of the quiet of night).
wonn oy 1Π3»}} Probably Sx should be restored before won, in
conformity with the construction elsewhere (2, 23. 4, 6. 20, 10).
192 The Second Book of Samuel,
28. 5) nyp] ny, the acquittal being conceived as proceeding
Jrom Jehovah: comp. Nu: 32, 22 MN" ὩΣ} ὉΠ" ΠῚ.
2g. n°] Comp. Jer. 23, 19=30, 23 (of a tempest) DW WNT by
Sim ; and Hos. 11, 6.
ybpa pnp] ols is fo be globular or round (especially of a
woman’s breasts): hence εὐ 19 is the Sphere in which a star moves
(Qor. 21, 34. 36, 40), and AX the whorl of a spindle, Lat. vert-
cillus, as 28 in Hebrew, Prov. 31, 19 (comp. Delitzsch), where,
no doubt, it is used for the spindle generally. Here the word
is commonly supposed to denote a sfaff: but it must be admitted
(a) that other words are elsewhere used in Hebrew to express this
idea (see 2 Ki. 4, 29. 31, and especially Zech. 8, 4 173 inywp wR
nD’ 3719), and (4) that the transference of the term to denote an
object lacking the characteristic feature (the z/or/) which it pro-
perly denotes, is improbable—or, at least, is only admissible if it
can be shewn to be probable that the consciousness of the original
sense of ΡΒ had been lost in Hebrew, and that the Hebrew who
used the word thought only of the ‘ spindle’ as a whole, and not of
the whorl in particular. It is to be observed, however, that both in
Hebrew and Arabic the derivatives of the root all denote objects
distinctly circular or round. The rendering s/af is thus, to say the
least, open to question; and Aq. Symm. (ἄτρακτον), Jer. (/enens
fusum), Pesh. (Ips.asxo guts), Bd. Th. have sound philological
grounds for adhering to the usual sense of sfznd/e, and interpreting
the words as an imprecation that Joab might always count among
his descendants—not brave warriors, but—men fit only for the
occupations of women. Comp. how ‘“ Hercules with the distaff”
was the type of unmanly feebleness among the Greeks’ (quoted
from Βὸ., by Kp., who, however, does not himself accept the ex-
planation) ἡ.
1 Keil declares indeed (against Bottcher) that ‘the assertion that 75 in
Hebrew, Talmudic, and Arabic means ον spindle, never staff, is contradicted
by any lexicon of these languages:’ but this confident statement is, unfortu-
nately, not borne out by the facts. It is true, indeed, that 775 in Talmudic (as
11]. 28-35. 193
30. ὭΣ ΝΟ wi] 5 as I 23, ro, and with 37 itself (in Zafer Hebrew)
Job 5, 2. Ew. Klo., on the ground of LXX διαπαρετηροῦντο, prefer
to read Ἰδὲ ματα ambush for: but this would scarcely be a just
description of the manner in which Joab actually slew Abner : nor
does the preceding narrative imply that Joab and Abishai had done
previously anything that could be so described.
31. 48 250] i.e. preceding the bier in the funeral procession.
33. nyoan] not ‘Dzd Abner die?’ (N24), but “ Was Abner on the
way to die?’ was this the end reserved for him? For the impf. cf.
2 Ki. 3, 27 his firstborn bn ws who was 10 reign after him:
13, 14 the illness 13 nyo’ WN which he was fo die of: Tenses,
§ 398.
34. ΟΝ ΝΟ] xd with the ptcp. is very uncommon, and not to
be imitated: comp. Jer. 4, 22. Ψ. 38, 15. Job 12, 3 (Ew. ὃ 3200),
Ez. 22, 24. Dt. 28, 61: Zenses, p. 233 note.
byn25] sc. bay; comp. I 2, 13. On 03), see on I 25, 28.
Abner, David laments, has experienced a death that was un-
deserved: he has died the death of a 539, a reprobate, godless
person, whom an untimely end might be expected to overtake.
Abner had committed nothing worthy of death: his hands and feet
were not bound, as though he were a criminal, condemned to
execution : he succumbed to the treacherous blow of an assassin.
An nnand] The word is confined to this book (12, 17. 13, 5. 6.
in Biblical Hebrew and Phoenician [C/S. 7]) has another meaning besides
spindle, viz. district, circle (Germ. Kreis): but the lexica of the languages
named do not support the meaning s¢af, Buxtorf indeed mentions this as one
of its meanings: but his examples support only the sense sfzmd/e ; and Levy
for post-Biblical Hebrew, and Freytag, Dozy, and Lane for Arabic, do not
recognise the meaning s¢af at all! The objection that 1552 pm ‘ grasping
the spindle’ is too strong an expression is not conclusive: in Pr. ὦ ς. the phrase
used is 75D Ἰ9ῸΠ md); and pm and Jon do not differ so widely as to
authorise us to say-that the one could, and the other could not, be applied to the
use of the spindle. A ‘parable’ in the B’reshith Rabbah, § 56, referred to by
Levy, is worth quoting: 75pm yO) NIT TION ΠΡ ΕΒ ΠΣ ΤῸ ΠῸΝ} PWD
RD Naw 99 DAIAN WON 3 DDD oD NN WIR TY ΠΩΣ Τ ΠῚΠ
ΣῚΡ ony tn Nw ASIN ΣΝ JIS ΟΠἸΣΌΣΔῚ AINA ΠΡΟ 5202 ΝῸΝ
( bRim=since; t3=10 move; Ὦ 1w1=decause; poy=lo be occupied).
10)
194 The Second Book of Samuel,
10): so ΠΡ food 13, 5. 7-10 t. M3 occurs Lam. 4, το; and na
Ψ. 69, 227%.
ON 5] not=excepf, as Ὁ. 13: the two particles are to be separ-
ated, ‘3 introducing the oath, as I 14, 44, and ON expressing it
(if .../ =surely not), FOX 55 Gen. 39, 23 only.’
36. 2) 532] ‘as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people’
would require Ss awxo for 525 (3 never having the force of a
conjunction). The text can only be rendered: ‘like all that the
king did, τ (viz. his conduct on the present occasion) pleased all
the people.’
37. Toon] So 1b ann mn τ Ki. 2,15; AN mA nND Jos.
ΤΙ, 20.
39. J] “ender, weak, opp. to DWP.
35m mw] The contrast which, in virtue of the contrasted ideas
connected by it, is implicit in the copula 1, would be expressed in
English distinctly by and at the same time, and yet, or though (cf.
Cant. 1, 5). The rendering of Keil ‘and oly just anointed king’
as though David intended to say that, as a young king, he was
not strong enough to oppose his wishes to Joab—expresses a
thought suitable in itself, but does not legitimately represent the
Hebrew: there is nothing in the text to express, or even to
suggest, the crucial only just/ Ew. rendered ‘ And I this day live
delicately and am an anointed king,’ etc. The sense thus attached
to J is defensible (Dt. 28, 54 ayn) 7a ὙΠ. Is. 47, 1): but the
rendering labours under the disadvantage of obliterating~the anti-
thesis, which, nevertheless, seems to be designed, between 77 and
n'wp. MT. (so far as the consonants go) is presupposed by LXX
(cvyyevijs=J1 misread as 95, see Lev. 18,14. 20, 20: καὶ καθεστα-
μένος ὑπὸ βασίλεως = 79 mw),
4, 1. Sw} | ‘LXX rightly inserts Ishbosheth before Siw 5
the omission in the Hebrew may perhaps be explained by the
resemblance between (yawx) ΤΌΞΟΝ and yow’ (Dr. Weir).
wy 15] as Jer. 6, 24. Is. 13, 7 al.: the masc. as Zeph. 3, τύ.
2 Ch. 15, 7 by Ges, ὃ 1473.
711. 36—IV. 4. 195
2. ΝΠ yn] The text, as it stands, is not translateable. Read
with LXX δὴν (ΩΦ ΝΟ) nyac-eend yn.
nvw.] Evidently near Gibeon. In Jos. 18, 25 f. AD ΠῚ pyr
NBs) NMSA) are named together among the cities of Benjamin.
4. nywpp] In 1 Ch. 8, 34 bya 3"), in 9, 40 ΕΣ “2. One
of these forms is certainly the original name. There was a time
when the name 5ys Jord was applied innocently to Jehovah?: but,
in consequence no doubt of the confusion which arose on the part
of the unspiritual Israelites between Jehovah and the Phoenician
god ‘Baal, the habit was discountenanced by the prophets, espe-
cially by Hosea (2, 18), and ultimately fell out of use. Proper
names, therefore, in which by originally formed part had to be
disguised, or otherwise rendered harmless. This was generally
done by substituting nwa shame? for bya, as in the case of Eshbaal
(above, on 2, 8), and of Meribbaal the name of Saul’s grandson here,
and of one of his sons by Rizpah in 21, 8. In the case of the
latter name the change to nwaa™ (or nwa») appears not to
have been thought sufficient ; and the name was further disguised
by being altered to ΘΒ, which was probably taken to mean
‘One who scatters or disperses (cf. Dt. 32, 26 OnNDN) Shame®*.’
Jerubbaal (Gideon), properly Baal strives, being interpreted to mean
‘One that strives weth Baal’ (Jud. 6, 32), was suffered to remain,
1 Comp. H. Schultz, Alttest. Theologie, ed. 2 (1878), p. ap ed. 4 (1889),
p- 519: Baethgen, Beztrdage, etc., pp. 141-4.
2 For nwa shame as a designation of Baal, see Jer. 3, 24. 11, 13. Hos. 9, το;
comp. in LXX 1 Ki. 18, 19. 25 of προφῆται τῆς αἰσχύνης. Dillmann, in an
elaborate essay devoted to the subject in the Monatsberichte der Kon.-Preuss.
Academie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1881, June 16, observing the strong
tendency shewn not only in LXX, but in other ancient versions as well, to
obscure or remove the name of Baal, thinks that the habit of substituting
αἰσχύνη for it is the explanation of the strange ἡ Βααλ of certain parts of LXX
(e. g. Jeremiah constantly,—2, 23. 7, 9. 11, 13.17. 19, 5 al. Hos. 2, 10. 13,1
so Rom. 11, 4): Βααλ was left in the text, but the fem. of the art. was an
indication that αἰσχύνη was intended to be read. No traces of an androgynous
Baal have been found in Phoenician Inscriptions.
3. Lucian has throughout (except 21, 8) the intermediate form Μεμφιβααλ.
Perhaps this is a survival of the first stage in the transforming process.
02
196 The Second Book of Samuel,
except in ch, 11, 21 where it was altered to Jerubdesheth. In less
read books, however, the names remained sometimes unchanged :
thus ΟΝ and Syn are preserved in Ch., as also ypdys Baal
knows, the name of one of David’s sons, called in ch. 5, 16 ypds
‘ God knows 1,’ and the name of David’s hero mya τ Ch. 12, 5, and
of his officer ἜΣΕΙ 27, 285. It will be observed that these
names are particularly frequent in the families of Saul and David,
both zealous worshippers of Jehovah (comp. among other things in
the case of Saul the name of his son }n21n). bya will be a
name of the same form (a rare one in Hebrew: above on I 1, 20)
as 5ya9q39 Baal dlesses, on a seal from Aleppo, the Nabataean
Symp, and Syarwn, ΝΘ (above, p. 14 μοί).
5. OANA 33w) ΠΝ] The cogn. accus. 13v is here not the
place of reclining (= couch), but the act of reclining (as in the
expression 73? 33% Jud. 21, 11 al.), in the present context =
stesia: ‘was taking his noon-tide rest.’
6. ΦΌΠΠΓΟΝ aN aN ΠΡΟ mean ὙΠ ΓΝ wa nym] ma setter
is redundant: $82 and 3nd" both anticipate prematurely 7; spd
DN is inappropriate, and the rendering ‘as though fetching wheat’
illegitimate. Read with We. after LXX opp man miyiv mam
eam Dam) DNN «and behold the portress of the house was cleaning
wheat, and she slumbered and slept, and Rechab and Ba‘anah slipt
in, etc. The words explain how it happened that Rechab and
Ba‘anah obtained entrance to Ishbosheth’s house.
ywd19 | slipt im or through (LXX διέλαθον, joining the word
closely with v. 7 ‘slipt through, and entered into the house,’ etc.),
in accordance with the primary meaning of the root (cf. ὩΡ 15. 34,
15 5 pn 66, 7°), and not in the special sense of slipping through
or away from pursuers, 1. e. of escaping.
8. niop2... jpn] So 22, 48: comp. ΠῚ505 Avy Jud. 11, 36.
1 Comp. Jud. 9, 46 nna 5s for m3 5 8, 33. 9, 4.
2 Comp. also 503 itself, as a pr. n., 1 Ch. 5, 5. 8, 30 (=9, 36).
3. Of laying eggs, properly (as it seems) e/adz fectt (Ges.). Cf. the Nif. in
I 20, 29 ‘let me get away’ (without the idea of escaping).
LV. s—V. 1. 197
Ὁ. “1 AND WN] So 1 Ki. 1, 29.
το. 12 AINNY] after qh treated as a casus pendens; so 1 Ki.
9, 208,12) 17. 15, 19° Lenses; § 147 α:
mwa sd-nnd ws] ‘to whom I ought, forsooth, to have given a
reward for his good tidings.’ ‘nnd must be explained on the analogy
of # Ki. £3, 10 miano percutiendum erat quinquies aut sexies,—an
extension of a usage more common in present time, Hos. 9, 13 etc.
(Zenses, ὃ 204). The clause can hardly express David’s view of
the transaction: he could not think that the Amalegite really
deserved a reward for his tidings: it must express what David
ought to have done in the judgment of the Amaleqite himself, or
of men in general unable to appreciate David’s regard for Saul
(hence ‘forsooth’). Keil: ‘in order to give him a reward for his
good tidings’ (ironically), treating WWN as=namely (Ew. 338%): so
substantially RV. But such a sense of "ws cannot be substantiated:
so that, if this be felt to be the meaning of the passage, we must
follow the suggestion of We. to ‘omit "WK, as due to a false inter-
pretation of 1 ΠΡ, which in its turn arose from a mistaking of
the ironical sense of ΠῚ 72.
ΤΙ. 13 ὮΝ] how much more (should I do so), when...; as Ez.
15; 5: Joo Ὁ. 14; and °5 ANI I 29, 3. 2 Ki. 5, 13.
py WN nN] ns followed by an wndefined subst.: comp. on 1 9, 3.
no)... wpax] The same idiomatic use of 51 in I 20, τό.
Gen-31, 39; 43, 0. Ist, 12. Ez. 5, 18. 26 (105). 33, 3 (19); and
with wos Gen. 9, 5 (81). Ez. 34, ro.
12. xp] The word is used similarly, Jud. 1, 6. 7.
5, 1-3. 6-1o=1 Ch. 11, 1-9. The parallel passages in Chron-
icles should be compared, and the variations noted, in the manner
exhibited above, on I 31. The reader who will be at the pains of
doing this consistently (especially in the parts of Chronicles which
are parallel to 1-2 Kings), will, when he has eliminated the varia-
tions which seem to be due to accident, understand better than
from any description in books the φιλο followed by the Chronicler
in the compilation of his work, and the manner in which he dealt
with his sources in the process.
198 The Second Book of Samuel,
5, 1. ἬΝ WON] ‘Thus, immediately together, rarely, 20, 18.
Ex. 15, 1. Nu. 20, 3; Ges. Zhes., p. 119>: on the contrary, very
frequently as in v. 6. Jud. 15, 13, Separated by a pronoun or other
word’ (We.). Geiger in an article on this idiom* regards it as a
mark of the later period of the language, and seeks to shew that
most of the passages in which it occurs—even those of the second
class noticed by We.—are redactional additions. But ond was in
such frequent use for the purpose of introducing a speech, that its
proper force must have been early forgotten ; and the habit must
soon have grown up of using it instinctively, irrespectively of the
fact that the same verb might have been already employed in the
sentence.
1b, The same expression occurs 19, 13.14; Gen. 29, 14. Jud.
0,2. τ με ew τ:
2. Nyy Hn] 120N following shews that the words are wrongly
divided, and that the Massorah is right in correcting N*yyon nn
aio).
ΝΠ} δὲ dropped as 1 Ki. 21, 21 pox 3. 5Π. Jer. 19, 15.
39, 16: 1 Ki. 21, 29. Mic. 1, 15 (both ‘38): a Ki. 12, ΤΣ Dyson ia
al., sometimes (but not always) before another & (as though the
omission were due to the juxtaposition of the two identical letters) :
see Ol. p. 69.
3. ΠΡ] here first in the metaph. sense. So 7,7. Mic. 5, 3; and,
with the figure usually developed explicitly, often in Jeremiah, as
2, 8. 3, 15. 10, 21. 22, 22. 23, 1-4; Ez..g4 (throughout),-al.
6. WN] sc. Wwixn—of course, among the Jebusites. The
Chronicler (I 11, 5) writes explicitly Θ᾽ ‘Aw aN; but LXX
read precisely the same consonants as MT., though they render as
a passive ἐρρέθη.
Jpn] ‘but the blind and the lame will turn thee away:’ the
sing. by Ew. ὃ 3162; Ges. ὃ 147%. But it is better to point ὙΠ,
‘Except thou take away’ (AV. RV.) would require NDA ON "3.
7. On the site of Zion = the ‘ City of David, see Riehm, Hand-
worterbuch des Bibl. Altertums, s.v.; Stade, Gesch. Isr. i. 315 ἵν;
) Jiidische Zeitschrift, iv. 1866, pp. 27-353; comp. v. p. 188; vi. p. 159.
VO. 199
Encycl. Britannica, ed. g, art. Jerusalem (Pt. II). The part of
Jerusalem which is now called Zion, and is so marked on maps, is
the South-West Hill; but the tradition identifying this hill with
Zion does not reach back beyond the 4th century a.p.; and there
are the strongest reasons, based on the usage of the OT. itself, for
believing that the ‘ Zion’ of ancient times was the South-Zas¢ Hill
of Jerusalem, on the North (and highest) part of which stood the
Temple, and on the South (contiguous to the Temple) the Royal
Palace, built by Solomon. The author of 1 Macc. expressly
identifies ‘Zion’ with the hill on which the Temple was situate
(z°Macc. 4, 37 f 75.93):
8. 2) mo 55] It is easier on this passage to say what it does
not mean than what it does mean. The renderings that have been
adopted most generally by modern scholars, both implying, how-
ever, a deviation from the existing MT., are (a) ‘Whosoever smiteth
the Jebusites, let him get up to the watercourse, and (smite) the
blind and the lame,’ etc. (so RV.). Upon this interpretation, n37 is
supposed to have fallen out in clause ὁ (NN 730) for nx). “3 yy,
however, elsewhere means simply /o ouch: where it may be repre-
sented by the English word reach, it is applied not to a person
arriving at a spot, but to some object extending 10 if, so as to touch
it, as 1 Ki. 6, 27 the wing of the one cherub /ouched the wall, Hos.
4,2 and blood soucheth, reacheth to blood (forming a continuous
stream): more often with “ty, by or by, metaphorically of mis-
fortune, the sword, etc., Jud. 20, 34. 41. Mic. 1, 9. Jer. 4, τὸ al.
Touch, the legitimate rendering of ’3 yy3, is weak: get up 10 is a
questionable paraphrase. (0) The words are rendered, with 3" for
y3, ‘Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites, let him hurl down the
watercourse the blind and the lame,’ etc. (so Ew. Ke.). But ‘2 37
means merely to make to touch=to join (Is. 5, 8): even with, ὃν,
or ἽΝ, it is only used of a building (or collection of buildings) made
to touch the ground (viz. by being levelled to it), Is. 25, 12. 26, 5.
Ez. 13, 14. Lam. 2, 27; or (intransitively) simply to reach, arrive at
1 Comp. by yan 20 make to touch (and rest) wfon=to apply to, Is. 6, 7.
Jer. 1,9; with 5x Ex. 12, 22: with “5 Ex. 4, 25= was read by the Chronicler (I 14, 2) as
ΞΟ news’ (We.). ΓΟ is a word belonging mostly to the
later Hebrew (Ch. Ezra, Dan. Esther, constantly): but it occurs
occasionally in earlier Hebrew, I 20, 31; Nu. 24, 7 (with the same
verb as here) imap xwami; 1 Ki. 2, 12.
13. Dow] τ Ch. 14, 3 novia, which is preferred by Berth.
Th. We.
we pn] ib 12) 14. ἘΣ. τ. 22. Jos. δ; 5: Jer: 16,3 aeete
punctuation in all these cases is irregular: by analogy the f/cp.
7, pen is what would be required by the syntax. On the
form, cf. Ew. § 1554; Stade, § 224: the parallels have all a sub-
stantival force (1133, 3, 73, etc.). It is not clear with what
right Hitzig (on Jer. 7c.) says that ‘in virtue of passages such as
2 5.12, 14 the punctuation iby is correct ;’ and the explanation
adopted (apparently) by Dillmann on Jos, Zc. that the form is
meant to express ‘in contradistinction to ny. the idea of suc-
cession’ is incompatible with ch. 12, 14 (of a single child). In
1 Ki. 3, 26. 27, and even in the parallel 1 Ch. 14, 4, in each of
which passages (notice in Ch. the following yb yn ws) the sub-
stantival form would have been thoroughly appropriate, the word
is pointed as a ptcp. (7254, D0").
14-16. The list of David’s sons, born in Jerusalem, is repeated,
1 Ch. 3, 5-8, and also 14, 4-7, with the following variations :—
* “Soll das ‘‘ fort und fort, nach und nach” ausdriicken.’
Κ΄. 9-17. 201
2 Sam. 5. τ. 5. A RE τ.
τ. φρο Npow yoy
2-5 without variation.
6. yrds yours ponds
0. pba pbabs
8. m9 m3
9. 48 3D) 8)
10. pS’ pss) yy)
11. yous yours yours
12. yrds prox yrdys
13. DoE poprby pbardy
In No. 12 ypoys is evidently the true name, changed for the
sake of avoiding bya to ype (comp. on 4, 4). LXX in1 Ch. 14,7
read with MT. ypdys: Tisch.’s text has indeed ’Ediade: but Codd.
B and Sin. have BadeySae? and Lucian’s recension Baadiada. In
the existing LXX text of 2 Sam. there are /wo renderings of the
list; and in the second, which appears to be derived from Ch., the
form with by is likewise expressed (βααλειμαθ: so Luc. βααλιλαθ).
5, 17-25. David and the Philistines.
17. myyon bx 3] The verb 1% shews that the my referred
to cannot be identified with the M)¥ of Zion, v. 9: for that lay on
an elevation, and the phrase used in connexion with it is always nby.
This ΠΝ is no doubt the one in the wilderness of Judah, which
David held I 22, 5. 11 23,14. The ΝΒ poy was near Jerusalem
on the west (Jos. 15, 8), and hence David would naturally speak
of going up (v.19) from the ΠΝ against the Philistines encamped
there. From the different use of the same term 7)¥07 in Ὁ. 9 and
v. 17, it is a legitimate inference that the section vv. 17-25 stood
originally in a different connexion, in which the sense of m)y0n
was apparent from the context.
1 See Nestle’s collation of Codd. Vat. and Sin., printed at the end of the 6th
and subsequent editions of Tischendorf’s text, p. 54.
pret τ The Second Book of Samuel,
18. yw] Ch. ww: in defence of the text here, see We.
Ὁ. ΕΠ Ch6,/8iz TEx. τὸ: 22. 27:
ὈΣΊΒ Ον3] ‘Ba‘al of breaches :᾿ comp. the other names of places
compounded with 5ya (Ges. s. v. sub fin.),—the god who, for what-
ever reason, was held to be identified with the place, giving
ultimately his name to it (comp. above, p. 50f.). As applied here,
however, bys does not denote the Phoenician god of that name,
but is a title of Jehovah (such as we know to have been in use in
the families of Saul and David: above, on 4, 4): and the name
ons Syn was understood as commemorating the victory (comp.
D> mm Ex. 17, 15; pvdy mim Jud. 6, 24). The explanation ‘place
of breaches’ (Keil; RV. marg.), as though Syn were used in the
poetical sense of owner, possessor (Is. 41, 15), is less probable.
21. OMAYY] LXX τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν, and Ch. (I 14, 12) onnds,—
doubtless the original reading.
ywaN) Tt oxw] The Chronicler, in order to leave no doubt as
to what David did with the idols, substitutes }59w) TY “78
UNI.
23. 309] The Af is very anomalous (Jos. 6, 11 the construction
being quite different). Probably 7 has arisen by dittography from
mbyn, and the Qal 3b should be restored.
ons by] 50:2 Ki 9, 19 τὸἪ Ch mp by 2 Ki. ΤΙ, ΤΟΣ
yn bx Dt. 25. ἘΤῚ Clea ala bx 1 Ki. 8, 6. Zech. 3, 10.
’y) ΓΝ] and come to them off the front of (in our idiom: 771
frat 7). 22 Ch Nu. 22, 5 ‘bin awy Nim,
24. 4] and det zt be...: a permissive command; I 1o, 5:
Tenses, § 121 Obs.
ΓΝ] ms implies that the idea is definite; so that no doubt
the art. has dropped out, and pAtyyn should be read, as in 1 Ch.
14, 15.
y7nn ts] in Ch. paraphrased, with much loss of originality and
vigour, by manda N¥YN ΤῊΝ.
N3"] well have gone forth.
25. yaw] LXX ἀπὸ Γαβαων, Ch. }\y33,—undoubtedly the right
reading ; comp. Is. 28, 21 where Perazgzm and Gideon are mentioned
V. t8—VT. 2. 203
together as the scenes of celebrated victories of antiquity. The
Philistines are in the D'ND. pdy west of Jerusalem: David ad-
vancing from the south does not approach them in front, but
makes a circuit and assails their rear. rom Gideon on the N.-W.
of Jerusalem would thus just indicate the quarter from which his
attack would be made.
6. Removal of the Ark to the ‘ City of David.
6, 1-128=1 Ch. 13, 5-14; between 12° and 12? the Chronicler
inserts his 14, 1—15, 24; 12-14 is expanded and varied in 1 Ch.
15; 25-273 I5-19?=1 Ch. 15, 28—16, 3 (with variations) ; 1 Ch.
16, 4-42 is another insertion; 19>-2z0®=1 Ch. τό, 43 (vv. 20b-23 .
being omitted in Ch.). The variations between the two narratives
are here remarkably striking and instructive. In particular the
earlier narrative makes no mention of the Zevzzes ; the later autho-
rity is careful to supply the omission.
6, 1. ΠΡ} for ADNN, as ADA y. 104, 29: οὗ on I 1g, 5. ἫΝ
implies a former gathering on David’s part, which at least forms no
part of the previous narrative, as we possess it. We. may be right
in conjecturing the word to have been accidentally written by a
scribe, who, coming upon 4D‘), misunderstood it in the sense of
and he added (which is constantly followed by this particle).
2. AM Syrayp] Ini Ch. 13, 6 AAS Iw Dy np ds nnbdya :
and this is the sense which is required: Qiryath Ye‘arim is called
nbya Jos. 15, 9-11, and Sya-np 12. 60. 18,14: doubtless, there-
fore, mm bya Ὁ Βα αἱ of Judah must here be restored, the
description ‘of Judah’ being added to distinguish this Ba‘al from
other places of the same name (in Simeon, Jos. 19, 8, in Dan, τ.
44: cf. mm onbd-na). mm dyn seems first to have been mis-
written mtn *Sy3; and then, this being interpreted as=‘ c7z/zens
of Judah,’ the partitive "9. was prefixed, in order to produce some
sort of connexion with the preceding clause. The place must have
been noted once as a seat of Ba‘al worship.
yoy... “ws ‘over which is called the name, (even) the name
of’ etc. The phrase used betokens ownership: see on 12, 28.
204 The Second Book of Samuel,
The repetition of nw is singular, and probably due to transcriptional
error: it does not add to the emphasis or solemnity of the passage.
LXX do not express OY more than once.
3b-4. The words v. 3 end-42 WWN JIDIN NID NWN YAwIN
myaia (which are not expressed in LXX) have been accidentally
repeated from v. 3%: hence the questionable Mwsn (p. 95 zofe) with
ΠΌΣΗ ΠΝ. Probably obs ΠΝ DY was preceded originally by
yin sry): as thus corrected the verse will explain how ‘Uzzah and
Ahio ‘led’ the cart: Uzzah going des¢de the ark, and his brother
before it. The pr.n. 8 seems more probable than 108 (We.),
or YON (LXX, with oad in v. 4).
5. OYpnwy] See on I 18, 7.
pwns ‘yy boa] The true reading of these words has been
preserved in 1 Ch. 13, 8, viz. DPW ἜΣ So LXX here, ἐν
ὀργάνοις ἡρμοσμένοις (See Ὁ. 14) and ἐν ἰσχύι being a double rendering
of ty (05) 052, and καὶ ἐν φδαῖς evidently representing Ow).
ovoydyay pyyysoni] Ch. nyyynay ondyon; LXX here καὶ ἐν
κυμβάλοις καὶ ἐν addois = DSA ondypa). MT. appears here to be
original : see We.
6; jar pa ““ AMiixed snecebiite ats ” does not satisfy the re-
quirements of the sense: “ 276 fixed threshing-floor” is not expressed
in the Hebrew—to say nothing of the questionable use of the
epithet })93: hence 33), as LXX and the Chronicler have rightly
seen, must conceal a pr. name’ (We.), or, at least some designation
which, attached to 7, would constitute a pr. name (cf. Gen. 50,
16.17 SONA [Δ; and I το, 22). What this name or designation
was must, however, remain uncertain. LXX here have Νωδαβ,
Ch. 715. (Keil’s ‘threshing-floor of [the] d/ow (?)’ is quite out of
the question.)
nbvm] Versions and Ch. add rightly "nx. The ellipse is not
according to usage.
wonw] Of uncertain meaning. wow is 20 le fall, 2 Ki. 9, 33
(of Jezebel, muoDw MDW). Ψ. 141, 6; met. 20 remzt, hence nw
Monwn the year of the remdfance (or rather znéermittence) of claims
for debt, Dt. 15, 1. 2: in Aram. fo pull away or loosen, Lev. 14,
VI. 3-7. 205
40. 43 Pesh. and Ps.-Jon. (=Heb. pbn); δ pull out or draw a
sword (in Syriac often); in the Ethpa‘el 20 de pulled away Ezr. 6, 11
(=Aram. nbdon*); in Ethpe‘al to ship off, Dt. 19, 5 Pesh. (= Heb.
bw). Let it fall is the rendering best supported by Hebrew usage ;
but many have given the word an intransitive sense,—either after
Pesh, (Jgok oo agpsoXa/’: int Ch. 13, 9 WO ooo aJois),
like the Syr. Ethpe‘al, ram away (Maurer, Roed. in Zhes.), or (by
conjecture)=slipped (Keil, Klo.: RV. stumbled). LXX ὅτι περιέ-
σπασεν αὐτὴν (inv) ὁ μόσχος (in τ Ch. 13 ἐξέκλινεν αὐτήν), Targ. both
here and r Ch. 1519 (? threw it down: ἢ ΠΥ as 2 Ki. 9, 33);
Vulg. calcitrabant* (probably based on Aq. or Symm., whose
renderings here have not been preserved): in 1 Ch. bos quippe
lasciviens paullulum inclinaverat eam.
4. dwn by] mbw is a very rare root in Hebrew: in Aramaic it
has the sense of 20 ac/ in error or neglect Job 19, 4 Targ.= Heb.
maw (cf. the Wf in 2 Ch. 29, 11); in Af‘el, 40 cause fo act in error,
mislead, Job 12, 16 *wo=Heb. MW (cf. 2 Ki. 4, 28 Heb. do not
mislead me): the subst. bys means error, neglect Ezr. 4, 22. 6, 9.
Dan: 3, 29. 6, 5: in the Τατρ. Ξε ΠΣ} or 733% Gen, 43, 12; Lev.
4, 2. 5. 260, Nuon, 24. 25 al, wm here is commonly (since Targ.
Snwwt 5y) explained from this root ‘because of éhe error:’ but
(1) ndw is scarcely a pure Hebrew word: where it occurs, it is
either dialectical (2 Ki. 4) or late (2 Ch.) ; so that its appearance
in early Hebrew is unexpected; (2) the unusual apocopated
form (by for by) excites suspicion’. Ewald explained 5wn-by in
the sense of the Syriac LS& οὐ suddenly (e.g. Nu. 6, 9. 8, 19
Pesh.); but this is open in even a greater degree to the same
objection as the explanation error ; and though by is used in
Hebrew in the expression of certain adverbial ideas (as “py by,
yy by: on I 23, 23), the word associated with it is expressed
1 The Clementine text adds ‘ et declinaverunt eam ;’ but this is not found in
the best MSS. of the Vulgate.
? LXX (cod. B) omits the word: cod. A and Luc, have ἐπὶ τῇ προπετείᾳ
whence Jerome ‘ super temeritate.’ But rashness is not the idea expressed by
the root.
2.06 The Second Book of Samuel,
generally, and is not provided with the article. Ch. has we dy
ΝΠ ὃν ym πὸ ; and when the strangeness of the Hebrew ex-
pression here used is considered, it will hardly be deemed too
venturesome to regard it as a mutilated fragment of the words cited
from Ch., which were either still read here in their integrity by the
Chronicler, or (as the sense is sufficiently plain without them) were
introduced here as a gloss from the parallel text of Ch., and after-
wards became corrupted.
oben ws oy] oy as Jud. το, 11 etc. LXX add ἐνώπιον τοῦ
θεοῦτ-- ὈΠῸΝ ὉΞΡ which in 1 Ch. 13, 10 (Heb. and LXX) stands zz
place of pnbdsn 7s oy. Perhaps that was the original reading.
8. 1n4] ‘might have arisen out of 12" under the influence of
am v. 7: but comp. Tuch on Gen. 40, 67 [who observes that mn
is applied not only to anger, but to other more or less kindred
emotions, as Gen. 45, 5] and Jud. 18, 25 with 1 5. 1, 10’ (We.).
Comp. above on I 15, 11.
Np] as 2,16. LXX καὶ ἐκλήθη reading 81") (or paraphrasing).
10. ond] Cf. Wb in Jud. 4, 18. 19, 12.
ma ἸΠ2}] and turned it aside 2Σὺ the house, etc. Exactly so, Nu.
22, 23 ὙΥῚΠ Anand pmxncns oyda 7.
ὉΠ Jay] The analogy of Ay, and of the Phoenician nanwytay,
mipbnray, watay (CLS. 88, 6), powxtay (2. 103 ¢ 109), dystay
(75. 186), nado 72y (7d. 264), etc., makes it far from improbable that
DIN was the name of a dezt#y: Obed-edom was no Israelite, but a
Philistine. At the same time, this inference cannot, at least as
yet, be regarded as certain: for no independent evidence of a deity
nsx has been discovered hitherto; and though the pr. name
DINI3y occurs at Carthage (CZS. 295), it is not clear that the
second element in this is more than the Hebrew (and Phoenician)
word DIN men”.
1 Where hy, which usually denotes anger, indignation, is used of a vexed or
troubled countenance.
2 Baethgen, Beitrdge, etc., p. 10. Semitic names formed with 11» are not
necessarily compounded with the name of a deity: comp. Néldeke, in Euting’s
Nabat. Inschriften, p.32f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, iii. p. 2.
VI. 8-19. 207
13. As both We. and Keil rightly observe, the Hebrew states
only that a sacrifice was offered, when those bearing the ark had
advanced six steps: as soon, namely, as it appeared that it could be
moved from the resting-place with impunity, the sacrifice was
offered, partly as a thanksgiving that God’s anger had been ap-
peased, and partly as an inauguration of the ceremony that was to
follow. In order to express that a sacrifice was offered at every six
steps, the Hebrew would have read nat... (or p¥) ys’ ON AN
(Gen. 31, 8; Nu. 21, 9: Tenses, § 136 ὃ Obs.).
15. raw dypay myrna] Cf. Amos 2, 2 "Ew dips Ayn (of the
shout of victory): also Jos. 6, 5 for a similar combination. . 47, 6
(though the Psalm itself belongs to a much later date) appears to
be based on this verse: "pw Spa ΠῚΠ᾽ Ayna ods aby.
18, myn] collectively (comp. ὉΠ Ez. 33, 21; 337) often, etc.) :
cf. the plural, v. 17.
19. ... wNDdS] In the ἢ 1 Ch. 16, 3 the more ordinary ΔΝ
ΠΝ sy) (I 22, τῷ al.) is substituted. The idiom jy) is, however,
fully justified, not only by Ex. 11, 7; 2 Ch. 15, 13, but also by its
use in other analogous expressions, for the purpose of denoting the
terminus a quo in space or time (7, 6); see Ges. s. v. JD.
ἼΒΦΝ] The meaning of this word, which occurs besides in the
|| 1 Ch. 16, 3, is quite unknown. As Lagarde points out, so-called
‘tradition’ is here remarkably at variance with itself—(a@) LXX in
Sam. éoxapirny®, in Ch. (ἄρτον ἕνα) ἀρτοκοπικόν (Lucian κολλυρίτην Ἷ) ;
(4) Aq. Symm. duupirny*; (¢) Vulg. Sam. assaturam bubulae carnis
unam, Ch. partem assae carnis bubulae; (4) Pesh. Sam. fas
(frustum carnis®), Ch. Jeu \as (portio una); (e) Targ. Sam, nd
1 Mitthetlungen, i. (1884), p. 214.
pw probably read as ἼΣΩΝ : cf. δρέπανον for y117 113, 21; τόκος for JA
ψ. 72, 14 al., ete.
5 Or λάγανον τηγάνου But the renderings of ἼΒῸΝ and π Ὁ Ν have ap-
parently been transposed: for λάγανον ἀπὸ Tnyavov=7D ὋΝ in Samuel.
* «Vox aliunde incognita, cuius loco ἀμορίτης (- ΤΟΝ I Ch. LXX) ex
ἁμόρα (quod Hesychio est σεμίδαλις ἑφθὴ σὺν μέλιτι, Athenaeo autem μελίτωμα
πεπεμμένον) fortasse reponendum ’ (Dr. Field),
δ sin) Ez. 24, 4 (Payne Smith, 7265, s.v.).
208 The Second Book of Samuel,
sn; Ch. (late) sina xnws jo ἼΠ 255 (=a sixth part of a bullock)?;
(7) Abu’l Walid, col. 742 (Rouen gloss) > dxh3 (segmentum
carnis); (g) Rashi (in agreement with Targ. Ch.) 952 AWW INN;
(2) Kimchi "wad SAS nbn, but mentioning also as a possible expla-
nation the view of the Rabbis (Pesahzm 36>), also found in Targ.
Ch. and Rashi, that it is a compound word (N3D145 ΠΡ) signifying
“bl nwwaosnx. It is evident that these renderings are either
conjectures based upon the context, or depend upon an absurd
etymology, as though "BWN were in some way compounded of ww
and 15 and meant the sixth part of a bullock! Upon Kimchi’s
explanation are based the renderings of Seb. Miinster (1534-5),
‘frustum carnis unum ;’ and of the Geneva Bible (1560), ‘a piece
of flesh” AV. ‘a good piece (of flesh)’ depends evidently on a
combination of ΒΝ with 72Y2; but the application of the root, in
such a connexion, is questionable: granting that 7bwX=‘ something
fair,’ its employment to denote in particular ‘a fair piece of flesh’
is not a probable specialization of its meaning. Lud. de Dieu,
perceiving the impossibility of the Rabbinical etymology, en-
deavoured to reach the same general sense by a derivation from
the Ethiopic fiGd.’ safara, [0 measure, CNAGLT: masfart, measure
(Matth. 7, 2 al.), supposing \BWN to have thus denoted ‘ démensam
sacrificii ar/em unam, quantum nempe unius sextae partis, in quas
sacrificium aequaliter dividi solebat, mensura continebat.’ Ges. and
Roed. (in Zhes.) adopt the same derivation, though not limiting the
‘measure,’ as was done by De Dieu, to a particular fraction of the
sacrifice. But irrespectively of the fact pointed out by Lagarde that
Eth. fi@22= Heb. ἼΒΌ (not 15Y), the sense obtained is insufficient
and lame: between two words denoting distinctly two kinds of food,
the narrator would have placed a word denoting simply ‘a measure’
—‘a cake of bread, a measure, and a cake of raisins’—both the
amount, and the nature, of the substance measured being left unde-
fined, Under such circumstances, it is wisest to acknowledge that
1 Cf. the marg. of the Reuchl. Cod. (Lagarde, p. xix. 3) 8T1NA NNW 1 10.
2 Cf. in the Michlol Vophi (Dan. 4, 24) Joy Ww? 95D 7 TH’ PIT I" 7IN,
VT, 20-22. 209
we do, not know what the word means, and cannot propose for it
a plausible etymology’.
20. ἜΗΙ Upon analogy of the construction with the finite verb,
this would be the 271. ads. which is actually sometimes written with
n, as NinW Is. 22, 13; nibs Hos. το, 4; MY Hab. 3, 13 (Konig,
Ρ. 536): for the form of the 7#f ads. with 3, cf. NIP (1, 6), ΟΣ
(I 20,6), ἢ3), εἰς. Ewald, however, § 240°,supposes the nf. abs.to have
passed into the z7f. c. by a species of attraction, under the influence
of the preceding 5; and this is not, perhaps, impossible. Ol., p. 600,
Stade, p. 343, suspect an error of transcription. It is, however, to
be observed that though the 27/ ads. follows the finite verb—espe-
cially in the imperative, and of course, also, though the instances
are not numerous, in the impf. with “1 conv.—it does not appear
to occur elsewhere in combination with the 77. esfr. snvdaa nda
occurs ; but whether rips ἜΣ would actually have been said in
preference to nia rib373 (whether the -o/t be explained with
K6nig as due to assonance®, or with Ewald to attraction) is more
than can be positively affirmed.
ΡΠ] So Jud. 9, 4. 11, 3. (LXX τῶν ὀρχουμένων =DIP1N.)
21. mn 250] LXX ‘Before Jehovah well I dance! Blessed be
Jehovah, who hath chosen,’ etc., which is adopted by Th. We.; and
it is true that a scribe’s eye might readily have passed by error
from the first ΠῚ" to the second. However, the two clauses
Ties τα ΒΟ and” s2E5 ‘NPN, which are parallel in thought,
would, with this reading, be interrupted by a sentence introducing
a different idea (Blessed be J., who etc.). Probably, therefore, it is
better to adopt only 7278 after ”” "5d from LXX, and to suppose
that Blessed be Jehovah is a rhetorical addition made by them.
22. The verse is difficult. (2) Ew. We.: ‘and I am too slight
1 Ewald, Hist. 111. 173 (E. T. 127), suggests that it may be formed from 1b¥%}
Ξ τῷ and renders voast meat ; but Fw is not 20 roast but ¢o consume by fire;
and David would surely have desired to offer his subjects something better than
burnt meat !
2 So also Bo. ii. 227: and before him Maurer (ap. Then.), ‘ inf. abs. pro 7523,
ut paronomasiam faciat cum praecedenti nan.’
Ve
210 The Second Book of Samuel,
even for this (even to dance before J.),and am humble in mine own
eyes; and with the handmaids whom thou hast spoken of, with
them should I get me honour?’ David says that he is unworthy
even to play and dance before J., and the opinion which the
maidservants may entertain of him is of no consequence. (6) AV.
Kp. RV. (substantially): ‘and I will deal lightly with myself, even
more than this (more than I have done to-day), and will be humble
in mine eyes; and with the handmaids, etc., with them may I get
me honour!’ Michal’s taunt that he had degraded himself in the
eyes of the maidservants, David says, is unfounded: he might
humble himself yet more deeply, and they would still, he feels sure,
continue to honour him'. py wzth=before, in the sight of, almost
=in the judgement of. nN ἼΩΝ, cf. on I 24,5. poy... DY, the
resumption for the sake of emphasis, exactly as with nw Dt. 13, 1.
Is. 8, 13; JO Lev. 25,44; Ξ Ez. 18,24 al. (Zenses, § 125 Οὐ 5.
The cohor?. AIDIN expresses a desire or hope, not a certain fact
(I shall be held in honour, AV. RV.).
23. nb mn ΝΟ, εν S051] vd resumes baby, as poy resumes py
in v. 23, but in an wmemphatic position, and merely for the
purpose of lightening the sentence: see on I 9g, 20.
9b) Kt.] ie. 701, as Gen. 11, 30%. If dependence can be placed
on two isolated passages, and both are not rather due to an
accidental error of } for‘, the primitive form with } (35, OAL: )
will have not entirely fallen out of use in Hebrew. The Qri is the
normal 12).
7. Nathan's prophecy to David. David's thanksgiving
and prayer.
Chr αι ΟΠ τὴ
7, 1. yx 5s app 155 ὉΠ] A Deuteronomic expression:
Dt. 12, 10. 25, 19. Jos. 23, 1 (in a section of Joshua belonging
1 Keil gives to oy the sense ¢ogether with, supposing clause ὁ to mean that
David, together with the handmaids, would be honoured, se. before Jehovah.
But in this case, the emphasis on ¢ogether with (which is repeated) would be
unexplained, and the most important thought of the verse would not be ex-
pressed in the Hebrew.
VI. 23—VII. 11. 211
to the Deuteronomic editor): cf. asap “> man Jos. 21, 42. 1 Ki.
5, 18.
2. AYN] collectively, as mdiyn 6,18: int Ch. 17, 1 my (We.).
3. Ja2ba ws 55] I 9, 19. 14,7: cf. also 2, 35 (2253 “wNd),
and 2 Ki. τὸ, 30.
5. «+e FINN] shouldest thou...? Chron., explicitly, ans xb.
6. ny] So, with infin., Jud. 19, 30. Is.7, 17%. ... WN OYA nb
Dali Τὴ ..32. 0.7. Jer. 7, 25. 92, 40. Has, 2, 88]: Comp, on
19, 25.
yoann mnNi] expressing forcibly the idea of continuance.
7. ay] Read, with 1 Ch. 17, 6, OEY, There is no indication
of any /rzje having been commissioned to govern Israel. Keil,
objecting that, had ‘Maw stood originally in this passage, the
substitution of '»3¥% would be inexplicable, does not sufficiently
allow for the acczdenfal confusion of letters,—a confusion against
which even the best-preserved text is not invariably proof: I 14, 18
Keil himself is not unwilling to accept 1295 instead of MT. *22.
8. man] See on 15, 25.
“nxi| ‘The very rare DON (instead of "nND, cf. 1 Ch. 17, 7
[ΠΝ 1) is remarkably confirmed, just for the present passage, by
Ψ. 18, 7τ ἸΠΌΤΣ Syawsay wy apyya mynd wean mby anny’ (We,).
g>. ‘nwyi] The prophet here turns to the future.
«buoy after ny is absent rightly in LXX, and 1 Ch. 17, 8; for it
weakens the force of the following words, out of which it might
easily have arisen’ (We.).
ro. YAN |=z zs place: cf. Is. 25, 10. 46, 7; Zech. 12, 6 (Klo.).
nbyy 22} 3, 34, and in the citation y. 89, 23 (123) xd πον 13).
ΤΙ: ἼΩΙ ἡ is not expressed in LXX; both the sentence and the
sense are improved by its omission: ‘shall no more afflict it as
aforetime from the day when I appointed judges,’ etc. As the text
stands, the reference in ro? will be to the sufferings of Egypt; but
this is a thought alien to the context, in which rather the blessings
secured by the settled government of David are contrasted with the
attacks to which Israel was exposed during the period of the
Judges.
212 The Second Book of Samuel,
ΣΝ ΟΞ 75 ΠῚ] Ew. We. vax-5a0 1b nnn, ‘and I will
give it rest from all its enemies, in better agreement with the
context,
11>, Here Nathan comes to the main subject of his prophecy—
the promise relating not to David himself, but to his poséerdty,
and the declaration that it is not David who will build a house for
Jehovah, but Jehovah who will du/d a house (i.e. a family) for
David.
12. Po why "5] Before "5, LXX here and 1 Ch. 17, 11 express
mm}, which has fallen out after min’ at the end of v. 11.
Tyod Ny! WN] τό, τι. Gen. 15, 41.
13-15. Though v. 13 was fulfilled by Solomon, the terms are
general—even in this verse Ni points back not to 733 but to Jy
—and the reference is to the me of David’s descendants, of which
it is said that if, in the person of any of its individual members, it
commits iniquity it will be punished, as men in general are punished,
but Jehovah’s favour will not be withdrawn from it permanently, as
it was withdrawn from Saul. Hence v.16 the promise of perpetuity
is conferred upon it. Comp. 1 Ki. 2, 4. p. 89, 31-38. 132, 12,
where the terms of Nathan’s prophecy are expressly interpreted of
David’s sons’.
14. 0) DWIN Hwa] i.e. with punishments such as all men incur
when they sin, and from which the seed of David will not be
exempted. Comp. the poetical paraphrase, Ψ. 89, 31-34.
15. 1D! nd] LXX and 1 Ch. 17, 13, more pointedly : DN nd.
sade snvpn ws Siw py ompn awa] LXX here ἼΦΝΘ
ΒΟ nn wed snp: Ch. spd 7 “WND ONDA AWN.
1 V. 13 is in any case parenthetic, even if it be not, as We. supposes (2 2721.
1878, p. 223),a subsequent insertion in the prophecy. Elsewhere in the promise
house has the sense of ‘ family’ (vv. 11. 16: and so vv. 18. 19. 25. 26. 27. 29),
and the point of the whole prophecy is not that Solomon rather than David is
to be the builder of the house for Jehovah, but (as stated above) that it is not
David who is to build a house for J., but J. who will build a house for David.
V. 14 ff. describe how David’s descendants will be dealt with in such a manner
as to give effect to this promise; and the reference to the maszerial temple in
v. 13 interferes with the just sequence of the thought.
a ον
VIT, 11-22. 212
τ
The repetition of "ΠῚ is not an elegancy, and the non-mention
of Saul’s name would seem certainly to be original: on these
grounds Berth. and We. both prefer the reading of Chronicles.
16. pnd] LXX Bd ; cf. vv. 26. 29; and y. 89, 37>.
19. 5x] with reference to, as I 3, 12.
pind] from afar, i.e. long before the history of ἼΩΝ ΓΔ was
completed: comp. 2 Ki. 19, 25 (=Is. 37, 26). ‘It was not enough
in Thine eyes to honour me: Thy regard extends also to my
house, and even in view of the distant future 1
own nn nan] As the text stands, the best explanation is that
of Hengstenberg and Keil: ‘and this is the law for men,’ i. 6. to
evince such regard for me is in accordance with the law prescribed
by God to regulate men’s dealings with one another (not as Kp.);
displayed by God, therefore, it argues unwonted condescension and
affection. (‘This is the manner—mos, consuetudo—of men,’ Ges.
Th., gives to AN a sense which it never has, and which would
rather be expressed by 52.) But Hengst.’s explanation is
somewhat artificial: and it is doubtful if the text is correct. Ch.
has nbyon O3N7A N35 NN, which is more obscure than the text
here, and indeed cannot be intelligibly construed. We., following
a suggestion of Ewald’s, Hz. iii. 180 (E.T. 132), would read "38771
DIN ΠΟΣῚ ‘and hast let me see the generations of men’ (i.e. given
me a glimpse into the fortunes of my descendants). Klo.’s ex-
traordinary suggestion is, of course, quite out of the question.
21. ΠΟΥ] The word does not occur besides except in late
Hebrew (1 Ch. 29, Esther, ψ. 71. 145). .The meaning of the
expression ‘done αἱ this greatness’ is here (unlike v. 23) obscure ;
and the verse is certainly improved by the transposition proposed
by Reifmann: nxin ΠΟΥ ΠΟΘ ΠΝ ray mx yynd «for thy servant’s
sake, and according to thine heart hast thou done, to make thy
servant know all this greatness’ (MWY absol., as Is. 48, 11 al.).
22. pos min] ‘This stands in Ch. everywhere for mim "ἽΝ of
1 Not, as Keil, ‘hast spoken... of that which is far future, for though ὃ
may =of, p17 cannot be a subst.=70 μέλλον.
214 The Second Book of Samuel,
our text: here and v. 25 it has found its way into this as well,
5. ἢ 1 Ὁ, 21: τῇ pnb (We),
23. Geiger (Urschrift, p. 288) and We., partly following LXX
and 1 Ch. 14, 21, suppose the original text to have been: ἼΘΙ. D1
myydy ow sd ows pyd 15 nysad ὈΠῸΝ ὉΠ ἼΩΝ pasa ans 1 Sew
yabsy "3 fay saa wasb mana nding ond, «On the one hand,
the reference being to heathen gods, the sing. son was changed to
the pl. ΟΠ; on the other hand, a difficulty was found even in
supposing that another god had chosen and done great things for
a nation, and all was referred back again to the true God, hence
> ow in Ch. while Sam. has preserved 15, hence also oad and
qyvind in Sam., Joy with the addition n»yn (75) np wwe [based
on 5 mypd just above] in both, and finally, as not one nation
merely but several were driven out before Israel, O% for ‘v3, which,
however, is not certain in the case of Sam. [on account of the
suff. in yds] (Geig.). It will be observed that while the question
itself implies a reference to false gods, the terms in which it is put
allude covertly to what had been done by the true God: hence the
endeavour to accommodate them to it, if possible, explicitly. As
regards the changes in detail, yon for 125n is strongly supported
by the %5 following?: ond and wid are both imperative—the
former, because a word addressed to /srae/ is here out of place,
the latter (as Chr.) in order to restore ‘35 to its right [defore in
AV. RV. gives to 9512 the sense of 285 or »»yd!], main Ady
is a combination as indifferent in style as midmany rw in I 18, 6
(in support of the restored text see Dt. 10, 21: also Ψ. 71, 19.
106, 21), and the enallage of numbers in yds DM is alien to the
practice of Hebrew prose. As regards the other expressions in
the verse, with the opening question, comp. Dt. 4, 7. 34; with
1 LXX ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν τε 55 has nothing to recommend it, and does not
harmonize with the following ΠῚ 185.
? In 25% the sense of 1 is never lost: Lev. 19, 32 ΡΠ Maw "28 not
merely to rise up 2 the presence of (115) the hoary head, but to rise up from
before it, out of respect for it; Is. 26, 17 72D 137 73 so were we—not 772,
Ραυϊ---ἰλγοιο Thy presence.
VII. 23—VITI. 2. 215
ow > nw Jer. 32,20; 15, 69, τῶν; 14h; Neh. 9, ro; Dan.
9, 15 (all with mwy: for ow cf. ch. 14, 7); and with yap wis Ex.
54, 1. JOS, 24,18. ee 78; 55:
28.,..Ni7 MN] Is. 37,16. 43, 25. Ψ. 44, 5 al. (Zenses, § 200).
nas] ¢ruthfulness,—the abstract subst., instead of the adj.: so
v.19, 10 (2. καὶ 189. 2).
29. ἽΠΞ 22] jo = through, from, in consequence of: Ges. Thes.
803", Is. 28, 7 arp wd.
8. Summary of David's wars; and list of his ministers. (Close
of the history of David’s public doings: comp. I 14, 47-51 of
Saul.)
Οὐ. ΘΙΞΞ τ Chrss:
8, I. MONA 3nd ΓΝ] Probably ‘the bridle of the mother-city’
(so Ges. Ke. Stade), i. 6. the authority of the metropolis or capital,
oN has the sense of mother-city, or capital, in Phoenician;
see the coins figured in Ges. Jesaza, i. p. 755 (= Aonum. Phoen.,
Tab. 34 N; p. 262) py ox qd; Tab. 35 [255 ox ΝΟ ΝΟ of
Laodicea, a mother-ci/y in Canaan: and the fem. MN appears to
be used here similarly. 3n drzd/e, metaph. of authority, juris-
diction ; cf. in Arabic the use of Ae) a nose-rein, bridle: Schultens,
on Job 30, 11 (quoted by Ges. s.v. DN), cites from Hest. Tam.
[II. 228 Mangey | ΑΝ wre holding the bridle of those
(countries), with other exx.; see also Lane, Arad. Lex. p. 1249.
For an explanation of the manner in which 1 Ch. 18, τ AYN) NI
may have arisen from the text of Samuel, see We.
2. bana] On the art., see on I 19, 13; and on the fem. ‘7n}, on
bayer.
22) ] The inf. abs., defining ow David ‘measured’ them, as
I 3, 12; Ew. § 2803,
mn) Cf. τ Ki. 5,1. The word denotes properly ὦ present,—
in different applications. As a sacrificial term, of the particular gift
known as the ‘meal-offering:’ in a connexion such as the present,
of gifts offered to a prince or other person, whose good-will it is
desired to secure, whether voluntarily (Gen. 32, 14. 43, 15. 2 Ki.
216 The Second Book of Samuel,
8, 8), or as something expected or exacted (as here), so that it
nearly = ¢rzbule.
3. MytIn| LXX Αδρααζαρ: some MSS. also tytn. That
ἜΝ ὙΠ is right ‘appears from a recently found Aramaic seal with
the inscription syn, in which 4 and are clearly distinguished 1
Comp. also the Assyrian equivalent (Schrader, Δ 4 7. p. 201) Dad-
*7drt, and the ἢ. pr. ὙἼΠΠ|2. Hadad was the name of a Syrian deity,
though little is known respecting the attributes attached to him.
This name, therefore, (as pointed) will signify Hadad zs help: cf.
“1 Fah is help, and WPS. The vocalization of LXX would
suggest the form WTI (like DBVIMN, etc.) Hadad helpeth.
‘3. Ὁ ΠΟ] The phrase is difficult, and affords no satisfactory
sense. 5y 3) 3’ means to turn one hand agaznst (Am. τῷ 9
y. 81, 15), and though “3 5) awn might have a similar sense, this
would not suit with the object 1992. And though Ἵν in itself might
be used metaph.=dominzon, 1" Jw certainly could not express
the idea ‘ recover his dominion :’ for wn with 5° would suggest
not the idea of regazning, restoring, but simply of bringing back,
with which the mefaphorical sense of 1° would not harmonize.
Hence it is best to read with Ch. 19° a°¥n5 Zo sfablish his hand,—
a phrase in which, from the nature of the verb 2ym, 4° would
naturally be understood in the sense of power, dominion. The
subject will be Hadad‘ezer.
7792] (Kt. 1933) ‘by the River,’ sc. κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, i. 6. the Euphrates
(see 10, 16; so e.g. Gen. 31, 31. Ψ. 72, 8—always in this sense
with a capital R in RV.). The Qri 13 1932 agrees with LXX here
and with 1 Ch. 18, 3.
5. > a1y5] as 21, 17; and frequently with the same verb in
late books (especially Chronicles).
Pe by] = ὃν (on I 13, 13). Not shat belonged to: 5x is not used
in the sense of 5.
7», 8b, On the additions here in LXX, see We.
1 Baethgen, Bedtrige etc., p.67; Euting, Berichte der Berl. Akad. 1885,
p. 679.
VITI. 3-13. 217
8. Π 3.1] Ch. nnayei—and this order of consonants is sup-
ported by LXX here ἐκ τῆς MaoBak. Cf. Gen. 22, 24.
9. yn] Ch. yn, as also LXX (@ovov), the more probable form
philologically. The termination 4- characterizes many Semitic
proper names, especially of the tribes bordering on Canaan (e. g.
in Nabataean, sxy3, 193, vonds, 15, etc.): cf. in OT. wwa the
‘Arabian.’ It is the Arabic nominative termination (cf. p. 15).
ro, ony] Ch. p07, supported, at least in part, by LXX here
(Ἰεδδουραν).
‘yn mond wx] ‘a man-of-battles of Toi’=a man engaged often
in conflict with Toi: for the construction, comp. Gen. 14, 13 bya
pias na; Is. 41,12 ἽΠΠΟΙ. wx; ch. 23, 1 Sw nyo DY;
and see Ew. ὃ 291%. LXX appears to express 7 nin we 9
ἜΝ πο ; but mondo wx (iss 423553: Ὁ Chi 28; 3) is merely a
warrior, not an antagonist.
12. DoND] LXX, Pesh. here, and Ch. 298. From the fact that
the conquest of Edom has not yet been mentioned, it is probable
that DIN is right: cf. v. 6. The order, however, favours DAN.
13. DY.,.wyn] Cf. Gen. τα, 4 ov 125 mwyn, where Delitzsch
argues that ny, from the context, requires a more concrete sense
than ‘name,’ and would render—in accordance with the supposed
primary meaning of ow, something ον, conspicuous —‘ monument,
comparing the present passage (as also Is. 56, 5. 55, 13) for a
similar sense. But whatever the primz/ive meaning of DY, it is in
actual usage so largely and constantly ‘name,’ even in conjunction
with mwy (see the references on 7, 23), that it is difficult to think
that it can have a different sense here. It is safest, therefore, to
render ‘gat him a name,’ comparing the similar phrase Sn wy
used of Saul, I 14, 48. It will be observed that in the text as
emended (see the following note) ny wy is connected with
David’s victory (either over Edom, or over Syria), not as in MT.
with his re/urn after the victory, when his ‘fame’ would have been
already made, and the erection of a monument to commemorate it
might have been rather supposed to be referred to.
προ N22 ΠΝ ΤΙΝ ἘΠῚ ΠΩ 202] Ch. DINAN FD AMY 12. ΣΝ
218 The Second Book of Samuel,
nbn ΝΣ; Ψ. 60 “ile ΤΡ 32 ὈΥΊΝ ΤΙΝ ΤῊ ANY WM. DIN (sup-
ported also by LXX, Pesh. here) is unquestionably the true reading
before nbn δὰ : for this valley was in Edom (see 2 Ki. 14, 7),
and far from the scene of the Syrians’ defeat. Even, however, with
DOIN for oN, the text is still defective: for v.14 presupposes a
postive statement of the victory over Edom in v. 13, and not merely
a notice of what David did when he re/urned from smiting it. Keil
would read nbn δ DINTNS J DINTNN ἸΠΊΣΠ 1w3, supposing
the three words added to have dropped out through the (virtual)
homoioteleuton: We. prefers to read with LXX "nx 727 wd)
noon x bts, which does not, however, account so well for the
existing text ((MI2N for mDn). In any case, as We. observes, 514
here is more original than either Joab (y.) or Abishai (Ch.); for
throughout the summary which this chapter contains everything is
ascribed to David personally, and aw 515 wy) immediately precedes.
For mony, here and Ch., wy. 60, 2 has pow.
ΤΠ: MWY «3 ΠῚ) Ch e Ki ιν τ 24, and om I 2) am
17. ἽΝ ΤΙΣ Fons] Read with Pesh. Fooyny-73 onvaN. Abiathar
is mentioned defore David’s accession as priest: he is mentioned
also during David’s reign and at the beginning of Solomon’s reign
as priest ; and though it is no doubt possible, as Keil suggests, that
for some temporary cause, such as sickness, his place might have
been taken by his son, it is not likely that in a formal and official
list of David’s ministers, his name should be superseded by that of
his son. It is, indeed, not impossible that the transposition in the
text was made intentionally: see We.’s note. 1 Ch. 24, 3. 6. 31
(where Akzmelech is named by the side of Zadoq) are probably
dependent upon this passage, afer the original reading had become
corrupted. Most modern scholars accept the correction.
mw] LXX ’Aca In 20, 25 Kt. nw, Qri 8IY (LXX Ἰησοῦο),
τ Ch. 18, 16 δ} (LXX "Inoods), 1 Ki. 4, 3 NWW (LXX Σαβα).
mow is the form least attested of all: some such word as nww
seems to be the most original, though the vocalization must
remain a matter of uncertainty.
18. ΠῚ] For }, read as in Ch. and the parallel passage ch.
VILL. 15-18. 219g
20; 23 by, On the name, comp. on I 30, 14. The body-guard
of sndamy ‘naan (who are mentioned, under this title, only during
the reign of David: ch. 15, 18. 20, 7. 23 Qri [see note], 1 Ki. 1,
38. 44) must have been composed of foreigners. ‘N77 is in form
a gentile noun, so that even on this ground alone a connexion with
nan Δ cut off would be doubtful. ynbp can only be another
gentile name; it does not, however, occur except in this phrase, so
that what nationality is denoted by it must remain uncertain. The
supposition that it is contracted from nwdp, though it has found
some support from modern scholars, is not in accordance with
philological analogy.
on72| The Chronicler, unable to understand how any could be
priests except sons of Aaron, paraphrases (1 Ch. 18, 17) DWNT
ybon 15; but the sense of j72 is so uniform in Hebrew, that it is
next to impossible to think that it can have expressed, to those who
heard it, any idea but that which grzes¢ would convey to us. There
is no trace of the word having connoted any merely secular office :
in Phoenician, Aramaic, and Ethiopic it has the same meaning as
in Hebrew: in Arabic the corresponding word means a soothsayer.
The etymology of }73 is uncertain. To say that it is derived
‘from a root meaning 20 serve or minister’ (Kp.) suggests an in-
correct idea: in Hebrew the root (in Qal) does not occur at all; in
Arabic it means 20 give oracles. It has been thought possible that
it may be a by-form of ἢ (cf. bn beside bn; Aram. N32 beside
wia), and hence may mean properly one who sands up with an
affair, manages, administers 11 (Fleischer, apf. Delitzsch on Is. 61,
10), or one who séands before Jehovah in serving Him (Stade,
Gesch. Isr. i. 471). But these opinions have only the value of
1 119, however, does not itself zea ‘to stand ;’ to judge from its derivatives,
it must have meant 20 be established firmly, to subsist : in Phoen. Arab. Ethiop.,
in a weaker sense, ¢o exzst, be (for which in these languages it is the term in
ordinary use, as 7°74, NIT are in Heb. and Aram.). In Syr. the adj. τοῦ
and subst, hetteds5 have the sense of prosperous, prosperity, opulence, etc.
(Ξ εὐθηνῶν, κατευθύνων Jer. 15,11; εὐθηνία, εὐημερία, εὐπραγία) : which Fleischer
seeks, with questionable success, to connect with the supposed root meaning
to stand (as though properly ‘ wolbestellt,’ ‘ Wolstand ’).
220 The Second Book of Samuel,
conjectures. Whatever be the ultimate etymology of the term, it
was so limited by usage as to denote one who exercised certain
sacred offices, whom we should term a ‘frzes¢” The term recurs,
in the same application, 20, 26. 1 Ki. 4, 51.
What relation, however, did these o'3n3 bear to the n'3n3 of v.17?
Were both sacrificing priests? From 20, 26 (4195 yma mn), τ Ki.
4, 5 (oon ΠΡ j73), it may be inferred that they stood in some
special relation to the king. Were they ‘domestic priests’ (Ew.
ffist. iii. 367 [E.T. 268]), or did they represent the king at public
religious ceremonies? In Egypt, we are told’, the king’s responsible
advisers were chosen from among the priests; and Delitzsch® sup-
poses that the office here referred to was one to which members
of the priesthood had the first claim, but which was sometimes
conferred upon others, of good family, but not of priestly descent.
But in Egypt the king’s advisers were priests: is it probable that,
in a newly-established monarchy, a title should have been adopted
denoting a minister by a qualification which he did not possess?
The term jn3 could hardly have been applied to a minister who
was not a priest, unless, by long usage of priests who acted
specially as ministers, it had come to denote the mon-priestly
duties discharged by them, and could thus be applied to persons
other than priests, to whom the same duties were entrusted *.
§—20 [with the sequel in 1 Ki. 1—2]. Hestory of evenis in
David's court life, shewing how Amnon, Absalom, and Adoniyah
Jailed in turn to secure the succession: viz. 9 Mephibosheth (see
1 The Arab. and Heb. senses of 5 have a meeting-point in the early function
of the Hebrew ‘ priest’ to g’ve answers by the Ὁ Ὁ ΠῚ Ὁ ΛΝ, or the 11x (I 30,
7f.etc.; also Jud. 18, 4-6), as well as to pronounce authoritative decisions (πτ π)
on cases submitted to him. Comp. Kuenen, AWzbdert Lectures, 1882, pp. 66,
81-87; Wellhausen, Skz2zen wnd Vorarbeiten, iii (on primitive Arabian insti-
tutions), 1887, pp. 130, 132f.; and the Zzcycl. Brit. (ed. 9), 5. v. Priest, p. 727.
2 Diod. Sic. i. 73; Wilkinson-Birch, Manners and Customs of the Ancient
Lgyptians (1878), i. 168.
3 Zeitschr. fiir kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben, 1880, p. 63.
* Notice in 20, 26 the words ‘and a/so, which likewise imply that Ira, as
‘ priest,’ stood on no different footing from the 0°27) of Ὁ. 25.
VIII. 18—X. 5. 221
16, 1-53; 19, 25-31); 1O—12 she war with Ammon (shewtng
how David became acquainted with Bathsheba, and narrating
the birth of Solomon) ; 18 circumstances which led to the murder
of Amnon; 14—19 rebellion and death of Absalom; 20 revolt
of Sheba (an incident springing out of the revolt of Absalom)'.
9, 1. ‘3n] Gen. 29, 15. Comp. on ch. 23, 19.
3. ods ton] Cf.” 4pm I 20, 14.
ἡ. pas Sew] “ΟΕ, poo 13 Ὁ. of, ΟΝ 12 nwIDD 19, 25. Πατρὸς
πατρός σου of LXX here has the same value as their vids υἱοῦ Σαουλ
ΤῸ; 25: NOD ΔΝ "AN does not occur, though naturally it would
be no impossible combination’ (We.). |
Silty sD Pia nb) 2 Ba. 8.15:
109 WN] “WN in a phrase of this sort is idiomatic: Gen. 44,
15; Jer. 5, 9(=5, 29. 9, 8). 393 alone would read baldly.
11>, The words are unsuited to the mouth of Ziba: the ptcp.
will not permit the rendering of AV., ‘As for M., sazd the king,
he shall eat,’ etc.—to say nothing of the awkward and improbable
position for such a remark on the part of David, after Ziba in 114
has signified his assent. LXX for »snbw express NI "που, and
render 228 ἤσθιεν, With this reading, which is adopted by Keil
and We., the words are a remark of the narrator: ‘and M. aé αἱ
the king’s table, as one of the sons of the king.’ We. indeed
observes that they are even then out of place, anticipating v. 13:
however, v. 13 states the new fact that Mephibosheth dwelt at
Jerusalem, his eating at the king’s table being merely referred to
as the ground of his residence there.
Ch, 10=1% Ch. τὸ:
ΠΟ ΠΥ Tae) Gen τ, Τῇ 2 ἢν SMSND ON ADSDN:
Nu. 11, 29 Ὁ Ans ΡΠ: Zenses, § 135. 4.
Br ah) See. on 17,22.
1 The sequel to this group of chapters is 1 Ki. 1—2, which has every appear-
ance—except in the verses 2, 3-4 which must have been added by the Deuter-
onomic compiler of the Book of Kings—of being by the same hand, and which
narrates the failure of David’s ‘47rd son Adonijah to secure the throne, and the
confirmation of Solomon as his father’s successor.
222 The Second Book of Samuel,
7. ONIN Nayn] ‘the host, (even) the mighty men.’ A case of
apposition. LXX πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν τοὺς δυνατούς.
9. nnn] ΠΌΠΟΙ ssp being treated as a collective: comp. Job
16, τό Kt. ΠΡ ΘΠ 25: and see on I 4, 15.
Syawia sna] See on 1, 21. The combination is, however,
unusual in prose: Jud. 8, 11 odaxa own is very strange. True,
as Th. remarks, it is sore admissible here than it would be in I 26,
2: but no doubt 1 Ch. 19, 10 preserves the original reading bo
beara 372. The Massorah corrects Ssaw sna S99, which is
read also by many MSS.; but the 3 is supported by the text of
Ch.: see also ch. 6, 1.
14. by | Jrom attacking: 2 Ki. 3, 27 poy wb; 18,14 aw
yp. See I 28, 15 foot-note.
τό. “1y797]| Both here and in cA. 8 there is great confusion and
variation in the MSS. between 71y95" and yas". Here MS.
authority preponderates in favour of ὙΠ, as in ch. 8 it prepon-
derated in favour of “1y957. The name must evidently be the
same throughout. Both in Inscriptions (Phoen. and Hebrew) and
in MSS. 4 and \ are often not distinguishable, and only the
context enables the reader to know which is intended. For the
reason stated on 8, 3, the correct form is here, doubtless, ἍΝ) ΤΠ.
nbn] Taken rightly by LXX, Pesh. Targ. as a pr. n., written
ondn ΠῚ 7... Τῆς
18. ΔΒ] Probably a dapsus εαϊαηιΐ for WN: cf. 1 Ch. 19, 18
9 we. The number of /orsemen is disproportionately large.
Ch. 11, 1=1 Ch. 20, 14 (ch, 11, 2—12, 25 is passed by in Ch.).
11 τ. paxbpn] =n bon: comp. 10, 17 beside 16; and p. 133
Soot-nole.
3. yaw-ns] 1 Ch. 3, 5 yyw-n3, no doubt to be pronounced sywe-na,
and probably merely an error for yaw-na. LXX has everywhere
the strange corruption Βηρσαβεε.
ΡΝ] in τ Ch. 3, 5 Syxy, which (We.) supports MT. against
LXX ’E)taB.— 98" Sc. WIN (on I τό, 4).
4. “ἢ nwapny xm] A circumstantial clause, defining the state of
Bath-sheba at the time of ADy Aaw=‘ as she purified herself from
X. γ--Χ } 16. 223
her uncleanness’ (cf. 13, 8). This is the only rendering of the
words consistent with grammar. To express, ‘and when she was
purified etc., she returned ..., the Hebrew would have been
avin... BIPNM, or (Jud. 18, 3 etc.) AI NN, ,, WNT wD;
oar
:
in other words, to express anything swbseguent to MY IBY, a finite
verb, not the ptcp., would have been employed. The athnah is
thus in its right place (against Th. We.)'. Comp. Zenses, § 169 note.
6. nby any bw... nd | ‘Without “x, as 19, 15, cf. Nu.
23, 7 before nad’ (We.).
8. bon nxwy] Comp. Gen. 43, 34.
11. ‘m2 5s NaN ὈΝΊ]ΞΞ΄ and shall I enter into my house ?’ etc.,
the juxtaposition of two incongruous ideas, aided by the tone in
which the words are pronounced, betokening surprise, and so
suggesting a question. So not unfrequently, as Jer. 25, 29 BONN)
‘pI PIM. 45, δ. 49, 12 API Apo Nin vn. Jon. 4, rz Nd ww
DINK. Ez. 20, 31 pod wins oN). 35, 25. Jud. 14, 16> Tas 7b.
Zech, 8, 6. ch: 15, 20. Comp. on I 11, 12 and οἷ. 18, 20.
qwp) "ΠῚ pn] This form of the oath does not occur elsewhere,
and the tautology implied makes it improbable. LXX for ‘Jn πῶς;
= 7S. ‘ But thus absolutely, as it seems, ἢ δὲ could at most stand—
at least that is the case in Arabic—when what here is placed before
at the beginning of the verse followed as a circumstantial clause
with}. Either, therefore, read for 7'n, min ‘Nn [followed by Jw53 "ΠῚ,
as I 20, 3. 25, 26al.], or omit JW) "ΠῚ as an explanatory gloss on
the uncommon }'n’ (We.).
12. Man] ‘and om the morrow’ (not as Th.: see Lev. 7, 16).
A specification of time is, however, desiderated in v. 13 for $b xp;
and as even in MT. the promise qn5wx “nn is not carried out by
David, it is better to end v. 12 at NINA OD: NPY MANDY will
then begin 2. 13 (‘1 as I 4, 20). So We.: also LXX (Luc.) and Pesh.
τό. bx... Ww] Comp. (in a freendly sense) I 26, 15.
1 ΠΝ Ὁ is explained rightly by Lucian ἐξ ἀφέδρου αὐτῆς, Pesh. ὁμαθ 9 ee
(see Lev. 15, 19. 20. 25 LXX and Pesh.): Rashi 4n739. For a probable
explanation of the ground of the remark, see W. R. Smith, Azzship and
Marriage in Early Arabia (1885), p. 276.
224 The Second Book of Samuel,
17. Dyn [2] partitively: Ὁ: 24. Ex. 16, 27.
10. nat] preceded by its object: comp. Dt. 28, 56. Lev. 19, 9,
and the Aramaic examples cited in Zenses, ὃ 208. 3 Obs.
21. nv] For 5yaav. Unlike Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth,
however, the correction in this case has been made only in a
single passage.
22. anv indy ἜΣ ΝΟ. ΠΝ] LXX continues ἐ ΠΌΠΟΙ Ὁ 1.55 ns
sib ondnd ὙΠ Ss one nnd qedon $y sox aay Sy syd ann
sida yaw 5 ἼΩΝ ns nono enna byp 92 WN NN onyy
Sy pone nod pana non aninn Syp ao nba ydy anden now
(v. 23) 3) WON : ΠΙῚΠΠ : in other words, the text of LXX describes
in detail how what Joab anticipated vv. 21-2 took place. The
addition is a necessary one: for as the text stands, the terms
in which the messenger speaks in v. 238 are unexplained (notice
especially his opening words, Because etc., which presuppose a
question to have been asked).
23. omdy m3] ‘appears to be correct. Comp. e.g. the use of
ma with “ns I 12, 14. Ex. 23, 2: the stress rests upon the
preposition, the idea of which it is simply the purpose of ΠῚ to
render verbal’ (We.).
25. min In nN... yyy] mn 1257, though grammatically
a nominative, is construed κατὰ σύνεσιν as an accusative. Comp.
I 20, 13 (if 3" be read); Jos. 22,17; Neh. 9, 32: Ew. αὶ 2774 end.
ma) m3] So Jud. 18, 4. 1 Ki. 14, st.
wMpim] ‘and strengthen—i.e. encourage (Dt. 1, 38 al.)—him,’
sc. Joab. Th. strangely and needlessly alters the text.
27. ΠΒΌΝ] DN as Jos. 2, 18 ANN TON ‘BONA; Jud. 19, 15
(Piel).
152, 2. wy] wry would be expected.
3. MO] and kept alive: Ex.1, 17.18. 1 Ki. 18, 5.
“ἢ 5 ΝῊ] The impff. expressing significantly its hadzz.
4. VOY WIN? ] The punctuation (for WN?) is anomalous. Comp.
on I 6, 18; and Ew. ὃ 293%.
6. onyaww] LXX ἑπταπλασίονα Dnyay, in all probability the
original reading. As Th. remarks, David speaking impulsively is
XI. 17—X IT. 23. 225
more likely to have used the proverbial ‘ sevenfold’ (cf. Prov. 6, 31),
than to have thought of the law Ex. 21, 37: ΤΙΣῚΝ will be due
to a corrector who noticed the discrepancy.
7». Observe the emphatic %33N: compare-——likewise in a re-
proach—Amos 2, 9. Io.
8. ΠΒΌΝῚ] ‘then would I add’ (not ‘would have added, ΑΝ...
There is a similar mistake in AV. of ψ. 81, 15. 16.
The }, as thus used, is rare: but see Gen. 13, 9 ( Zenses, ὃ 136 B*).
11. pynd] The yod is not the yod of the plural, but is due to the
fact that ¥) is properly ΠΡ ré‘ay (cf. V1): comp. MAS alluring
her Hos. 2, 16: MWY Is, 22, rr (Ew. § 256: Ol. p. 250).
12. 539] 7 front of, expressing more strongly than "355 the idea
of being conspicuous before; comp. Nu. 25, 4; 1 Ki. 21, 13.
13. Vayn] The same figure, lit. to make 10 pass away, in 24, 10:
comp. Zech. 3, 4 Jay Ὑ Ὁ snnayA. Job 7, 21.
14. δ» NN] psi does not elsewhere mean /o cause fo blas-
pheme : so doubtless Geiger is right (Urschri/?, p. 267) in supposing
the original reading here to have been 5.5) nN: cf. the insertion of
"Ὁ τ 1 28. 22.
16. ’31 N31] A series of perfects with τυατὺ conv., indicating that
David acted as here described repeatedly.
18. ny Awy)... WI Tx] The two verbs are coupled together
under the government of 7x, exactly as Gen. 39,.9 (Zenses, ὃ 115
5.v. PX), though the change of subject makes a literal rendering
hardly intelligible in English. RV. text and margin are merely
two different paraphrases, designed to meet the exigencies of
English idiom.
21. Ἢ Tn “2y1] for the sake of the child (when) alive: LXX
rightly ἕνεκα τοῦ παιδαρίου ἔτι ζῶντος.
22. 3) νὴ Ὁ Kt.; 1237) YW Qri] who knows ?= perad-
venture. The correction of the Qri is unnecessary: the Kt. is
exactly like Joel 2,14. Jon. 3, 9. In Esther 4, 14 we have yoy Ὁ
e+» DN.
23. ὮΝ ὋΝ ΠῚ nd] ΠῚ adds point to mad (on I το, 11): ef. Gen.
25, 22 "ΣΝ ΠῚ ΠῸΡ wherefore should I (yet be)?
Q
2.26 The Second Book of Samuel,
12, 26=1 Ch. 20, 1» (abridged) ; 12, 30-31 =1 Ch. 20, 2-3.
28. ‘xx ἼΣΟΝ yp] ‘ Lest Z (emph.) take the city,’ etc.: comp. Ex.
18, 19. Jud. 8, 23. 2 Ki. 10, 4. Is. 20, 6. Jer. 17,18. y. 109, 28 al.
ch. 17, 15 "δ ΝΜ; and comp. on 117, 56. 23, 22.
mby snow xp] ‘And my name de called over it’—in token viz.
of its conquest by me. The passage shews the genuine sense of
the phrase, often occurring (especially in Dt. and dependent books)
with reference to the nation, the city, or the Temple, ‘over which
Jehovah’s name is called,’ in token viz. of the right of possession
or ownership by Him (generally paraphrased obscurely in AV.
‘called by My name’’). See Am. 9, 12 ὈΠῸΝ sow sop) we (in
allusion to the nations embraced by David in the dominion of
Israel). Dt. 28, 10 poy ΝΡ) Y Φ 5 yoNn wy 55 wo. τ Ki.
8, 43 (nvan dy). Jer. 7, 10. 11. 14, 9. 15, 16 (of the prophet). 25,
29 al. Is. 63, 19 we are become as those over whom Thy name has
not been called (i.e. whom Thou hast never owned).
30. nso] LXX nd>!)—probably rightly. In the whole context,
no allusion is made to the k¢mg of Rabbah; nor has there been any
mention of the people, but only of the city, so that, with the
Massoretic punctuation, the suffix Ὡ. is without an antecedent.
nap ᾿Ξ) Read, with Pesh. Targ. here, and 1 Ch. 20, 2:
Ap’ JAN 723,
31. bman win] Cf. Am. τ, 3 937 myn,
i359] So Kt., which Th. following Kimchi defends, supposing
the meaning to be the place in which victims were sacrificed to
Molech (punctuating either pada in their ‘ Molech,’ or pabra in
the Molech-image). But such a sense for either pd or non is
without analogy—at least in Hebrew ; and the Qri ἸΞΡΩΞ must, no
doubt, be adopted. The meaning of ἸὩ is, however, far from
certain. From its form (with » prefixed), it would naturally be
supposed to denote either a place (like WMD) or istrument (like
MADD) of making bricks, but not the one rather than the other. . It
is, indeed, commonly rendered as though it meant the former, viz.
1 Which really expresses a different phrase Ὁ Ὁ NIP?) Is. 43, 7: cf 48, I.
XTIT, 26-31. 224
brickkiin ; but this rendering lacks support either in the use of the
word elsewhere or in the renderings of the ancient Versions. In
an elaborate study on the word’, Georg Hoffmann has shewn that
in post-Biblical Hebrew, it is used firstly of a brickmow/d, and then
metaphorically of different objects of the same rectangular shape,
such as the frame of a door, sofa, window, or again, of a garden-
bed, but not of a brickAz/z. In Arabic and Syriac the corresponding
words are used similarly: ae denotes a drickmould (Freytag), and
occurs also in Saadyah’s version of Is. 6, 4 of the framework of
a door; fumSao signifies a drickmould (PS. col. 1887), as also a
quadrangle or square (Hoffmann, p. 65): but for neither language
is the meaning drzckkcln quoted. Nor is this meaning required for
either of the two other passages in the OT. in which y259 occurs.
In Nah. 3, 14 325 ‘pynn the rendering ‘lay hold of the brickmould’
(in preparation for a siege, immediately following ‘ go into the clay,
and tread the mortar’) is as suitable as ‘make strong the brickkiln ;’
and in Jer. 43, 9 a ‘brickkiln’ in front of Pharaoh’s palace would
be by no means so suitable a spot for the prophet to deposit in it
his symbolical stones, as a square, or open quadrangle, in the same
position, especially if, as appears from v. 10, the stones were to
mark the site upon which Nebuchadrezzar’s throne was to be
erected. Nor again, is the meaning drzckhiln recognized by any of
the ancient Versions. Here, LXX have διήγαγεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ
mrwbiov?, Luc. περιήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐν Μαδεββα, Pesh. εὐ zaslo
JKR waems, Targ. pw pan’ and he dragged them s¢hrough
the streets, Vulg. et traduxit in typo laterum: in Nah. 3, 14 LXX
κατακράτησον ὑπὲρ πλίνθον, Pesh. \sadso urarfo (brickmould),
Targ. 7"3 ‘apne (thy building), Vulg. tene laterem: in Jer.
1 ZATW. 1882, pp. 53-72. See also Levy, Mewhebr. Worterbuch, s. v.
2 ‘Led them through the brickmould,’ the sense being, at least, not worse
than that of Jerome’s ‘ traduxit in typo laterum,’ or of countless other passages
in the LXX Version. Πλινθίον has been supposed to mean ‘ brickz/z :’ but
no such sense is recognized in the last edition of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon.
8 By or through measure. Obscure (see PS. col. 2238) ; but in any case not
brickkiln,
Q2
2.28 The Second Book of Samuel,
43; 9 ibn pops LXX probably omit *, of λοιποί, ἐν τῷ κρυφίῳ ἐν
τῷ πλινθίῳ, Pesh. JaaSmas [\Sx> (quadrangle), Targ. x23 bapa
in the mcrtar of tke building, Vulg. in crypta quae est sub muro
latericio. Thus usage, whether of Hebrew or of the cognate
languages, or as interpreted by ancient authority, offers no support
to the meaning drzckkiln for i250. Hence Hoffmann, in the article
referred to, holds the common interpretation of this passage to be
incorrect, and reading TY for VAN would render, ‘ And he
brought forth the people that were therein, and set them /o saws,
and /o harrows of iron, and 20 axes of iron, and made them labour at
_ the brickmould:’ in other words, instead of torturing them, employed
them in different public works. This view of the passage is
accepted by Stade (Gesch. 757. i. 278), and is represented on the
margin of the Revised Version. “2 ow in the sense of 29 sef
among=to employ about? may be illustrated from I 8, 11 » ow
yn2D703. 1 Ch. 20, 3 has indeed WW and sawed for ny: but this
may be either a textual corruption, or a mistaken interpretation
of the compiler. Certainly, if we could honestly relieve David
of the act of cruelty, which the Hebrew text here appears to
attribute to him, we should be glad to do so: no doubt, it may be
shewn to be in harmony with the manners of the age (Am. 1, 3 of
the Syrians of Damascus), but it is alien to all that we know of the
personal character and temper of David. Hoffmann’s view is
unquestionably an attractive one ; and the only ground which leads
the present writer to hesitate in accepting it, is the circumstantiality
in the mention of three separate kinds of instruments, ‘saws’ and
‘“harrows’ and ‘axes,’ and the character of the instruments them-
selves, both of which might have been expected to be somewhat
more general, had the narrator merely intended to state that the
Ammonites were put to forced work by David. On the other hand,
it is true that the sense drzckkz/n cannot be shewn to be expressed
1 Or express by ἐν προθύροις. But ἐν προθύροις ἐν πύλῃ are more probably a
double rendering of mmp3,—the former in accordance with the rendering else-
where in Jer. of nb (I, 15. 19, 2. 26, 10. 36, 10), and ἐν πύλῃ a correction,
2 Under (AV.) is a paraphrase of "ἃ in no way necessitated by the Hebrew,
AIT, 2-9. 229
by ibn in any other passage where it occurs in either Biblical or
post-Biblical Hebrew, or even in the cognate languages. The
correction of 7'3y7 into ayn is, of course, no source of difficulty.
The terms employed in the first part of the verse favour the
common interpretation of the passage: the term 135p—so far as
our knowledge of it goes—favours as decidedly—not to say more
so—Hoffmann’s view. Still, the possibility, though a sighé one,
remains that j25n (or 13519) may have been the name of the place
through which the Ammonites themselves ‘ caused their children to
pass in fire’ (wN2 yWayn') to Molech: and circumstances may
have happened during the war—the Ammonites are charged by
Amos (1, 13) with barbarity in warfare (comp. 2 Ki. 8, 12 end, of
the Syrians)—which prompted David to treat them with exceptional
severity. The state of our knowledge is not sufficient to enable
us to arrive at a decision with entire confidence. But those who
refuse to allow the meaning Jdrickkiln for ibn may at least claim
to have a sound philological basis for their opinion.
nwy] Luc. rightly ἐποίει. Comp. the same tense in the descrip-
tion of the behaviour of an invading army, 2 Ki. 3, 25.
13, 2. mbnnnd pooxd ayy] ‘And Amnon was distressed (Jose-
phus χαλεπῶς διέκειτο : cf. 1 13, 6. 28, 15), so that he made himself
sick,’ etc. ‘The ahnah would stand better at inns (Th. Ke. We.),
what follows stating the reason why Amnon felt such distress:
‘Because she was a virgin, and (this being so) it was hard,’ etc.
3. pon] ‘subtil’ (AV. RV.) is scarcely a fair paraphrase: the
text says that Jonadab was wrse. (Sud“7=ny Gen. 3, 1.)
4. INN 8... ἼΠ ΠΝ] The regular order with the ptcp. and
pronoun: Gen. 37, 16. 41, 9 etc. (Zenses, § 208. 3).
5. ὈΠΠΠῚ] ‘and make thyself sick’—here and v. 6 in pretence,
v. 2 in reality—On N18) ,, , TAX 83 see on I 19, 3.
9. nw] Only here. The etymology is not apparent: but the
meaning appears to be established by the Aram. np, which
clearly signifies p/a/e or pan (Lev. 2, 5; Ez. 4, 3al. Targ.). Geiger
1 Ley, 18, 21. Jer. 32, 35. 2 Ki. 23, 10. Ez. 20, 31.
230 The Second Book of Samuel,
(Urschrift, p. 382) would read MNP (from ΠΝ : not Mmsxvn)
dough-trough : which, however, after the cakes were baked, would
seem not to be required.
Sy Ὁ Ν b5 wisn] So Gen. 45, 1. Syn = from attendance on.
το. 77707] The lengthening of the Π of 17707 in pause involves
the change of the preceding 4 to 4, the collocation [7 being
avoided. So ‘48 becomes in pause ‘FN ; ana, 3107; °D7, ΠΠ, ete.
12. 39 mvyrnd 15] The impf. as Gen. 34,7; cf. 20, 9.
nyyn-bs] Ges. ὃ 75 Rem. 17; Ew. ὃ 224°; Stade, ὃ 1434 (3);
Delitzsch on Is. 64, 3; K6nig, p. 531.
nba] Jud. r9, 23 nim nba wyn bx; and comp. the phrase
ὈΦ ΠΡ.) mwy Gen. 34, 7; Dt. 22, 21 (Anwys); Jer. 29, 23
(each time of a sexual offence); Jos. 7, 15 (of Achan’s impiety).
The word expresses more than ‘folly. Just as 523 (2, 33: cf. on
I 25, 25) denotes one who lacks all regard for God or man, so
mba2 means godlessness, impiety. The ideas which the Hebrews
associated with the word appear with especial distinctness in Isaiah’s
description of the ba) (32, 6).
13. Dam ἽΠΝΞ] For the form of the comparison, comp. 2, 18.
14. ΠΣ pins] ‘and overpowered her.’
mms a2v%] When 33” is used of illicit intercourse, the pronoun
with ΓΝ is regularly pointed by the Massorites as though it were
the object of the verb in the accus. (Gen. 34, 2. Lev. 15, 18. 24.
Nu. 5, 13.19. Ez. 23, 8). It is doubtful whether this is not an
arbitrary distinction on the part of the punctuators, and whether in
all cases the word was not originally intended to be the prep. 77AN?,
(1) There is no other indication of 134 being construed with an
accus.—the Qrz in Dt. 28, 30 7323 obviously proving nothing as
to the usage of the living language ; (2) by I>w is used constantly
in the same sense (11, 4; Lev. 15, 24; Dt. 22, 22-29, etc.), and
if so, OY and nN being closely synonymous, there is a strong
presumption that MN 29) was understood in a similar sense.
1 In Ez. the form is indeed “nix; but in this book (as in Jer.) the Aref. is
constantly written -nix instead of -mx (e.g. 3, 22) : see on ch. 24, 24.
XIII, 10-18. 231
15. 13ND] AINA is what would be expected.
16. ‘3 ΓΛ ΟΝ] Keil renders : ‘ Let (there be) no cause for this
great evil (greater) than (the) other that thou didst unto me, namely,
to send me away;’ but the ellipses involved are greater than are
probable: nor is nYIN construed elsewhere except with ὃν τ on
account of (το times). RV.—both text and margin—is open to
the same objection of depending upon improbable ellipses. The
Hebrew text, as it stands, cannot be legitimately construed. The
text of LXX in this verse has been corrected to agree with the
Hebrew: but what is evidently the fragment of a genuine ren-
dering has been preserved out of its place in v. 15, viz. μείζων ἡ κακία
ἡ ἐσχάτη ἢ ἡ πρώτη = WN IND MINNA AYIN ANT. Lucian’s recen-
sion of LXX has Μή, ἀδελφέ ὅτι μεγάλη ἡ κακία ἡ ἐσχάτη ὑπὲρ τὴν
πρώτην ἣν πεποίηκας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, τοῦ ἐξαποστεῖλαί pe; and similarly the
Old Latin, Noli frater expellere me, quoniam maior erit haec
malitia novissima quam prior quam fecisti mecum, ut dimittas me,
ive. 9nbw> Ὃν MY WK May nein ΠΡ ΠΟῪ 5 ἫΝ Sy.
This substantially must be adopted, the only question being
whether in the middle clause we accept MINNA NNN or AANNA
mMIWNIND (as in cod. B). The former deviates least from MT.:
but We. prefers the latter, arguing that MT. NUNN? (without the
art.) attests indirectly the reading of cod. B nansn, and considering
that the corruption of MINNA into ΠΝ Ὁ necessitated its trans-
position, and the alteration of MIwNIND to new. Either form,
it is evident, expresses substantially the same sense. For 5x in
deprecation, comp. Jud. 19, 23.
17. nxtnx] See on I 10, 27.
by] not “AND, but ‘sy, the word used of dismissing a menial
(v. 9), or one whose presence was obnoxious, Ex. 10, 28 yn 7.
18. 19. ODD nnd] Only besides, Gen. 37, 3. 23. 32. As to the
meaning, the earliest authorities are divided ; and it cannot be said to
be established beyond reach of doubt. LXX in Gen. χιτὼν ποικίλος (so
Pesh. here), here χιτὼν καρπωτὸς (1.6. with sleeves reaching to the wrist:
so Pesh. in Gen.); Luc. here χιτὼν ἀστραγαλωτὸς (i. 6. reaching to the
ankles); Aq. in Gen. x. ἀστραγάλων, here x. καρπωτός ; Symm. in both
232 The Second Book of Samuel,
places x. χειριδωτὸς (i. 6. sleeved: Hdt. 7. 61); Jerome in Gen. (fol-
lowing LXX) tunica polymita, here (as Aq. in Gen.) tunica /alarzs.
Targ. Ong. and Jon.’ *D57 825, transliterating. DD in Aram.
means the palm of the hand (Dan. 5, 5. 24; cf. the fem. 1 5, 4 al.
Targ.), or sole of the foot (Dt. 2, 5 Pesh.). Thus both alternative
renderings have ancient authority in their favour. On the whole,
however, as the explanation ‘farte-coloured tunic’ implies a sense of
Ὁ Ὁ (patches), which has no sufficient philological basis, the other
explanation ‘a tunic reaching to the hands and feet’ (=‘a long
garment with sleeves, RV. marg.)—notwithstanding that wr¢s¢s or
ankles might have been expected to be named, rather than Ὡ ΘΒ
(if the word be rightly explained as = Aram. D5)—is the more
probable.
το. TPYN son yeny] The waw conv. and the pf. indicating
reiteration, Jos. 6, 13. Comp. on εἰ. 16, 13, and I 19, 23.
20. IDX] PION is not a compound pr. n., and hence ἢ) can
be no alternative form (as ΣΝ and ἽΝ, ‘WIN and ‘way, DdwWIK
and pydwvax). In Arabic, the » is used to form dimnutives (as
kalb dog, kulazd little dog: Wright, i. § 269), even in pr. names ;
and it has accordingly been supposed (Ew. ὃ 167%, Bo.) that the
form Amnon here is a diminutive used intentionally by Absalom,
for the purpose of expressing his contempt for Amnon®. It is
true, as We. remarks, that ‘the Arabic inner diminutive-formation
is akin to tendencies in that language which are foreign to Hebrew:’
nevertheless, there are examples of forms and constructions occur-
ring in zsolation in Hebrew, which are idiomatic only in Arabic; so
that this explanation of }\2%8 must not be pronounced altogether
impossible. ‘The alternative is to treat the " as a clerical error.—
py mn, as Gen. 39, 10. 14 (Th. Ke.). ;
nny] ‘and that desolate.’ The 4 is peculiar, though just defen-
1 Targ. Jerus. and Ps.-Jon. on Gen. 1189 71275 @ variegated tunic.
2 So also Dr. Wright, 4 σι, who adds, with Ew., as another example from
Hebrew })5’pw, remarking that the »— in these two words must be regarded as
ὃ Σ 9 : 4 9 wy
a weakening of »— (orig. 1), asin ΠΡ. 1» in Heb., and sade a youth,
in Syr., are almost certainly diminutives.
ATLTI. 19-26. 233
sible. In form DY is a ptcp. Po'el, which ‘when it becomes a
mere adj. or subst. sometimes loses the “)’ (Ew. ὃ 160°): comp.
DY (beside }¥D), DdIY child (beside DPiYD Is. 3, 12), 2310) (Po'ddl)
Mic. 2, 4; OY znscdious eyers (from Ὁ) in the Psalms, often.
The fem. with pre-tonic sere is found in ptcpp. used as adjectives
or substantives (Stade, ὃ 214°), so MIND ψ. or, 4; 7733 Jer. 3, 8;
Monin ψ. 118, 16.
21. ἽΝ 15 ἼΠ᾽}} LXX after these words express M7-NN AY NDI
$87 HDI *D jams %D 422 ΠΟ which are accepted by Ew. Th. We.
as part of the original text. For A8Y see 1 Ki. 1, 6; and Is. 54, 6
nm NDSY (Th.). The words, if a gloss, are at any rate an instruc-
tive one.
22. mp tyr yd .. Δ xd] Cf. Gen. 31, 24. 29.
23. oD’ oYnw] ‘two years, days. So 14, 28. Gen. 41, 1. Jer.
28, 3. 11+: for the pleonastic ov», cf. ἘΝ won, OD no, and
(in late Hebrew, Dan. το, 2. 3) 0%" DYiAW: and see Ges. Thes.
p. 585>; Zenses, § 192. 1.
DDN ὮΝ] ny=Jeszde is used to denote proximity to a town or
other spot, as Dia" ὮΝ on Jud. 19, 11. 1 Ki. 1, 9, but not to a large
area such as ‘Ephraim :’ were the tribe intended, as Th. rightly
observes, the phrase used would be ompxd ἼΩΝ {Π τὺ; rete:)-net
DDS oy Wks. Either ODN is the name of some place not other-
wise named, or the text is false. The supposition (BO. Th. Ke.)
that the place meant is 75 2 Ch. 13, 19 (ἡ ἼΞΨ) Qri) derives support
from LXX (Luc.) Τοφραὶμ (Klo.), though it is true that the y in
2 Ch, and Jos. 15, 9 is not represented byl. Gratz (Gesch. i. 265)
conjectured D'NS1 ppya.
26. so Noy] ‘Precisely analogous examples of the same con-
struction are Jud. 6, 13. 2 Ki.5, 17. 10,15: the latter demonstrates
incontrovertibly the correctness of the punctuation, and obliges us
to render: And 17) not, let Amnon go with us,’ We., excellently.
Observe the disjunctive accent at ΝΟ},
1 And so in 2 Ki. 5. In 2 Ki. 10, however, the accentuation expresses a
false interpretation and is misleading. Render, ‘ And Jehonadab said, It 15. dnd
if 1 ἐς, give thine hand,’
234 The Second Book of Samuel,
27. Joon 552-35] LXX adds Ἴρῃπ anwos anwy odwax wy.
The words may, indeed, be an addition, suggested by a reminis-
cence of I 25, 36: at the same time an express notice of the
feast prepared by Absalom is quite suitable, and their omission
may be due to homototeleuton.
28. ‘nN... 3193] 3 with 3 is of course the infin. of the
verb 330 (I τό, τό. 23 etc.; Est. 1, 10 as here). The tense ‘2N)
as I τὸ, 8. τ Ki. 2, 37 etc. (Zenses, ὃ 118). 10, applied to the
heart, as in Jud. 16, 25 nad nw "5 (Qri nab 3103); 19, 22 Of
pad ΓΝ on; and comp. on I 25, 36.
"5 nid] Cf. 37 9, 1. Observe that Z is emphatic.
31>, LXX nays yp yby oan may 55.
52. My τ Β ΟΝ 5] i. asp Sy may denote ὄν the appointment
of (AV.: see Ex. 17, 1 etc.), or 2” the mouth of (Ges.: cf. Ex. 23, 13.
y. 50, 16): ΠΙΡῚ (Κι) will here be the ptcp. pass. of O& (cf. Nu.
24, 21), with the sense of se/#led. The sense thus obtained is not
unsuitable, though Ὁ 5y is not, perhaps, quite the phrase that might
have been expected to be used with mow, and some clearer
statement of the nature of the intention then harboured by Absalom
is certainly desiderated (cf. the addition nvand 3, 37). Ewald’s
suggestion respecting the word, 2715]. iii. 234 (E.T. 172), deserves
mention. Comparing the Arabic als sinister et infaustus furt alicui
2: tnauspiciousness, tll-luck, he supposes it to signify an zmaus-
pictous expression, an expression boding misfortune (Anglice, ἃ
scowl),—‘ For upon the mouth of Absalom there hath been a scowl
since the day when Amnon humbled his sister Tamar.’ The
suggestion is an exceedingly clever one: the only doubt is whether
a word meaning in itself simply wn/uckzness (Lane, p. 1490) could
be used absolutely to signify a /oken of unluckiness (ein Ungliicks-
zeichen) for others, It is accepted by We. and W. R. Smith
(Encycl. Brit., ed. 9, art. David, p. 840» no/e).
33. “ΣῚ ἸῺ 5x... ow by] ‘let not my lord the king take
aught (135, not 137n) to heart, saying’ etc.: 25 5x nw as 19, 20.
In form, as well as in the use of 135, the sentence resembles
I 22,15 ὮΝ ma 553 795 ways ἼΡΩΠ ow dx.
ALT. 27-39. 235
ox 33] So Kt.: 5 Οὐ. 5 is sufficient; and ox may have
arisen by dittography from the following word: but ON 5 is
defensible, the context suggesting the negative to be understood :
Ges. (minime,) sed solus Amnon mortuus est. Comp. on I 26, ro.
34. YINN 799] Both words are suspicious. I without the
art. is presumably in the sé.c.: NN dehind him is explained by
Th. Ke. as ‘behind—i.e. to the west of—the watchman,’ but
mans ἽΡΠ signifies commonly 20 follow, and a description of the
direction in which the people were coming with reference to the
watchman does not appear to be probable. LXX has an insertion,
which enables We. both to restore a text satisfactory in itself, and
at the same time to remove the difficulties attaching to MT. The
text as thus restored reads as follows: O25 47173 ΞΟΠ 2 py mm
TAA TY DAA TI PND Dw WN Ad “3 ΠΒΣΠ N34 77412,
ὙΠ is now provided with the desiderated genitive ; and NN is
seen to be a corruption of oy1n. The omission in MT. arose from
a copyist’s eye passing from 7772 to JID. The dual form DN
does not occur elsewhere in MT.: but from the fact of an Upper
and Lower Beth-horon being spoken of, it is probable in itself, and
it actually occurs in LXX of Joshua (το, 10. 11 ἱὩρωνειν).
37. VNDy] Qri Ty, which has the testimony of the Versions
in its favour.
37-38%. 38 is tautologous after 37: at the same time, 37>—
as the subject of ayn’) shews—connects closely with v. 36. In all
probability a transposition has taken place, and the original order
was 37, 378, 38, 39 :—38@ being no part of the original text, but
due to a scribe who, having accidentally in the first instance passed
over 37>, discovered his mistake, inserted it after 378, and then
repeated as much of 372 as was necessary in order to render 38>
pw why Ov ‘nM intelligible.
39. Pon NT Son] Untranslateable ; Keil’s attempted rendering
‘And it (fem. as neuter) held David the king back (83 in the
sense of N3) from going out,’ etc.—even if 23m Pi‘el for NPI}
Qal were defensible—requiring imperatively N83!) in place of nNyd,
The connexion with 14, 1 shews that the verse must describe the
2.36 The Second Book of Samuel,
preparatory or initial stage in the desire which Joab soon afterwards
perceived to be stirring in David’s mind towards his absent son.
Ewald, Hist. iii. 234 (E.T. 173), conjectured Jon Ἢ non SAY
‘and David’s anger ceased to manifest itself towards Absalom.’ On
this conjecture, We. observed: ‘ Though it satisfies the conditions
imposed by the context, it is open to the objection that the sense
assumed for NX¥ is not substantiated, and that 1) npn ought not
to be combined. For the unusual order sbon S19 (τ 2 τ:
12, 2. 2 Ki. 8, 29=9, 15") shews that it must be in Ἴ that the
feminine required as the subject of Sami lies concealed. It follows
that instead of combining 1)7 non, 7 should have been changed
into non, if no other feminine subst. is to be found which more
closely resembles ΤΠ graphically.’ The acuteness and justice of
this criticism were brilliantly confirmed, when We. discovered
subsequently (p. 223) that codd. 19, 82, 93, 108 (i-e. the recension
of Lucian), as well as many others, actually expressed the sub-
stantive ΠῚ} Read, therefore, “ἢ yon πὸ bom ‘And the spirit
of the king longed? to go forth unto Absalom.’ Keil must have
overlooked p. 223 of Der Text der Biicher Samuelis: otherwise it
is incredible how he could have written, ‘ Other attempted emen-
dations need no refutation.’
14, τ. yw] came fo know=perceived: I 18, 28. Jer. 32, 8.
2. axnn] Cf. nbnnn 13, 5.
ὉΔῚ ov ΠῚ] The ΠῚ is very idiomatic: I 29, 3.
3. ΠῈΞ DNDN ANY Hwy} Ex. 4, 15. Nu. 22, 38. Ezr. 8,
17 al.
42, ΝΠ] Clearly S271 must be read, with LXX, Pesh. Targ.
Vulg., as well as many MSS.
bn] LXX express mywin a second time, after 75n,—perhaps
rightly. The repetition would be ‘in thorough harmony with the
affected emotion which the woman displays in speaking to the
king’ (Th.).
1 And in /ate Hebrew, as 1 Ch. 24, 31. 29, I. 9. 24. 29. 2 Ch. 26, 18. 21, etc.
2 Lit. facled with longing to.. .: comp. y. 84, 3. 119; 81. 82. 123.
XIV, 1-.11. 237
5. mos ΟΝ] So x Ki. 7, 14. 17, 9: comp. ch. 15, 16 DWI
owadp. 1 Ki. 3, 16 mr Dw) ‘ny; etc.
‘IN| Observe the pausal form with 77/ha, where a pause in the
voice is appropriate to the sense. So 18, 22: cf. Gen. 15, 14 YTD";
DE. 13a, 5 y2bn; Hos. 8, 7 WO, etc.; and regularly in 8".
6. TNNATNS ὙΠ ΠῚ 13%] «And he smote him—the one (namely)
the other.’ Such an anticipation of the object by the pronoun (see
on I 21, 14) produces here, however, a singularly awkward sen-
tence; and it is difficult to discover any reason why it should have
been adopted. The theory of Keil that it is to be explained
‘from the diffuseness of ordinary conversational style’ is destitute of
foundation: had this been the true explanation, the form would
assuredly have occurred more frequently in the course of the many
examples of such style to be found in the O.T.,—which is ποῦ the
case’. Probably the consonants 13) were meant originally to ex-
press a plural, which arose through a false interpretation of INNA
SINNANNN (as though this were=ome another); and VOX NS INST IN
should be restored from LXX? (We.).
7. mnwN] In defence of this, against YM of Pesh., see We.
ΡΠ] Ges. compares ζώπυρον ‘de spe generis ad paucos redacta,
v.c. de iis qui diluvio erepti erant, Lucian, Zzmon, § 3’ (ζώπυρόν τι
τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου σπέρματος).
το. INNA ΤῸΝ 7377] Construction exactly as Ex. 4, 21. 12,
44. Is. 56, 6-7, etc. (Zenses, § 123 αὐ. Against 1290" Ὁ (LXX,
Pesh. Th.) there is (in addition to the ground urged by We., that
the king thinks of a definite 0AM, viz. the Go’e/, v. 11) the syntacti-
cal objection that ,,,° would not be followed by ynxam (Zech.
4, 10 is doubtful), but by "837 (or 383"): comp, on I rr, 12.
11. MIN] Qri N29): the punctuators apparently treating the
1 From Gen. to 2 Sam. the only examples are the few quoted in the note on
I 21, 14, which are clearly not numerous enough to establish a principle such as
Keil assumes, The usage is somewhat more frequent in later books; in genuine
Hebrew it was never idiomatic except in the one expression 198, D>8 (see 70.).
2 Which has here a doublet,—rdy ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ being the original rendering,
τὸν ἕνα a correction after MT.
238 The Second Book of Samuel,
word as the cstr. form of the abs. inf. 7370 Gen. 3, 16. 16, 10. 22,
17+ (Ew. ὃ 2408 moze). In fact, however, the Kt. ΠΣ ΛΠ is prob-
ably merely an error for the normal MA (so Ol. ὃ 258>; Keil;
KGnig, p. 537):
3 niywn] See on I 14, 45.
2.729 Joon sibs ἽΠΠΕΦΨ xeaasn] ‘Let thy handmaid, I
pray thee, speak a word unto my lord, the king.’ Observe the
difference between the Hebrew and English order of words: the
Hebrew order would, in English, be stiff and artificial; the order
which in English is idiomatic would give rise to a weak and feeble
sentence in Hebrew (yon sqx7bx 104). The object at the end,
to the Hebrew ear, completes and rounds off the sentence. So
regularly, as Gen. 42, 30 MWP YNN PINT IN wNT ID (not nwP
wns as in Engl.); 43, 16 [5 ΠΣ OMN DY NI; 32 “NN Sond
ond omsyn; Ex. 32, 32 ns ommdxdy ond mon xb; Lev. 26,
16; Jud. 1, 24 TDN ἼΩΝ www; 8, 15 end; 116, 1 end; 20, 34>;
ch. 3, 20>; 10,2; 12,17; 13, 33%; 17,13: 14Ὁ; . 15, 35 24, 43
25, 15; 26, 6. 9; 33, 79; 34, 17%, etc. Comp. on I 1, 4, and
add there Ex. 8, 172.
13. 13793] = 137ND, as Nu. 7, 89. Ez. 2, 2. 43, 6+, according
to the punctuators.
Own | ‘as one guilty’—in thus speaking the king condemns
himself.
snbad] not ‘2 not bringing back’ (Keil), but 2” order not to...
The clause is epexegetical, not of DwN5D, but of mNt2—the explana-
tory inf. at the end, as 13, 16. 19, 20 (We.).
14%. The application of the truth is to Absalom. Life may
end at any moment: when it is past it cannot be recalled: thou
mayest find this to be too true in the pase of thy son, if thou
leavest him in banishment. ‘And God doth not take away life but
thinketh thoughts in order not to banish (further) from him one
that is banished,’ z.e. and even God acts more mercifully than
thou art acting. But the text of clause 4 is doubtful. The anti-
thesis is imperfect (doth not fake away hfe, but recalls from
banishment); and the expression ¢hinketh thoughts (in this con-
ALV. 12-25. 239
nexion) is of doubtful propriety, as applied to God. No entirely
satisfactory restoration has, however, been proposed. ‘The best,
as also the simplest, is that of Ew., who, substituting IN for
awn’, obtains the not unsuitable sense: ‘and God will not take
away the life of him that thinketh thoughts, in order not to banish
from him one that is banished, —the words being understood as an
encouragement to David to take steps for recalling Absalom.
ns snb2d] yndad with the impf. (virtually, of course, a relative
clause), instead of the usual zz/ ¢., as once besides, Ex. 20, 20.
Cf. POPP once, Dt. 33, 11, in place of the normal Dipl ὃ,
15. WN Any] ‘and now (it is) that I am come,’ etc. The
construction is very unusual, "WN being in fact superfluous. See,
however, Zech. 10, 20... TWN Ti. 23. 66. WS ADAT ODS.
16, Keil’s constr. is too forced: restore WP227 (LXX) before ’nd.
17. pnd qxdo2] The comparison as v. 20. 19, 28. I 29, 9.
19. womd ws ON] WS softened for 5: comp. Mic. 6, το UNT+
for YM. There are analogies for the softening in the mzddle of a
word in Hebrew (e.g. DNDD, D'S3¥ for pvbn, DAY; Stade, § 122):
but the softening at the beginning is very anomalous, and has really
no analogy except in Syriac (as λα [561 δ: Nicaea), τ ΨΥ
Néld. Syr. Gr. ὃ 40C). Ew. ὃ 539 cites as a parallel ‘YS 1 Ch. 2,
13 for ' (as the name is written in v. 12). Probably both there
and here the & is not original, but due to a late transcriber *.
The construction of “Ὁ (w) ws as 2 Ki. 4, 13 (Zenses, § 202).
20. may] 17, 14. Ex. 20, 20%.
21. Mwy] LJ have done =I do.
25. IND bbnb] lit. ‘2 respect of praising greatly:’ the clause
defines the ¢erium comparationis: Gen. 3, 22 ye shall be as one
;
of us ny in respect of knowing, etc. Is. 21, 1 as whirlwinds in
1 Jer. 18, 11 is evidently different : so also are Mic. 4, 12; Is. 55, 8. 9.
2 For the misplacement of), cf. Jer. 2, 25 Kt. 17, 23 Kt. 32, 23 Kt. al.
8. 5, Targ. 8°99 x7, which illustrates Dan. 4, 43 8531D°73 NxM. The
pleonastic use of xm dehold in comparisons is frequent in the Targums: Gen.
49, 4 890) Nn. Dt. 32, 33 Ν᾿) NID ΝΠ. ch. 23, 4. Is. 5, 28. 9; 4. 18, 1.
a0, 3.10, 29, 10: 34, 6. 35, 6. 50,5. 6. Go, 8. Nah. 2; 12 etc.
* The Massorah has the note Ὧ" 1°10: above, p. 71.
240 The Second Book of Samuel,
the South μεν: in respect of sweeping up, 1 Ch. 12, 8 by mays
nap Dn (Tenses, § 205).
26. ‘x1 ἸΠ5)2}] The constr. is involved: ‘And when he shaved
his head—now it used to be from time to time when he shaved it,
because it was heavy upon him, that he shaved it—he would
weigh’ etc. 7) after an intervening temporal or other clause, is
always resumed either by the bare impf., or by the pf. and waw
conv., so that nox) ἼΩΝ «νιν m7) cannot be rendered ‘And it used
to be from time to time δαί he shaved it:’ mM) can only be
resumed by nbn. It is true, either ΓΟ ἼΩΝ or imday is logically
superfluous, but the case is one in which the tautology is not out of
harmony with Hebrew style: cf. Lev. 16, 1.
32. DUTIN Ty Ὁ 310] ‘it were well for me (that) I were still
there. nw ὋΝ IY defines that in respect of which Absalom says
% a». Comp. Ew. ὃ 338°.
15, 1. 15 "ΠΝ as 3, 28. 2 Ch. 32, 23%. Usually jon.
Δ) wy] Cf. of Adonijah, 1 Ki. τ, δῦ. See on I 12, 6.
29, yy .,, oDwm] Notice the pff. with za conv. indicating
what Absalom wsed to do. From 2? to 4, however, the narrator
lapses into the tense of simple description, only again bringing the
custom into prominence in v. 5, and 64 (ἸΝ 5").
2b, spy... Wwe wen 59 ὙΠ] Exactly as 2, 23>, except that
a subst. and rel. clause takes here the place of the ptcp. and art.
3. bon ΓΝ] thou hast none to hear om she part of the king.
AV. excellently, ‘ deputed of the king.’ Comp. nx of a grant from,
or due rendered by, a person; Gen. 47, 22. Lev. 7, 34. Nu. 3, 9. 8,11.
4. ΟΝ 1D] who will make me ...?=O that one would make
me...! SO 23, 15 OD ‘pw =O that one would give me to
drink water, etc.! and constantly in the phrase #7 ‘2; Ew. § 329°.
xo by] ‘that fo me might come’ etc. Note the position of sy,
1 Ki. 2,15; 2 Ki. 5, 11 behold, I thought yy ayy) ny? ody that
he would come out /o me, and stand, and call, etc.; Gen. 30, 16.
by ΔΝ), W2Y are said of one standing ὅν (lit. over) another (Gen.
18, 2), especially of servants in attendance on a superior (Jud. 3, 19.
I 22, 7. 17, etc.: of the people standing about Moses, as he sat to
ATV. 26—XV. 12, 241
judge them, Ex, 18, 13>. 140): but construed with a verb of
motion, y is probably merely=5w: cf. I 2, 11 wma-Sy.,, 10}.
ynptym| The pf. and waz conv. in continuation of an impf. with
the force of a Latin imperf. subjunctive; exactly so Amos 9, 3.
6. 29 MN, ,, 233] Gen. 31, 20 725 20 mx apy 2525),
7. pyaw~] LXX (Luc.), Pesh. (03%) YIW,— forty years evi-
dently cannot be right—The accentuation in 7, placing the
greatest break after bon at mm rather than at 53, connects
mana with obwxy ΝῺ nabs rather than with ὙΠ ὙἼ).
8. ay ay px] Kt. 2 ‘if he brings back, brings me
back, —an utterly un-Hebraic sentence. Qri 2, from 2 /
dwell, unsuitable beside 132" will dring back, LXX ἐὰν ἐπιστρέφων
ἐπιστρέψῃ pe, Targ. ‘30'N NINN ON, Pesh. utadoy aad. Ne
i.e, 330" WA ON in entire accordance with idiom (for instance,
Τα 28),
10. nbw] ‘The sending out of the spies is to be regarded
as taking place simultaneously with the departure of Absalom for
Hebron, so that nbwy is used quite regularly, and there is no
ground for rendering it [as Th. had proposed to do] as a plu-
perfect,’ Keil, rightly. To render by a plup. would be indeed
contrary to grammar: the plup. (see on I 9, 15) would have been
expressed by nbw oydwan).
II. pan] The same idiom in τ Ki, 22, 34 yond nwpa Ww.
The 5 is expressive of condition or norm (Ew. ὃ 21-74): comp.
nop in a condition of trustfulness, *Snd Is. 1, 5 etc.
natvb3 wy xby]=‘and knew nothing at all.’
12. ἢ nduny] It is clear that Absalom did not, as.he would do
according to MT., send Ahitophel out of Giloh, but that he sent
for him from Giloh, Probably a word has dropped out after
ndowax,—either 821 (cf. I 16, 12 Bé.) or, better, N72") (We. with
LXX (Luc.) καὶ ἐκάλεσε). ” S sp is more common than NX Np":
but ms is perfectly admissible: see the similar passage I 22, 11,
With a in cf. 3,1.
nism .,, on] The form of the gentile adj. shews that Ma
stands for an original ia, and that the root, therefore, is by or
R
242 The Second Book of Samuel,
by, not mba (from which 53, 1°93, or }3 might be formed, but
not riba), So snbw from Πρ, root dw or dw, not mdw.
14. mn] se¢ 2x motion, drive, impel evil upon us: comp. the
Nif. in Dt. 19, 5 1 4 ANI. Usually the Hif. signifies to
expel (especially of Israel expelled from their country).
16. porn] as 1 25, 27.
17f. We. points out how here the genuine LXX rendering of
17>-18 stands ‘wedged in” between the two halves of another
Greek translation agreeing closely with MT., the concluding words
of the first half being repeated at the beginning of the second:
[kai ἔστησαν ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ Μακράν. 18. καὶ πάντες of παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἀνὰ χεῖρα
αὐτοῦ παρῆγον καὶ πᾶς Χεττει καὶ πᾶς ὁ Φελετθει,] καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τῆς
ἐλαίας ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 18. καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς παρεπορεύετο ἐχόμενος αὐτοῦ, καὶ
πάντες οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν καὶ πάντες οἱ ἁδροὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ μαχηταί, ἑξακόσιοι
ἄνδρες, καὶ παρῆσαν ἐπὶ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ. [καὶ πᾶς ὁ Χερεθθει καὶ πᾶς ὁ
Φελεθθει καὶ πάντες οἱ Τεθθαῖοι, οἱ ἑξακόσιοι ἄνδρες οἱ ἐλθόντες τοῖς ποσὶν
αὐτῶν εἰς Γεθ, καὶ πορευόμενοι ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τοῦ βασίλεως]. The un-
bracketed words in the middle are the genuine version of LXX, in
which, however, the close of v. 18 has dropped out, for καὶ παρῆσαν
ἐπὶ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ is merely a doublet to παρεπορεύετο ἐχόμενος αὐτοῦ.
The only variation, however, with a claim to be preferred to MT.,
is ay for pym in 172, and pyn for ay in 184 The ἼΡΌΠ “ay
are influential persons, in immediate attendance upon the king,
and distinguished from ‘the people’ generally (cf. e.g. 16, 6).
Hence ‘the reading of LXX is right. The king and his attendants
(yay 5) remain at the last house of Jerusalem, in order to let
the people (ayn 55) and the body-guard pass. Only in v. 23 does
David with his attendants resume his progress.’ We. further points
out how probably a notice of J#az stood originally in v. 18 before
onin 531, to whom the following words would, in that case, have
immediate reference, and the mention of whom here would be a
natural introduction to 192.
19. smd mnx nbs on] Keil: ‘and art also wandering in
exile to thy place’—which he explains by the paraphrase of Seb.
Schmidt: ‘anguam exul migras per terram, ubicunque invenis
XV, 14-23. 243
locum, ubi concedatur tibi habitare, habitandum tibi’ But the
thought that Ittai was in search of a resting-place—admitting it to
be a probable one, in the present connexion—could scarcely be
more awkwardly and artificially expressed. Read, with LXX,
Vulg. for qaipnd, Join ‘and art an exile /rom thy place, —i.e.
from Gath.
20. ἽΝ) oN] ‘and to-day shall I make thee wander with us
in going?’ For yy) in the sense of wandering up and down with
no settled home, cf. Nu. 32, 13 13902 oy. Am. 9, 9. Ψ. 59, 12
ww sna wy" (where Gen. 4, 12 13) Ὁ) makes Lagarde’s
emendation?* 29°97) for 12 1) ΠῚ highly plausible).
shin ox wee by din ὉΝῚ] See on I 23, 13.
nox) tpn} Explicable grammatically as an adverbial accusative,
‘and take back thy brethren zz mercy and faithfulness:’ but such
a use of the accus., except in two or three familiar expressions
(as ἽΝ, HYD, NOD: Ew. ὃ 279°), scarcely occurs in prose. Keil
and RV. (neglecting the Zz/ha at JY) render: ‘with thee be
mercy and faithfulness.’ Though not impossible, however, the
construction which this rendering implies is harsh: ἼΩΝ is almost
demanded by ΠΝ ΓΝ as its complement, and ‘7 is desiderated
with nox) Dn. The difficulty of the verse is at once solved by
LXX: nox) ION yey AY MAN JOY THX nx awm aw ‘ Return,
and take back thy brethren with thee ; and Jehovah shew toward
thee mercy and faithfulness :’ comp. 2,6. The three words supplied
have simply dropped out of MT. by homoioteleuton.
21. “) ON 3] The Qri is here right: ‘> has been changed into
DN 5. by ascribe, who omitted to notice how the sentence ended.
Without ox, the sentence following the oath is in form (,,,O}p02°3
Δ) py 13) exactly like 3, 9.
23. Ὠ" 512] κατὰ σύνεσιν, as Dt. 9, 28 (/and, as here): cf. on I 17,
46 (earth).
a2t0n nx ὙΥῚ 2 Sy] ran ΠΝ ΤΥῚ is an unparalleled and
untranslateable expression. We. in his note on the passage sug-
1 Prophetae Chaldaice (1872), p. xlviii.
R2
44. The Second Book of Samuel,
gested ἼΣἼΠ JAI yA by, but added ‘It is probable that between
the s/.c. ΤΥ and the genitive 1259n another word once stood, of
which ns is a fragment.’ Again, his conjecture was found after-
wards to be confirmed by Lucian’s recension, which reads πρὸ
προσώπου αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἐλαίας τῆς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ =I pip-by
72703 Ws nN, This reading may be unreservedly accepted.
"ay ybom just before, should however in all probability be ybon
ἽΝ, This is required, not merely by the restoration 25 by,
but by the contex?, especially vv. 24-29. David s/ood in the valley
of Qidron, while the people passed on before him: amongst them
came Zadoq and Abiathar, who se/ down the ark while the rest of
the people passed on; there followed the conversation with David,
vv. 25-28. All this presupposes that David was s/atonary at the
time. (On the interchange of 3 and 9, see the Introduction, ὃ 4.)
24. ΡΝ] in spite of Jos. 7, 23 (where, however, the idea of pour-
mg out would not be inapplicable: cf. J) 2 Ki. 22, 9), the verb
that would naturally be expected here is 48": comp. 6,17. 15, 2.
ἽΓΣΝ ὅν} The words are obscure, and where they stand
interrupt the connexion’ (‘they set down the ark wz? all the
people,’ etc.): Luc. does not express them. It is strange, also, that
Abiathar is not mentioned in the early part of the verse by the side
of Zadog (as v. 29). The text appears to be mutilated: perhaps
the name of Abiathar was once more prominent than it now is,
and the words quoted are a misplaced fragment. We. holds its
present imperfection to be due to an attempt, made in post-exilic
times, to eliminate the name of Abiathar from it.
25. ἹΠῚ) Nx] m3, as 7,8 shews, properly denotes an abode of
flocks ; comp. Is. 65, 9 jX¥ mad pwn AM: Ez. 34, 14 mya
ain 73, It is, however, of frequent use in poetry in the sense of
abode generally: thus Ex. 15, 13 171? ΠῚ) of Canaan, Is. 33, 20
jNw M2 of Jerusalem, Job 5, 3. 24 of the abode of an individual
person. In prose, the word occurs only in 7, 8 (=1 Ch. 17, 7)
1 Unless indeed ni» be supposed to have fallen out (6,17. 1 Ki. 3,15), and
the words be rendered, ‘ And Abiathar offered burnt offerings.’
XV, 24-31. 245
and in the present passage, where it is used in the same general
sense that is otherwise confined to poetry.
26. "ON AD BN] See on I 14, 9.
27, INS ANI] ‘Seest thou?’ (Ez. 8, 6) i.e. dost thou see how
matters are? But the text excites suspicion; and many attempts
have been made to correct it. Keil would read 7857, and render
O seer: but the priest is never identified with the prophet; nor is
the term seer ever applied to him. LXX has iere,’- which may
either represent 381) (Abiathar as well as Zadoq being supposed
to be addressed: cf. the pl. in 27>. 28) or be a misrendering (or
misreading) of M81: see, return thou to the city, etc.: comp. 787
in 15, 3. Gen. 41, 41 etc. The objection to this is that 1N. used
similarly occurs v. 28; and the repetition of the same expression,
in two contiguous verses, where no special stress rests upon it, is
an inelegancy, of which the writer of these chapters of Samuel is
not likely to have been guilty.
We. suggests for ANN 1Π2Π, WRIA {NIN ‘unto Zadoq the chief
priest’ (2 Ch. 31, 10. Ezra 7, 5), supposing the expression (which
otherwise does not occur before 2 Ki. 25, 18 WN 172) to be an
addition made by one of the last redactors of the book.
28. nyaya| at the fords of. So Kt., which ch. 17, 16 shews to
be more probable than ΠΊΣΩ 7” she plains of, the reading of Qri
and the Versions’, and which is preferred, after Béttcher, by most
moderns (Th. Ke. We. Kp.). The word occurs only here, 17, 16,
and 19, 19 (see note), the usual term being ἽΝ), May».
30. David here commences the ascent of the Mount of Olives,
The pfcpp. serve to represent the scene vividly, as well as state
what was happening at the time when David received the intel-
ligence related in v. 31.
wen... Nn] The word is an uncommon one, It recurs, joined
with we, Jer. 14, 3. 4. Est. 6, 12.
31. TIN WN] Read qn ody (sc. P33), or, following LXX,
1 Cf. the anim miany Nu. 22, 1 etc., and im mary Jos. 4, 13 ete.
246 The Second Book of Samuel,
1377 sy75): Jn is never construed with an accus. of the person
fo whom a thing is told.
32. OY MINN’ WwW] The subj. may be either mMNnwnn or W—
‘to the place where men were wont (or he was wont) to worship
God:’ the former is more probable. The reference is to some
spot at the top of the Mount of Olives, which was frequented as a
sanctuary, or place of worship. InN mim as I το, 10,
ΝΠ] LXX ὁ ἀρχιεταῖρος AavetdS= 919 AY SANT (cf. v.37; τό, 16),
no doubt rightly, the title being added naturally on the first occur-
rence of the name. In LXX the gentile name has been strangely
Graecized—either by the original translators, or by a scribe, too
anxious to improve his author’s text (comp. above, p. 60 o/e)—
and combined with ἑταῖρος, so as to produce the compound ‘ Chief
companion.’
InInd yp] ‘ torn as /o his tunic :’ Ew. § 284°, 288) end.
33. xvod vy mim] Is. 1,14 ΠΟ %y yn. Job 7, 20.
34. wn Wyn ox] For the position of Wyn, cf. on ch. 17, 13.
"ἢ Jray] The accents must be disregarded. ‘If thou returnest
to the city, and sayest to Absalom, “ Thy servant will I, O king, be:
thy father’s servant, I was ¢ha¢ formerly, and now, zow I will be
thy servant,” thou wilt defeat for me the counsel of Ahitophel.’
The } before ‘3% (twice) must introduce the predicate, though
both are extreme examples of its use for that purpose: cf. Ew.
§ 3482; Zenses, §§ 124, 125 Obs.
35. TIN, ,. 5 mM] Similarly 1 Ki. 20, 6”.
37. NT ΠΡ] The same anomalous punctuation (for ΠΡ in séc.),
according to Norzi, is found also in the best MSS. 16, 16 (where
Hahn has ΠΡ) and 1 Ki. 4, 5. Elsewhere the form in use is
always 3), except in Prov. 27, ro Kt. (Qri Y4), the form ΠΡ) being
only presupposed in 17 (cf. Ὑν 12, Τα):
16, 1. Dy] only here of space.
y’P ΠΝ] The numeral referring to the cakes into which the
summer fruit was pressed: cf. the construction of ond.
2. Jo mos ΓῺ] ‘what are these 20 shee, with reference to thee?’
AV. idiomatically and excellently, ‘What meanest thou by these?’
AV, 32—XVI. 14. 247
So Ez. 37, 18 end. Gen. 33, 5. 8 mm ΠΟΠΌΠ 53 ἽΡ Ἴ5; and simi-
larly Ex. 12, 26. Jos. 4, 6.
onbrby] The 5 affords an example of the accidental repetition
of a letter from a preceding word, such as has probably taken
place—though it is not there corrected by the Massorah—in
Is. 32, 15,
onyin died] Cf. Ex. 17, 1 pyn mnwd: Is. 51, ro a*dyya aayd.
3. mabnp] See on I 15, 28.
5. ΝΥ] irregularly for X83).
bony xy xxi] Comp. Jer. 41, 6 na yen 95h, The type is
unusual : bP) N3” NS would be the ordinary one: see 2 Ki. 2, 11
727) son oabyn, and with the finite verb often, as ch. 3, 16
nda pon 7s.
8. Jnyi3 3m] ‘and behold, thou art in thy calamity.’
τὸ. Kt. ‘21 dbp Se On "3 bop» 3] There is no occasion for
the correction of the Qri; the Kt. may be rendered, ‘7 he curseth,
and if Jehovah have said to him, Curse David, who, then, shall
Say ΕΟ
12: οἰ AVS] ie. ‘2y3 on mine iniquity, i.e. the iniquity done
to me. But this would be rather *D'20; and the sense expressed
by LXX, Pesh. Vulg. upon my affliction, i.e. “3¥32, is altogether
preferable. The expression ‘5 (‘J¥7NN) ‘2¥2 AN is a common one:
I 1,11: Gen. 29, 32. (Qri ‘292 upon mine eye, which is inter-
preted by the Jews—see AV. marg.—to mean my ars /)
dbp] my curse may be naturally understood to signify che curse
uttered upon me: here, therefore, the Kt. need not be deserted.
ΤΕ. bboy pon νος 727] Another irregular type. We should expect
ODD}. Comp. I 19, 23, and 13, 19 where in lieu of the expected
inf. abs. (PYM) we have the frequentative tense ;Apyn son yoni.
ΠΩ ‘over against him’ AV. RV.: more exactly, parallel with
him, alongside him: Ez. 1, 20. 21.
“py)| frequentative (I 1, 3). bpD) for bop) would make the
sequence more regular. |
14. oO'5*y| The name of a place is imperatively demanded in
clause @ (on account of both x3 and nw in clause 2). Either
248 The Second Book of Samuel,
py is this place—though it has not the appearance of a
prop. name, and would naturally signify weary (LXX ékdeAvpévor)—
or the name has disappeared from the text, having either been
corrupted into n‘S‘y, or fallen out beside it, owing to its graphical
similarity with it. Lucian after ὮΙ has παρὰ τὸν Ἰορδάνην Ξ-- ἼΠ,
was] Ex. 23, 12. 31, 17:
15. Sw we Dy by] ‘and all the people, even the men of
Israel.’ But ΝΠ is superfluous and is not expressed in LXX. It
is further to be observed that throughout the narrative pyn 55 are
regularly with David: 5s1w wx b> are with Absalom. No doubt
the word has come into the text by error from the line above.
18. nd] Here, of course, the Qri % is necessarily right (cf. on
I 2, 3). Notice the emphatic position of both 5 and ‘nN: 50 6. g.
ΠΣ 0: 15:15. 0
20. myy o55 12Π] Jud. 20, 7 adm ΠΥΡῚ nay ond yan: od Ἰ2Π
also Din 1, 13. Jos: 18, 4.
22. ἘΝ da syd] Ch 12, ταῦ. 129.
23. ὈΝῸ ἼΦΝΘ] sc. oxi, The Qri ΦῸΝ is not needed.
17, τ. ΝΣΣΠΊΠΩΝ] LXX Ὁ sxmmnax. The reflexive 5 is idio-
matic with this verb, especially where one person’s choice is
opposed, expressly or by implication, to that of another: Gen. 13,
Ji: 705. 24: 221 Wis τῷ. 55) Εἴο:
2. ὮΝ) ΠΕ] Comp. on 4,1.
3. ‘x ὈΣΠ aw>] ‘as the return of the whole, is the man whom
thou seekest; all the people shall be at peace’ (Keil, and sub-
stantially RV., disregarding the accentuation, which places the
greatest break in the clause at 53n). This is explained to mean
that if the person of David be secured by Absalom’s adherents,
it will be tantamount to securing the return of the people generally.
But it is unnecessary to point out how awkwardly, and inaccurately,
the comparison is expressed, and how little consonant with Hebrew
style is the abruptness with which the last clause is attached to the
one containing the comparison. ‘The difficulty is removed by the
reading of LXX, which exhibits the full text, of which MT, has
preserved only a mutilated fragment: ὃν τρόπον ἐπιστρέφει ἡ νύμφη
XVI, 5—XVII. 10. 249
πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς" πλὴν ψυχὴν ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς σὺ ζητεῖς, καὶ πάντι τῷ λαῷ
ἔσται ἐν εἰρήνῃ = WPI NAS INS WN 98) pd ΠΡ ΓΟΝ ΠΡΞΠ 2103
[2] ὈΨΠ 5) ‘And I will bring back all the people unto thee as a
bride returneth to her husband: thou seekest but the life of one man,
and all the people shall be at peace.’ A copyist’s eye passed from
nves 5s to ws; and the letters which remained were re-grouped
(wn bon for wx nban) and altered, for the purpose of extracting
from them the best sense possible under the circumstances.
mbw] a (virtual) accus., though not adverbial (Keil), but as
predicate to mn. The substantive verb, as Arabic shews, is
construed—in pointed opposition to the principles of Greek and
Latin syntax—with an accusative’, Elsewhere pydw itself often
constitutes the predicate: see on I 16, 4.
5. Np] Better, with LXX, 387.
6. 127 ANN PS ON] ‘if not, speak shou-’ px DN as Gen. 30, 1
"IN AND PR ON). Ex. 32, 32. Jud.9, rg. 20. 2 Ki. 2, 10%
9. 085] sc. OBST: of, I 2,13 win bwap.
yown yowr| See on I τό, 4.
ro. 3) δ)Π)}]} ‘and he (yown Ὁ. 9), even (though) a man of valour,
whose heart is as the heart of a lion, will melt away.’ DD», except
in the poetical passages, Is. ro, 18. ψ. 58, 8 (Ὁ Ν 23). 112, Io, is
always, when used figuratively, joined with 25 (JOS. 5, ἘΠῚ πὶ τὶ 1.
Is. 13, 7. 19, 1 al.): perhaps here the preceding 425, though not
in grammatical construction with DD’, was felt by the writer to be
1 Strictly an accus. of limitation—‘ will subsist as peace,’ the accus. defining
the manner in which the subsisting takes place (Wright, Avad. 67. ii. pp. 123,
125, 129, 213, ed. 2).
2 The athnah appears to be right (against We.). Had the meaning been
‘Shall we do after his saying, or not? speak thou’ (i.e. had a verd to be sup-
plied mentally after DN), 89 DN, not 78 DX, would have been in accordance
with usage: see Gen, 24, 21 8) DN 1907 TTD MOTT. Ex. 16, 4 NI 7) Π
nb on. Nu. 11, 23 89 ON "2 FIP ns. Dt. 8, 2 δὴ ON ᾿ΠΊΣῸ WowNN. Jud. 2,
22, })8 ON in a disjunctive question is only used where Ὁ" ON precedes, and
where, therefore, a sabst., not a verb, has to be mentally supplied: Ex. 17, 7
PROX 2972-7) wn, Nu. 13, 20 PRON py ΠΔ Ὁ π. ἼΞ1 15 to be taken in a
pregnant sense: Absalom invites Hushai not merely to say whether he agrees
with Ahitophel’s advice or not, but 27 με disagrees to state his views in full.
250 The Second Book of Samuel,
sufficiently near to indicate what part of the Sym 12 the words
Ὁ pn referred to.
1. 213 pan 7251] 2ῚΡ Ja/ile is an Aramaic word, in Hebrew
mostly, if not entirely, confined to late writers (ψ. 55. 68. 78. 144.
Job 38. Qoh. 9. Zech. 14+). No doubt D2°P3 2” ther midst should
be read with LXX, Pesh. Vulg.
y25|=thy presence: comp. Ex. 33, 14. Dt. 4, 37 brought thee
forth 193 weth Hrs presence.
12. 9273] and we will light upon him. Others take 33m) as=
WMIN (as Gen. 42, 11. Ex. 16, 7. 8. Nu. 32, 32. Lam. 3, 42+);
but a verd is desiderated. The verb ΠῚ) is chosen on account of
the comparison with dew: cf. Is. 7,19. 5y5* wed the impf. in a
comparison, expressing what is wswal, as regularly, e.g. 19, 4.
ΤΕ τὶ 22. 15: 20, 5. ete,
ΠΤ) ΩΝ The jussive form is unusual: I 14, 36 (Zenses, ὃ 50
Obs.).
13. +++) bx os] Ὃν bx immediately after oN for emphasis.
Cie, 25 (mm ὯΝ); Ex. 21, 9.
wm] The Af only Lev. 22, 16 besides, in a different appli-
cation ἢ) OMIN IN'wn cause them Zo dear guilt. Here cause (men)
to bring ropes=cause ropes to be brought.
ΜΝ] The fut. perf. after ty, as after oN Ty Gen. 24, 19; ἽΝ
DN Wk τό. 28, 15, al.
r5. nxtai nxta] So Jos. 7, 20. 2 Ki. 5, 4. 9, r2t. Cf. 11, 25.
WN yp] “7 (emph.) counsel:’ 12, 28. 2 Ki. το, 4 TOY) PN
ymax. Is. 20, 6 ΠΝ Yoo. xr. Ez. τό, 60. 62.
16. 2707 Maya] See on 15, 28.
pnd ypa"yp] ‘lest 17 be swallowed up to the king’=lest the king
be swallowed up (i.e. fig. undone, destroyed: 20, 19. 20, and often
in poetry). Impersonal passives occur, though rarely, in Hebrew :
Nu. 16, 29 BM ?y ἼΡΞ' DINA 53 ΠῚΡΒ ON if 1} de visdled upon them
with (cogn. accus.)... Dt. 21, 3 m2 Tay xd wwe wherewith τ; had
not been worked. 4 %3 Tay’ xd awe. Is. 14, 3 the hard labour
ya-Tay WN wherewith (accus.) 2 was worked with thee. 16, Io.
53) 5 WO NBT. Ez. τό, 34 mat xd pny. Lam. 5, 5 wormnn-nd Ἴ)}})
XVII, 11-22. 251
we are wearied, 2} 7s not respifed fo us=we are not respited. 4 pba
would be the passive of > yba (as Ὁ ΠᾺΠ in Lam. of Ὁ m3), the
ὦ being the ποία accusativt, as I 23, το.
17.’ modmy... oy] ‘were standing at En-rogel, and a
maid used fo go and tell them, and they wou/d go and tell the king ;
for they could not, etc.’ The tenses are frequentative, and express
how communication was regudarly maintained between David and
his friends in the city. Keil, not noticing the character of the
tenses, has misunderstood the verse. ΠΠΒΦΠ 2.6 maid—defined
in the narrator’s mind by her being chosen for this office: from
our point of view, @ maid (comp. on I 19, 13).
18. 81%] On this particular occasion, however, a lad saw them
and told Absalom. The tense used, unlike those in v. 17, describes
a single act.
19. 25] ‘) Wap, as Nu. 33, 8 nwnn ‘pp (so Sam. Ong. Pesh.
Vulg.) for nwnn 36m. See above, on I 12, 5.
20. Soy] The word is doubtful. os: even supposing that
bo were a legitimate formation from it, is a word used of a well,
meaning 10 contain black and muddy water; not only, however,
is 55 not a legitimate formation from a root bon, but the sense
obtained would be questionable and unsatisfactory: Ges. rivulus
parum aquae continens is arbitrary, Friedrich Delitzsch’ compares
the Assyrian mékal/u, small water-channel; but the connexion
between Hebrew and Assyrian is not so close as to lend a high
degree of probability to the explanation of obscure Hebrew ἅπαξ
εἰρημένα from the Assyrian. The versions render no help. LXX
παρῆλθαν μικρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος ; Luc. διεληλύθασι σπεύδοντες : Targ. 35
NITY Way; Pesh. ββϑθ yoo osas (‘they have passed on hence,’
continuing ‘ because they sought water and found none’); Vulg.
(cf. Luc.) Transierunt festinanter, gustata paululum aqua. If the
word be not corrupt, it is one of which the meaning is unknown.
22, TNX TY] Anomalously for 198: so Gen. 48, 22. Is. 27, 12.
1 Prolegomena eines Neuen Heb.-Aram. Worterbuches zum A. T. (1886),
Ρ. 47-
252 The Second Book of Samuel,
Zech. 11, 7. Obviously the form, though in appearance that of the
st.¢., cannot be so really; though why in these four instances the
vowel of the ultima should remain against custom unlengthened in
the s¢. ads. (and so the fathah of the penultima be preserved) it is
impossible to say: the passages do not resemble each other in any
other common feature ; and the form 798 occurs elsewhere too
frequently in ‘the flow of speech’ (Ew. ὃ 267») for it to be reason-
ably attributed to that cause, as Ew. suggests, in these four
passages. As in many other cases, the anomalous form is due in
all probability to an accidental corruption in the tradition which
the punctuation represents,.
23. inva SN yh] i.e. gave his last directions to his house: cf.
2 Ki. 20, 1 (=Is, 38, 1) mad ww.
ΠΝ] In pause for PIN: cf.on 115, 23. The word exem-
plifies well the reflexive sense often expressed by the Nif‘al.
2 Ser] The Jsraelite! No doubt Seynuen the Ishmaelite
must be read, with 1 Ch. 2,17 and LXX (cod. A) here ; for a notice
of another Ishmaelite among David's subjects, see 1 Ch. 27, 30.
wn n2}. On these words, see We.
26, qyoin yas] “ἦι the land of Gil'ad:’ cf. p. 29 nor.
27>b-29%, wan... Iw... 3%] For the order, which is
unusual (Zénses, ὃ 208. 3), but adds emphasis to the subj. and
obj.. comp. 2 Ch. 31, 6. There is, no doubt, an incongruity in
the text, as amongst the articles which David’s friends... wun
Syoxd are some (ryy) %>) mp) Jw) which would evidently be
unsuitable for that purpose: but the list is a long one, and the
writer may have supposed that the reader would naturally refer
byox5 mentally only to the latter (and longer) part of it. The
alternative would be to read with LXX 38°37 before 151, and
then #2" for wn, in which case the entire list would not be the
direct object of the latter verb. 15% is construed, of course,
collectively. After 29¥% LXX have καὶ ἀμφιτάπους = DIN (Pr.
Bi, 22).
28. py, ..%pi] The second ‘Spy is not expressed by LXX
or Pesh., and has no doubt been repeated by error.
AVIT, 23—X VIII. 11. 253
18, 3. 43) nny 33] ‘for now there are ten thousand such as
we,—which yields no sense agreeable to the context. Read with
LXX, Symm. Vulg. ΠΡ for TAY: ‘for thou art the like of us
(being) ten thousand’=for thou art worth ten thousand of us.
mny and ΠΝ are elsewhere confused, cf. 1 Ki. 1, 18. 20 MT. and
Versions,
syd ΚΙ] ie, ἬΝ τς TTP (as I 2, 28). But a if of wy is
doubtful (on 2 Ch. 28, 23, cf..on I 21, 7), and the yod may have
readily found its way into the word through the influence of the
preceding ἢ. Read with the Qri the Qa/ airy,
4. mynd] Cf. I 29, 2.
5. o7oxd] 5 in pxd as in ΠΌΣΟ (on ch. 15, 11)=genily. % lit.
for me=I1 pray: comp. 2 Ki. 4, 24 aod S-ryyn ΟΝ slacken me
not the riding, except I tell thee.
6. ODN] Luc. Maawav=D'IN, which Klo. adopts.
7. +,.0w” 7m] ‘And the slaughter was there great on that day,’ ©
etc. (not, as RV., ‘And there was a great slaughter there that day :’
notice the art.), The nw, however (/ogether with S\nn DY), over-
weights the clause, and is not expressed by LXX. Probably it
was introduced here by error from the line below where it is in
place—After Abs ΣΦ» add, with LXX, wx.
8. nyyp2] The punctuation M¥52 is hardly probable: it is better
to follow the Qri nyib), and to suppose that ἡ has become mis-
placed: cf. on ch. 14, 14.
cs cae ΝΡ] ‘And... happened by chance (1, 6) before ...,’
i,e. came in front of them accidentally.
wn] and he was set or put. LXX καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη, Pesh. wwhlhlo=
bm, perhaps rightly. At least {4'7 does not occur elsewhere in a
similar connexion.
11. YY) MNT ADM] ‘and Zo, thou sawest ...,’ a more vivid way
of expressing ‘and 7/ thou sawest:’ comp. on I 9, 7; and [ΠῚ
Ex. 4,08.
nnd aby] ‘and it would have been zzcumbent on me, would have
devolved upon me to give,’ etc.: by as Neh. 13, 13 pond omdyy
paned; ὃν mn τ Ki, 4, ὩΣ: ef. a, 56,23 12 ὧν, efe;
254 The Second Book of Samuel,
12. now xb we Ope 1338 NPY] The sequence of tenses exactly
as Ψ. 81, 14-17; 2 Ki. 3, 14 (with by) : Tenses, § 145. } is used
as in v. 11, to subjoin an emphatic exclamation: see on 24, 3.
spor ΠΥ} ‘Have a care, whosoever ye be, of the young man.’
Such, if the text be correct, must be the sense of "2, on the
analogy of np v. 22. I 19, 3, though no example occurs even of
me entirely parallel LXX φυλάξατέ po, Pesh. wos 09019)/, 1, 6.
sony : % as v. 5, probably rightly.
13. ἽΡΦ wpa ΤΩΝ ww] ‘Or if I had dealt against his life falsely
(lit. had wrought falsehood against his soul)—and nothing is hid
from the king—then thou wouldst stand aloof’ (i.e. wouldst do
nothing to shield me). LXX joins the first three words to v. 12b,
reading μὴ ποιῆσαι κιτ.λ. 1. 6. PY WII nivyro— Have a care, I
pray you, of the young man, even of Absalom, so as not to deal
against his life falsely.’ But this does not agree with what follows:
for (1/3299 ὭΣ ANN) cannot mean ‘and thou wouldst have to
stand before him (the king):’ ‘733% never means simply 77: the
presence of, but either ‘from the presence of’ (Is. 1, 16) or (abso-
lutely) at a distance (Gen. 21, 16. 2 Ki. 3, 22. 4, 25), aloof.
14. p2p5 nbn 15 Ν Ὁ] ‘Not so would I fain wait before thee,’
i.e. I will not delay here in your presence—while you are making
up your mind—on any such pretexts as you allege.
ὙΠ 15)}}} Cf 12, 21: 1Ch.12,1: Zenses, ὃ 161 Obs. 2.
mbwa aba] ab as in the phrases o-2$2 Ex. 15, 8 al. in the heart
of the sea; oO 3b3 Ψ. 46, 3 al.: pYowN αὐτὴν Dt. 4; Fe.
18. npd] For this use of mpd, cf. 17, 19. (In Nu. 16, 1 op
must be read: so B6é. We. Dillm. etc.)
nayo-nx]| The same form, Gen. 35, 14. 20 (in the s/.c.). But
the absence of the art. is irregular (on I 24, 6; ch. 1, 10); and it
has probably fallen out.
nidwar Ἢ] 1° as I 15, 12 in the sense of 52071, monument.
19. YIN WH MA way 32] Cf. v. 31, and on I 24, τό.
20. 5y sa] 13. ὃν 5 (Gen. 18, 5 al.) must be read with the Qri:
}2 has fallen out before the following }3.
XVIII. 12-29. 255
21>, w3] Probably ‘won should be read, as vv. 21% 22. 23.
41.532.
22. ΠΣ ὙΠ] MD as Job 13, 13 TDP IN ADIN) Ὁ wn
nd sby = and let come upon me what will.
y Ans ar nnd] 12, 23 ὮΝ aN ar and.
Π50}] Merely an orthographic variation for 13 2 see on: Ir, 26.
ΓΝ WI PR] Probably ‘no message finding or aéfaining
(aught),’ i.e. no message that will secure you a reward. But the
expression is peculiar: and it is far from certain that the text
is sound.
23. m9 ΠῚ] Prefix, with LXX, 79x, which is required by
Hebrew idiom.
7997 77] by the way to the ‘Circle’ or Plain, viz. of Jordan.
The word bears a specific geographical sense: Gen. 13, 12 “YW
ADI. £95 17.26. Dt. 34,.9°: 11} 193, Gen. 13, 50, FY. 2. KL 9,46.
24. DO YwH ὉΦ ja] i.e. in the space between the outer and
inner gates of the city gateway.
26. Wen bx] ‘to the porter”? LXX, Pesh. Vulg. vocalized 5x
YW, which is accepted even by Keil as preferable to MT.: the
king was sitting zw¢/hzn the gateway, v. 24, the watchman called out
directly to him, v. 25, and here, v. 26>, receives from him an
immediate reply: he called, therefore, not to the porter, but z/o
the gate, addressing himself directly to David.
wN mM TNX] Add, with LXX, 708.
28. xp] We. cleverly 31>", — evidently unaware that his
conjecture was supported by Lucian καὶ προσῆλθεν ᾿Αχιμαας. In
27, Ahima‘az is still at a distance: his drawing near is just a point
which a Hebrew narrator would mention, before stating that he
addressed the king.
29. nd] The Massorah (see Norzi, Minhath Shai, ad loc.) has
a note pidwn [VAD ‘A (above, on I 12, 5), viz. here, I 16, 4, and
2 Ki. 9, 19. But see note on I 16, 4.
“ἢ on’N] Keil: ‘I saw the great commotion at Joab’s sending
the servant of the king and thy servant.’ But the position of ANY
makes this rendering impossible. In all probability bon Tay ns
256 The Second Book of Samuel,
is a correction, intended as a substitute for the less courtly second
person 773» ΠΝ. The correction found its way into the text, in a
wrong place, by the side of the original reading, and the conjunc-
tion 1 was added, for the purpose of producing the semblance of a
coherent sentence. Read, therefore, axy now dyn pont on
Jiay nx. So We. Kp. Stade, Klo—For nn, cf. Pr. 9, 13. I 19, 3.
19, 1. 179%] Of mental perturbation, usually through anger, but
also sometimes through fear (Is. 32, 10. 11: comp. the 11 a of
Dt. 28, 65). Here, not so much definitely in grief, as through the
shock which paralysed and unnerved the king.
δ.) n2d2 ἼΩΝ 721] The entire narrative is remarkable for both
its minuteness and its vividness; but especially so just here. We.
(Linlettung, 1878, p. 227") calls attention to the graphic ynaba.
Observe in what follows the feeling which David throws into the
expression of his sorrow by the addition of the pronoun ‘nd jn’ "Ὁ
99 92 OOwAX Pnnn oN.
ἘΣ ὈΝΟΊ Only here: comp. οὐ, pn I 21, ro. τ Κα ae as
{5 25, 77. Prob. pnd should be pointed (We.): cf. p. 132 mo/e.
3, νι; NP 3] The second "5 is resumptive of the first (on
I 14, 39).
8. 85 by 725] as Is. 40, 2 al.
9. Toon 250] The verse should end here. With the following
words the scene changes, and a different subject is introduced.
10. f1t3,.. 7%] ‘And all the people were zx a state of mutual
strife. The Wf. of } is not found elsewhere: but such would
be its force: comp. 4313 Job 23, 7, and paw) Pr. 29, 9. 7 and
the ptcp., as explained on I 23, 26.
pidwas by] The people picture David as having fled from
Absalom, as from one whom his presence encumbered : cf. 5yp in
Gen. 13, 9.11; 25,6; Ex. το, 28; Neh. 13, 28 *Syp wana.
11. At the end of this verse, LXX expresses the clause which
stands now in MT, as Ὁ. 12>, viz. don 5x ΝᾺ Sew $5 aan.
Evidently v.41 is its right place; it is required here to explain
1 =Die Composition des Hex. und der hist. Biicher des A.T.s (1889), p. 262.
ALIX, 1-19. 257
David’s action described in 12%: on the contrary, as 12), it in-
terrupts the close connexion which subsists between 12 and 13.
(It is followed in 12» by the words ἸΠ}8 by repeated by error from
the middle of the verse: observe, bon precedes each time.)
14. ΤΠ] See on I 15, δ.
spd man | pd nn suggests the idea of being in a person’s
service : comp. 2 Ki. 5, 2>; and ch. 16, 19 end.
17. 31] viz. from the hill country of Judah to the depression
through which the Jordan runs, v. 25. Cf. Luke το, 30.
18. The first four words of this verse, describing who accom-
panied Shimei, belong to v.17: the rest of v.18 relates to Zzda,
forming with 19% a sort of parenthesis: the purport of the allusion
to Shimei appears in 19? ff.
inby}] Of uncertain meaning. The word does not otherwise
occur in a sense appropriate here; elsewhere, it means in Qa/ to
come forcibly (of a spirit, I το, 6 al.), sometimes (though the Af
is more common in this sense) fo advance unchecked, to prosper
(Wy. 45, 5. Is. 53, ro al.). Here, the rendering in closest accord-
ance with the general meaning of the root is 20 rush down to, dash
znto (comp. LXX κατεύθυναν came straight down to: Vulg. irrum-
penies Jordanem). ‘The word excites suspicion: but if correct,
it must be intended to indicate the zeal with which Ziba and his
meni exerted themselves to reach the Jordan in time to conduct
the king across’. The first four words of v. 18 being joined to v. 17,
“31 ΝΙΝ ΝῚ is left without a predicate: and as the pred. introduced by
simple ἢ is barely defensible (2 Ki. 11, 1 Kt.; Zenses, § 129), it is
better to suppose the } to have arisen by dittography from ἸΏΝ,
and to read simply inby. Render, therefore, ‘And Ziba ete. sped
down to Jordan before the king, and crossed over the ford (see on
v. 19) in order to bring the king’s household over,’ etc.
1g. MSyn Mayr] ‘And the ferry-boat ἢ kept passing over,’ i.e. (?)
1 In Arab. 5x is vecte se habuit: in Aram. to cleave (16,14 Targ. Pesh.;
y. 136,13 Targ.); whence Ges. (after Abu lWalid) fiderunt transeundo (RV.
went through), But such a sense would be isolated in Heb., and imply a rather
violent metaphor.
2. Had gone over (Keil) would have been may TIAYT,
5
258 The Second Book of Samuel,
crossed to and fro. But A 3yh is not found elsewhere with the
meaning /erry-boat ; and probably we should restore with We.
(after LXX) 7737 Hy" ‘and they crossed over the ford (15, 28)
in order to bring the king’s household over, and to do what he
thought good.’ The words will then describe the purpose with which
Ziba and his attendants, v. 18>, came down to the Jordan—On
say, see on [ 2, 28.
jw Ways] = ‘as he was adout fo pass over Jordan’ (so RV.
marg.): cf.on 118,19. It is plain from vv. 34, 39 (Kimham shall
pass over with me), 40 that David did not cross until afer the con-
versation with Shimei.
23. Sxwa we nov on] Comp. Saul’s reply, I τι, 13 now xd
mM OVI WN.
25. Mwy] as Dt. 21, rab,
soon nab pyn7}05] ‘from the day, the going of the king,’ nad
being in apposition with oy. An unusual construction: but
another instance, exactly similar, occurs Ex. 9, 18. On Ws on
N3, see on I 24, 5. ;
26. novin ΝᾺ 35] ‘when Jerusalem—i.e. the inhabitants of
Jerusalem—came,’ etc.: comp. I 6, 13 ΣΡ wow-na. Never-
theless, the construction is unusual: and /erusalem in the sense of
the people of Jerusalem is not quite parallel to /wdah for the people
of Judah in v.16: moreover, the sequel 15 "ΟΝ almost requires
that 26% should contain some statement about JZephibosheth: after
it has just been stated (25*) that Mephibosheth expressly came
down to meet David, we do not expect to be told that the king
addressed him, as it were accidentally, when the Jerusalemites
arrived ex masse to greet him. Hence it is better to read povawn
‘when he came from Jerusalem .. «ἢ
27. % mwans quay Wx 5] LXX, Pesh. Vulg. iS ray ἼΩΝ "5
ἜΣ ΣΑΣ The text might express merely what Mephibosheth
thought: the reading of the versions makes it clear that the com-
mand was actually given to Ziba, and affords a more substantial
ground for 7J7Ay3 ban in v. 28.
29. APIS... ΠῚ] See on I 26, 18,
XIX. 23-43. 259
30. JIT... Ἴ2ἼΠ] with a touch of contempt: otherwise, of
course, in the first person, Gen. 24, 33.
ὙΠΩΝ] I have said (viz. this moment)=J say. this is my
decision.
32. IV] Zo Jordan (see v. 37).
indwd] to escort him (προπέμπειν), as Gen. 12, 20. 18, 16 al.
ΤΌΣ ΠΝ] A mixture of two readings fT VATNN (as vv. 37, 40)
and #02 (v. 19). Probably the less common 3 is original. The
Kt. is destitute of all philological analogy, and, in fact, meaning-
less, ΤΡ 2 ΤΙΝ cannot express ‘ alveum Jordanis,’ as Ges. strangely
thought (765. 169): and if the narrator had wished to convey
the idea τὸ ἐν τῷ “Iopdavy—though that would here have had no
meaning—he would have written #72 "Wx nN. Keil’s explanation
(derived from Bé.) is totally inconsistent with Hebrew usage.
33. InIw3a] Probably an error for ᾿ξ. ΠΕ is a very
irregular and doubtful form from Aw; and the » may have been
introduced accidentally into the word through the influence of Aly
in Ὁ. 34 (We.). On 5y3, see on I 25, 2.
34. ἽΝ] LXX WINS: see Ruth 4, 15.
36. by]=by: see 15, 33; and cf. 8, 7.
37. “0 ὉΨΝ5] weth the lke of a little (= just) would, ete.
39. Sy ἽΠ2Π] choose (and lay) upon me: cf. Gen. 30, 28 m2p2
Sy ὙΦ; 34, 12 NOV TAD IND Ὅν Ἰ2ἼΠ.
4τ. Ywayn] Kt. 3Y (as I 14, 19); Qri AVI: LXX OMY
were passing on with... ‘The meaning must be that all Judah
and a part of Israel escorted the king from Gilgal to Jerusalem
20, 2. This is expressed clearly by the reading of LXX, by that
of MT. it is expressed very indistinctly, if at all’ (We.).
43. by] CE 2: 44, andvon Ig, τοὶ
Εἰ Ὀ)2 ΝΠ] i.e. have we obtained any advantage from our tribal
connexion with David? A side-glance at the Benjaminites, who,
‘it may be inferred from I 22, 7, had been benefited by their con-
nexion with Saul (Th. from Michaelis).
> Nw MAW? ἘΝ] ‘or has anything been carried away by us?’
(Th. Keil). Such at least appears to be the meaning intended:
5.2
260 The Second Book of Samuel,
but it is very difficult to account for the form NN) grammatically.
Ew. ὃ 2404 treats it as an inf. abs. V7/ from Nws3 with the feminine
ending n, formed on the analogy of the inf. abs. in Π which occurs
occasionally with verbs vs (on 6, 20), Such a form, however,
unusual even in verbs 7%, is unparalleled in verbs δ 5; and the
5676 moreover would on this theory be inexplicable (KG6nig, pp.
632-4). Kénig, following Ol. p. 598, regards the form as a fem.
ptcp. (as it no doubt is, Zech. 5, 7. 1 Ch. 14, 2: cf. nNbp3 Dt. 30,
11): but a fem. ptcp. is not here admissible syntactically—even if
treated as a subst. (with 82 as a 27:61), the sense obtained would be
questionable in itself, and the clause would balance ΩΝ 5ysyn
very imperfectly. There seems to be no alternative but to treat
ΤΙΝῸΣ as an error for NW2, which would be the normal inf. abs. Wf:
the two clauses will then balance one another properly; and as
XY may mean to carry off, fake away, with the passive the mean-
ing of the whole will be ‘Or has there been aught carried away—
gained—by us'?’
44. ny] Metaph. (note the fem. pl.)=farts : so Gen. 43, 34.
J) ΝΣ WIT On] Sand also in David I am (more) than thou.’
Ὁ), however, points to something additional ; whereas the sentence
as thus understood adds nothing to what has been just said "wy
yboa Ὁ nya): for it is evidently impossible to draw a distinction
between soon and 9, as though ‘ David’ expressed or meant
more than ‘the king.” LXX καὶ πρωτότοκος ἐγὼ ἢ ov”, 1. 6. 23 for
N73 ‘and I am also ¢he firstborn rather than thou:’ see 1 Ch. 5, 2.
So Th. Ew. We. Stade, Klo. It is not true that jp "193 is ‘a phrase
incompatible with the meaning of 1132’ (Keil); for it does not
imply that Judah was in some measure a firstborn: ἢ may be
1 AV. RV. ‘ Or hath he given us any gift?’ conceal the difficulty of the clause :
x) nowhere means gave, nor new) gift! “wi is rendered furnished in 1 Ki.
9, 11: but the construction there is altogether different: »yya2 ΠῸ Ὁ ΠΝ Nw)
Ds lit. Zéf/ted up, supported, assisted Solomon with cedar-trees ; so Ezr. 1, 4 al.
FIDII YIP DIN ὙΠῚῪ Ν Ὁ) let the men of his place asszs¢ him with silver.
? The following words καί ye ἐν τῷ Aavetd εἰμι ὑπὲρ σὲ are a doublet repre-
senting the existing MT,
ALIX. 44—XX. 6. 261
used to express the idea of rather than, and not: W. 52, 5 NINN
31D YI; Hab. 2, 16 320 pp nyaw thou art filled with disgrace
rather than glory.
20, 3. m0 mardN] “ (21) widowhood of hvingness’—the English
is not more singular than the Hebrew. The punctuation can
hardly express the sense intended by the writer. The application
of the adverbial accus., which it implies, is unusually harsh; and
the idea which the entire expression is supposed to convey is
difficult, if not impossible, to seize’. We. would point N80 nix,
supposing that being treated as widows, although their husband
was alive, they are called by a figure of speech, not without
parallels in other languages, ‘ living widows’ (so LXX χῆραι ζῶσαι).
δ. 7M] Qri WA, which may be either Qa/ (so OL. ὃ 241°: cf.
OM) τ. 9 from tnx) from ὙΠ 5, or Auf. lit. shewed, exhibited delay
(so Ges. Lg. p. 377; Stade, § 498°; KGnig, p. 397°). How the Kt.
is to be vocalized is uncertain. Ol. suggests (‘ perhaps’) 79") (for
781), which is accepted by Stade, ὃ 112¢ (and adopted by him in
preference to the Qri). We have indeed Ὅ} for ‘Sim ek. 2730,
ND" for SON" Dt. 33, 21, and a few similar cases: but the _yod—
30% for "= WI8"—would be without parallel. On the whole,
it seems best with K6nig to suppose " an error for }, and to ac-
quiesce in the correction of the Qri. In any case, there is no need
to postulate a verb 10°= 48, and to punctuate with Miihlau-Volck
as a Pr‘el WIM.
6. wax] Pesh. ANY rightly: otherwise, as Ὁ. 7 speaks only of
the men of Joab, the mention of Joab in v. 8 is unprepared.
NID 15] ‘lest he ave found...:’ cf. 2 Ki. 2, τό, and Tenses,
§ 41 Obs. But the following δον ΠῚ (perf. with wazw conv., which
regularly follows }5 with the zmpf, e. g. 12, 28. Ex. 34, 15 f.) sug-
gests that here N¥ may be simply a clerical error for δον, In
2 Ki. 2, 16 the past tense is defended by the following Dw,
1 AV. living in widowhood yields an excellent sense; but unfortunately is
neither a rendering, nor a legitimate paraphrase, of the Hebrew.
* This is indeed 11 in Gen. 32, 5, but both 278) and 3px occur from ΠΝ.
3 In Aram, the 4/e/ 17 3x, quo)’ is in use, which might support this view.
262 The Second Book of Samuel,
yay Syn] LXX καὶ σκιάσει τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμῶν : Pesh. cS CATS
ees and pluck (7. dig) out our eyes: Targ. (paraphrasing)
x2 py and distress us: Vulg. et effugiat nos. Ewald, A7zsv. iii.
262 (E. T. 193), Keil, We. follow LXX, treating Swn as a denom.
from >¥ ‘and cast a shadow (or cloud) over our eye,’ metaph. for
‘occasion us anxiety. For the eye, as the organ in which the
Hebrew saw changes of emotion, or mental states, expressed, comp.
1 14,-07. $. ὃ, 8. 88, τὸ. Job 11, 20, 19, 7°etc. ἘΠ ΠΕ ΟΠ ΕΟ
however, byn should be read, not Gegin, AV. escape us, with marg.
‘Heb. deliver himself from our eyes :’ but this supplies more than
is legitimate, neither Azmse/f nor from being expressed—or even
implied—in the Hebrew! Ges. by a preferable method arrives at a
similar sense : ‘ Singulare est Ἔ ry ΟΠ auferre oculum alicuius, i.e.
eum fallere, subtrahere se oculis eius:’ RV. ‘and escape out of
our sight’ was no doubt reached similarly. Bo. Th., in agreement
virtually with Pesh., ‘and ¢ear away our eye,’ i.e. harm us irretriev-
ably. It is true that bw has usually the sense of tearing away so
as to rescue; but the more primitive sense of the root extraxit,
evellit (see Ges.: (45. exemit, eduxit rem, v.c. festucam ex oculo,
dentem) is seen in passages such as Gen. 31, 9. 16 or Amos 3, 12
or in the A7thp. Ex. 33, 6 fo “ar or strip off oneself; and it is ,
possible that it may have remained in use in this particular phrase,
though this is the only example of its occurrence. With py as
object, some word might indeed have been expected, expressing
more distinctly the idea of tearing or plucking out: but though it
is impossible to dogmatise on the meaning of the phrase, this is
perhaps, on the whole, the explanation least open to objection.
The explanation of Ges. labours under the disadvantage of giving
to Syn a metaphorical sense in no apparent connexion with the
ordinary usage of the word (to take away for the purpose of
rescuing), Ewald’s explanation is clever: but 20 cast a shade over
the eye is not quite the same as 20 cloud it.
7. ANY ἍΝ] LXX axy won) was rightly.
8. ΝᾺ Nwoyl,.. ὮΝ on] exactly as Jud. 19, 11; cf. on 1 9, 5.
1 an] ‘and Joab was girt with his garment (Lev. 6, 3), his
XX, 7-12. 263
clothing, and upon it was the girdle of a sword fastened (i.e. the
sword) upon his loins in its sheath.’ The sentence is involved and
obscure: though the fact is effectively concealed in the free ren-
dering of RV. 125 y1n is a strange combination ; and warrior’s
dress, the sense that seems to be required, is elsewhere expressed
by the punctuation 12 (1D), 1 4, 12. 17, 38. 39. 18, 4. Jud. 3,
τό: whether however 12 or 132 be read, wad not 73n would be
the verb naturally used with it: 7440 also (the fem. ΤΟΝ referring
only to the sword) appears to be superfluous. The text is in some
disorder, The most plausible restoration is that of Klo., who
supposes a word to have fallen out: wia> nan Wa 37 aN
43) noasp 3n UN »dyy ‘and as for Joab a sword was in his hand
underneath his warrior’s dress (cf. Jud. 3, 16), and upon it (i.e.
outside) he was girt with a sword fastened upon’ etc. The words
will then mention the fact that Joab held a sword concealed in his
(left) hand, which indeed seems required by the sequel (v. 10): the
sword girt outside was the one which fell just afterwards to the
ground, and so no doubt prevented ‘Amasa’s suspicions being
aroused. The Old Latin, which We. here follows, yields a heavy
and encumbered sentence, which can scarcely be original.
San) xy? Nim] Read, with LXX, 5B) ANY. NV) and it (the
sword) came out, and fell. The text is contrary to idiom, With
the emph. xn, the form of the sentence would be 2797) 8¥* 817)
ἘΠΡΕΣ (see on I 9, 5).
το, “3 ws] reflexively, guarded himself: so 2 Ki. 6, το.
> mow ΝΡ] I 26, 8.
11. Py] over or Sy him, i.e, by ‘Amasa.
yaxy “INS ἘΠΕ oo» WS 3) in form as Ex. 32, 26: cf. on I
1, ΤΙ: :
12. MwWN,...1D%] zo the field: cf. on 6, ro.
soyy yoy xan 55] sy) is the pf. with waw conv., carrying on
(Ges. § 132 Rem. 2), as a frequentative, the ptcp. ΝΏΠ ΟΣ (=whoso-
ever came) in fas/ time, just as it does in present time (6. g.)
Jer. 21,9 22) N37 whoso goeth out and falleth to the Chaldaeans,
etc. (Zenses, § 117).
264 The Second Book of Samuel,
14. Mayo nya) AbaN] Probably ΠΕΣ ΠῚ AAS «to Abel of Beth-
Ma‘achah’ should be read with Ew. Th. We. Klo. as in 2. 15.
ΛΠ 55)] No place or people named 9937 is known: and
after the mention of Abel and (or of) Beth-Ma‘achah as the goal of
Sheba’s movements, the words and all the Berites, if treated as
coupled to them, yield no intelligible sense. The athnah, then, must
be moved back to may. The sense of what follows turns upon
the meaning of NN AN INI"). NN ΝᾺ is not a mere synonym
of either “INN yon (to follow), or “INS FIM (to pursue): it means
to enter after some one into a place, as Ex. 14,17 OAMNN ἸΝ Δ viz.
into the sea (as vv. 23. 28, explicitly) ; I 26, 3 Saul came im after
him into the wilderness; 2 Ki, 11, 15; 2 Ch. 26,17; so "NN ΜῈ
Nu. 25, 8. Hence 73) $3" will mean, ‘and went zm after him,’
viz. as is required by the context, into Abel of Beth-Ma‘achah.
This shews that the subject of 1p", as well as the object in } NK,
is Sheba; and lends at the same time plausibility to Klo.’s proposal
to read, instead of the obscure pan 53 (after LXX καὶ πάντες ἐν
Χαρρει), ὈΣΞΞΠ Σ᾽ and all the Bichrites (the following "1 851 14,10)}}".
Sheba is described in v. 1 as "337}1; and the meaning of the verse
will then be that the members of his family or clan took part with
him and went 7 after him into the city in which he had taken
refuge®. The narrative reverts to Sheba’s pursuers in v. 15.
AN] AN simply=o) (not as=how much more: on 1 14, 30) is
very unusual in plain narrative, being confined chiefly to poetry,
and where it occurs in prose having generally some rhetorical
force ἃ, Here it does not in fact appear to be required, and
perhaps arose by error out of the first two letters of y MN: it is
not expressed by LXX.
1 Though it does not usually follow the subject zvzmedzately (Jer. 44, 25).
* Most modems read (after Vulg. omnesque viri electi) D°1729-53) and all
the young men (viz. followed after him [Joab]; or pursued after him [Sheba]):
but this seems to be inconsistent with the meaning of ΠΝ 83.
* myn Gen, 18, 13. 23. 24: with a pron. 128 FN Gen. 40, 16 and with sin-
gular frequency in Lev, 26 (vv. 16. 24. 28. 41, and FAN) vv. 39. 40. 42. 44);
DT AR, NT AN Dt. 2, 11. 20, N17 HN 2 Ki. 2, 14: alone, Nu. 16, 14. Dt. 15,
17 and here. These are all the occurrences in prose from Gen. to 2 Kings.
XX. I4-19. 265
15. 195w"| alluding to the earth of which the nbsp was con-
structed. So regularly, as 2 Ki. 19, 32. Anglice, ‘threw up.’
bna ΝΠ] The 3 is difficult. bn is explained to mean the outer
and smaller wall surrounding a city, between which and the prin-
cipal wall there would be a space, consisting, at least partly, of a
moat. Perhaps the word may have been understood to include
this space (Ges. Keil), a view which would be supported by 1 Ki.
21, 23, if the text there be sound (see 2 Ki. 9, 10). Render, then
(with Keil), «And it (the nd$p) stood in the moat.’
mont band ὈΓ ΤΙ] ‘were destroying, to cause the wall to fall,
i.e. were battering it. Cf. Ez. 26, 4 ἽΝ myn innwy: the ptcp,
here of course implying that the action was only in process, and
not completed. The expression is, however, a little peculiar ; and
Ew. B6. Th. treat the word as a denom. of nnw pz/—were making
a pit to cause the wall to fall, i.e. were undermining it (RV. marg.).
LXX have ἐνοοῦσαν, which may represent D’AWN'D Prov. 24, 8 (We.)
—‘ were devising to bring the wall down.’ Perhaps this is the true
reading: it is adopted by Klo.
18-19. 2) 121 735] ‘They were wont to speak aforetime,
saying, Let them but enquire at Abel, and so they finished (a
matter). I (consist of) the peaceable (and) faithful ones of Israel,’
etc.; i.e. Abel was famed from of old for the wisdom of its
inhabitants, hence a proverb arose advising people to consult
them in any difficult undertaking. In τοῦ the woman, in saying
‘DN, speaks in the name of the community: hence she uses 1 ps.
sg. (as I 5, 10), though the predicate is in the plural (referring to
the individual members of it: comp. Gen. 34, 30 "DD ὙΠ %)N)).
mx by is a ‘suspended’ sv. c., to be explained on the principle
of aN ndya ΩΝ I 28, 7 where see note. LXX have ἠρωτημένος
ἠρωτήθη ev τῇ ᾿Αβελ καὶ ἐν Δαν εἰ ἐξέλιπον ἃ ἔθεντο of πιστοὶ τοῦ ᾿Ισραηλ
[ἐρῶντες ἐπερωτήσουσιν ἕνα ἐν ᾿Αβελ καὶ οὕτως, εἰ ἐξέλιπον. ἐγώ εἰμι εἰρη-
νικὰ τῶν στηριγμάτων Ἰσραηλ], σὺ δὲ ζητεῖς, κιτιλ, Here the bracketed
words are evidently a correction made to express a text resembling
the existing MT. and introduced already into cod. B by the side of
the original LXX version, which precedes. The text presupposed
266 The Second Book of Samuel,
by the original LXX would read as follows: —]10) Dasa xe Sew
DN ἜΝ το WN WNT «Let them ask in Abel and in Dan
whether that had ever come to an end which the faithful of Israel
had established!’ which is adopted by Ew. /775v. iii. 264 (E. T. 195)
and We.; i.e. if one desired to find a place in which old Israelitish
institutions were most strictly preserved, he was told to apply to
Abel and to Dan: why should Joab seek to destroy a city that was
thus true to its hereditary character and nationality ?
PNW Dine] The inf. abs. in Qa/, while the principal verb is in
a derived conjugation, as happens occasionally (Ew. ὃ 312»): with
Piel, ‘as here, Jos. 24, τοῦ; with Hif. I 23, 22. Gen. 46, 4. Is. 31, 53
with Hithpo‘lel and Hithpo‘el Is. 24, 19; most frequently with Nif.,
th, 23,7. Ex. 19, 15: 21, 20.24. 22,11. 12. Ig: 40, 36) Jer toma.
34, 3. 49, 12 (contrast 25, 29). Mic. 2, 4. Nah. 3, 13. Zech. 12, 3.
Job 6, 2, and with Hof. in the formula 12% nit) Ex. το, 12 (and
frequently), But the statement in Ges. ὃ 131. 30 Rem. 2 that the
infin. in such cases is ‘ oftener’ in Qal than in the conj. of the
principal verb is incorrect: with Piel and Hif., the inf. Qal is
extremely exceptional, and even with Nif. it does not predominate.
21. ἼΡΦ.. .. Π)Π] The fut. instans. with a pass’ve ptcp.: cf. I 19,
11.—On yp, here and Ὁ. 22, see I 28, 15 foot-note,
22. Dym... Nam] ‘In LXX there is a doublet: καὶ εἰσῆλθε
πρὸς πάντα τὸν λαὸν and καὶ ἐλάλησε πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν πόλιν, the latter is
genuine, and the Hebrew text to which it points (vyn-ba-bs 271) is
preferable toMT. Cf. the interchange of Nan) and ἽΝ ΠῚ 14, 4’ (We.).
23. by] a strong case of by = by: contrast 23> and 8, 16.
Sew N3¥T~93] Of course 5xnw cannot be a genitive after NIYN:
it must therefore be in apposition with it. This appositional con-
struction, however, ‘all the host, Israel’ is harsh, and, since no
relation of zdentity subsists between she host and Jsrae/ (as in 10, 17
between ΝΠ and O37), unsuitable. Grammar will only admit
one of two alternatives : X10” Nay-D3, or simply xayn~do (cf. 8, 16).
1 We.’s 319°v77 is a form not in use.
? 71711 might indeed be inf. abs. Piel (as NB1); but this is elsewhere 773.
XX, 21-26. 267
an] Kt. 735: Qri assimilates to 8,16 ‘N37, 39 recurs 2 Ki.
I1, 4. 19 (ΟΝ ΠῚ 9M), and probably signifies Carzans. The king’s
body-guard appears to have consisted of foreigners. The derivation
from 735 20 dig (Ὁ) is altogether precarious.
24. OWN] LXX ’Adovepap, as τ Ki. 4, 6. 5, 28 OVIIN. The
form D8 occurs also 1 Ki. 12, 18 where LXX cod. B Apap, cod. A
᾿Αδωνιραμ ; in the parallel passage 2 Ch. το, 18 O19 (LXX ’Adon-
paz). The variation is not greater than attaches to many less
familiar names, when they occur in parallel texts: see e.g.
Nu. 26, or Ezra 2 passim (RV. marg.). The true name here is
probably o25N (cf. nd, OW); DIT is a Hamathite name (see
on 8, Io).
pon} The derivation of pp is uncertain, but the meaning is
clear. It denotes (@) forced labour, task-work, such as an Eastern
monarch is wont to exact from his subjects; (4) a body of men
engaged in task-work. The Dd appears first as an institution in
Israel at the end of David’s reign: it was more fully organized by
Solomon, who needed it for the purpose of carrying on his buildings:
Adoniram was the officer who superintended it: how unpopular it
was, may be inferred from the fact that the populace, disappointed
at Rehoboam’s refusal to relax his father’s imposts, wreaked their
vengeance on Adoniram and stoned him (1 Ki. 12, 18). Phrases
used in connexion with it are Dw DD nye to bring up (=to
levy) a DD out of Israel τ Ki. 5, 27, cf. 9, 15 TAY pb nbyn to
bring up (levy) for the forced service of a labourer, 7d. 21: pnp mn
Dt. 20, 11 al. to become (subject) to forced service: ἼΩΝ bn? mn
Gen. 49, 15 to become (subject) to the forced service of a labourer.
In Jud. 1, 28. 30. 33. 35 it is applied to denote the state to which
certain Canaanites were reduced by their Israelitish conquerors.
26. INT] 1. 6. of Jair, a Gileadite family, Nu. 32, 41 al. But
Pesh. sohu οὐ, whence Th. Klo. would restore “HE of Jattir
(in Judah: see I 30, 27. Jos. 15, 48. 21,14). This may be cor-
rect: but it is rash to argue in support of it from the assumed
identity of ‘Ira the 3995 jnd here with ‘Ira "N° (so MT.: but Pesh.
79") the warrior of 23, 38. (Luc. ὁ Ἰεθερ, i.e. "%.)
268 The Second Book of Samuel,
21—24, An Appendix to the main narrative of the Book, of mis-
cellaneous contents: (a) 21, 1-14 the famine in Israel stopped
through the sacrifice of the sons of Saul by the Guibeonties ;
(6) 21, 15-22 exploits against the Philistines ; (c) 22 David's
Lflymn of Triumph (=. 18); (4) 28, 1-7 David’s ‘Last
Words ;’ (e) 28, 8-39 further exploits against the Philistines,
and list of David's heroes; (7) 24 David's census of the
people’.
(a) 21, 1-14. Saul’s sons sacrificed by the Gibeontites.
1, DDI ΠῚ by] ‘and for zs bloody house’ would require
imperatively awe owin nia ὈΝῚ : the pron. could not in a case
like the present be dispensed with. LXX καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
ἀδικία διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν θανάτῳ aipatov= DDT ΓΞ ΝΣ 2 “upon Saul and
upon his house (rests) blood, because he slew the Gibeonites.’ The
words in MT. have simply been wrongly divided (cf. v.12; 5, 2):
ΠΣ is the old orthography for 173, no doubt once written uni-
formly in Hebrew (as in Moabitic), but afterwards, except in a few
sporadic instances, modernized. See the Introduction, § 2.
3. mp2] Cf. Mic. 6, 6 77) DIPS 73,—In Ἰ5Ἴ2), the imper. is
used instead of the more normal voluntative, for the purpose of
expressing with somewhat greater force the intention of the
previous verb: cf. 1 Ki.1, 12; Ew. § 3472; Zenses, § 65.
AWA, Ὁ] Qri, assimilating to the next clause, 29, But see on
Ih, 50.-90,:2 2:
‘3. ad-psy] (against the accents) ‘and it is not open to us to
put any man to death in Israel.’ Ὁ ps, as more frequently in the
later language, Ezra Ὁ, 15. 2 Ch. 22, 9 al.: Zemses, § ΣΟ 16h
δ (ὦ) Ww ch. 14, το.
1 Tn this Appendix, a and fin style and manner are closely related, as also
6ande. Further, as the Appendix interrupts the continous narrative ch. 9-20.
1 Ki, 1-2 (p. 221 mote), it may be inferred that it was placed where it now
stands after the separation had been effected between the Books of Samuel and
Kings. Its compiler, presumably, thus lived at a later date than the compiler
of the main narrative of Samuel.
? ἀδικία αἱμάτων is a paraphrase of Ὁ Ὁ: διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν θανάτῳ is a partial
doublet to περὶ οὗ ἐθανάτωσεν in the following clause.
XX, 1-6. 269
pod mwys oN onN ΠῸ] ‘What say (think) ye (that) I should
do for you?’ So Ew. (δ 336%), Keil, ‘3 being (unusually) omitted.
The constr. ‘ What do ye say? I will do it for you’=whatsoever
ye say I will do for you (so in effect AV. RV.) yields a better sense :
but NWYN) (which is actually expressed by LXX) would in that case
be more in accordance with usage (cf. on I 20, 4). See, however,
Jud. 9, 48 209 WY AND ὙΦ ONIN AD (lit.) What have ye seen
(that) I have done? hasten and do like me. (fA must not be
treated as if it were equivalent to the late Ὁ) Π|2 /hat which.)
5. WWI] ‘that we should be destroyed’ (RV.) is no rendering
of a Zerfect tense: ‘(so that) we have been destroyed’ (RV. marg.)
would require WN Sy to be expressed: moreover 15 ΠΙΟῚ does
not mean ‘devised against us.’ Read with Ew. We. 7D (Wer
awpowind ‘and who meditated 20 destroy us that we should not,’ etc.
So LXX (one rendering) és παρελογίσατο ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἡμᾶς. (What
follows, viz. ἀφανίσωμεν αὐτόν, merely expresses MT. differently vocal-
ized, viz. 127!2¥3,—contrary to the sense.) ᾿ ΠΙΞῚ as Jud. 20, 5.
6, w5-ny] Kt. wry ; Qri ἸΔΟΎ, Both conjugations are in
use: the Hof. is perhaps somewhat more elegant (1 Ki. 2, 21. 2 Ki.
5, 17). The construction as below, v. 11.
ppp] ppin only here, vv. 9. 13. Nu. 25, 4 (cf. 1 31, 10). The
exact sense is uncertain, perhaps 20 expose (LXX here ἐξηλιάζειν, in
Nu. παραδειγματίζειν; Pesh. in Nu. «49); according to others /o
impale (Aq. ἀναπηγνύναι, Ges.), or fo crucify (Targ. here aby; Vulg.
crucifigere, afigere ; Saad. in Nu. Le). Symm. 20 hang (kpepagew) ;
Vulg. in Nu. suspendere; but it is probable that the word expressed
something more than the ordinary nbn. Comp. Dillmann’s note on
Nu. ΕΣ:
v7 oyna Siw ny23] ‘The hill (197) on which according to Ὁ. 9
the sons of Saul were hung can hardly be any other than the hill
by Gibeon itself. If however jyma (LXX ἐν TaBaor) is thus to be
restored for nya33 (cf. 5, 25), “ ἼΠ5 Siw falls through of itself.
Ys ἼΠ2 (cf. v.. 9) became corrupted into ’ ἽΠ2 (E. Castle af. Then.),
and 5.) “n3 jy233 was understood in the sense of ὙΠΔ Siw ΝΣ
vy’ (We.). It is thus at least probable that the original reading
270 The Second Book of Samuel,
was M103 23, Saud is not elsewhere called "n3: nor is
it anywhere said that 5 12 ἽΠ2.
jMN8 ὉΝ] With the pron. expressed, as in a reply a slight em-
phasis is not unsuitable: cf. ch. 3, 13. Jud. 6,18. 11, 9. 1 Ki.
2,184.
7.” nyaw| See I 20, 42. 23,18. The expression as Ex, 22,
τον 1 KI, 2943.
8. bo] a lapsus calami for Δ (so Luc., as well as other
MSS. of LXX, and Pesh.?): see I 18, το.
9. Kt. ΘΠ) ‘they fell seven times together,’ which is defended
by Bo. Keil, and interpreted to mean ‘ they fell by seven similarly.’
But the thought would be expressed most illogically: for though seven
men fell together, this is by no means tantamount to a group of
seven falling seven times, which is what the Hebrew would signify,
the subject of bay being the seven men. Read with ΟἿ papa
‘and the seven of them fell together :’ and cf, DAWDY < the three
of them’ Nu. 12, 4al.; OAYDN ‘the four of them’ Ez. 1, 8 al.
DywNID| so already LXX ἐν πρώτοις, but OWN is what
would be expected. No doubt the 3 is a /apsus calamt. On the
sing. Jnj, see on I 1, 2.
11.8 ,,, 3%] So Gen. 27, 42. See Ges. § 143, τᾶ; Ew.
§ 295; and the Journal of Philology, xi. 227-229. ;
12. nidn] Κι. DIA the regular form: Qri DiNdA, as though
from Non; Ew. § 2522; Ges. § 75 Rem. 22; Konig, pp. 5309,
544: cf. Don Dt. 28, 66. Hos. 11, 7.
onwban pv Κι] onwda ney Οὐ, onwSa occurs much more
frequently than o’nwban: but the latter is found (e.g: 145%. ἢ ἘΞ)
13. 1DDN] In the same connexion, Jer. 8, 2, 25, 33 al.
14. 2] add with LXX DPN ΓΝ ΠΝ,
(ὁ) 15-22. Exploits against the Philistines.
1g f. ‘From vv. 18, 19 [aaa ΠΌΠΡΌΠ ἫΝ ΠῚ] it is probable
τ Tenses, § 160 foot-note.
* ©) which, however, stands regularly in Pesh. for 17.
Χ ΧΙ 7-17. ι 271
that v. 15 also speaks of a battle in Gob: observe in those two
verses the article ΠΌΠΟΙ, which is absent, so soon as the scene
changes, in v. 20. No one, now, would read the words 333 }1¥
v. 16, regarded by themselves, otherwise than as 293 130); and it
will be conceded that 33 and 3) may be readily interchanged with
one another. As, however, a notice of the place at which the
contest occurred is here required, the reading 333 $3w) is in fact
the correct one; the words are misplaced, and stood originally
after wy v.15. By their removal ’x) 52 AWN IY AY stand in
juxtaposition : in ἽἽ ΠΝ} is concealed the name of the Philistine,
and perhaps a verb as well, such as op", of which 118 16> would
be the sequel. It is no loss to be rid of the name V72shdo-benob,
and of the statement that David grew wearied; and, as has been
remarked, the scene of the battle can least of all at the beginning
remain unmentioned’ (We.).
τό. nan N52] So v.18 (in τ Ch. 20, 4 ὈΝΒῚΠ sd), TW,
not of an individual, but (as the parallel in Ch. also shews) col-
lectively, of the race: so vv. 20. 22. The sing. is found only in
this context. The pl. O'NS7 occurs in the names of certain parts of
Palestine reputed to have been the abode of a pre-historic giant
population: Dt. 2, 11. 20. 3,13; 3,11 (Og D’ND1n AN: so in the
Deuteronomizing sections of Joshua, Jos. 12, 4. 13, 12); Jos. 15,
8 al. the OND. poy near Jerusalem; 17, 15; Gen. 14, 5. 15,
20.— With the unusual 5» cf. the payn >) Nu. 13, 22. 28.
Jos. 15, 14.
nwni bow] Read nwn3 opw (AV. RY. are obliged to supply
shekels in italics 1)
ΓΦ ἽΠ] ‘a new...:’ either a subst. with which Awtn would
agree has dropped out, or, which is more probable, ΠΟ ῚΠ is a
corruption of the name of some rare weapon, which the Philistine
wore. LXX κορύνην a club.
7. Ss ΤΙΝ) The burning lamp being a figure of the con-
tinued prosperity of an individual (y. 18, 29. Pr. 13, 9. Job 18, 6)
or family (cf. the 02 promised to the house of David, 1 Ki. 11, 36.
13, 4: 2 Κὶ 8; Tosca. (πρῶ τ, ἢ ἤν:
272 The Second Book of Samuel,
18—22=1 Ch. 20, 4-8. ;
18, 0] In τ Ch. 20, 4 ‘SD. On the varying terminations of
one and the same pr. n. in parallel texts, comp. p. 3, and Wellh.
De Gentibus, etc. (cited 2b.), pp. 37-39-
19] man ΠΣ ΠΝ vondr ΠΣ oN vy ya panos 5.
Ch. ὙΠ m3 ons πο mx ΤΩΝ 12 pnd 7%.
It is evident that oN has found its way into the text here by
accident from the line below, though the error must be older than
LXX* But what of the other variants? Is mx ‘ondm ma the
original reading, and ‘nN ond ΠΝ a corruption of this, or correc-
tion made for the purpose of harmonizing with I 17 (where it is
David who slays Goliath), or is ‘M8 yond ΠΝ the original text, and
nx vonda ΓΔ ἃ corruption? When the character of the two alter-
native readings is considered, it is difficult to resist the conclusion
that the former is the more probable. It is scarcely credible that
a scribe having before him a text identical with that of Ch., even
supposing that some letters in it had become obliterated or obscure,
could, with the knowledge of I 17 that he must have possessed,
have so altered or emended it as to make it state that ‘ Elhanan
‘the son of Ya‘ir the Beth-lehemtte slew Goliath of Gath!’ It is not
merely the case of a word ‘nN ‘brother of’ having dropped out of
the original text (which could readily be imagined), which the
latter supposition involves, but the sadstifution of ΤΙ for ‘NX, and
the still more remarkable one of ΠΌΤ ΠΣ ‘the Beth-lehemite ’ for
yond-nx ‘Lahmi.’ On the other hand, a motive for the correction
of the text of Samuel by the Chronicler—or even by a copyist of
the Chronicles—is obvious. So even Bertheau (on Ch.), as well
as Ewald (/Ws¢. iii. 70), Thenius, Wellh. (vst. of Israel, p. 266),
Kuenen (Onderzoek, §§ 21. 10; 23. 4)*. Upon the historical ques-
1 Qri wy as LXX, Pesh. (Jerome ‘ filius sa/tus, i.e. 1y°, without the lena
scrvtptio).
2 Or, at least, than Codd. BA (ἈΑριωργειμ). Some twenty others, however,
have ᾿Αρωρι; and Lucian reads καὶ ἐπάταξεν Ἔλλαναν vids Ταδδειν υἱοῦ τοῦ
Ede τὸν Γολιαθ.
3 Gritz (Gesch. i. 427) would explain the divergent readings by assuming as the
original text "ΠΤ ΠΡ" ΠΝ 1TT) ΠΝ OMT MA WY? 13 TIMOR 7.
AX, t8—X XI, 273
tion involved, if the reading of Samuel be accepted as original, this
is not the place to enter.
20 Kt. 19] i.e. probably 2 vir mensurarum: cf. TAN) Wis
Nu. 13, 32: the 1 of the pl. might be defended by pooy 1 Ki. τὰ, 33.
This }, however, is rare, and chiefly late (Ew. ὃ 177); and the
masc. form of the pl. does not occur elsewhere. Qri ἢ 12, so read
already by LXX (καὶ ἦν ἀνὴρ Μαδων), but of uncertain signification.
It is best to read ΠῚ with Ch.; cf. ΠῚ "WIN Is. 45, 14.—Observe
that here npndy, unlike vz. 18. 19, is without the art., in agreement
with the fresh scene of battle ni (We.).
ΞΡ] adv. accus. ‘ 7 number :’ cf. on I 6, 4.
naan] So v. 22, and in 2 Ch. (span). The unusual retention
of the art. after the prep.’ may arise from A57M being treated as a
proper name.
21%, yan] Cf. τῇ, 25, of Goliath.
210 Kt. syow] So LXX (Seveer): Qri NYY in closer agreement
with nyo 13, 3; ΠΙΡ 1 16, 9.
22. me, » ΠΝ] Ew. ὃ 2774 compares Jud. 20, 44. 46. Ez. 14, 22.
Jer. 45, 4: MN having nearly, as it seems, the force of as regards
(as regards these four, they were, etc.), and being used sometimes
‘in the transition to something new,’ sometimes, as here, ‘in the
brief repetition of a thought.’ Keil’s explanation of nw is quite out
of the question.
(c) 22. David's Hymn of Triumph.
This recurs (with textual variations) as y. 18, and has been
so adequately dealt with in Commentaries on the Psalms accessible
to the English student (especially those of Delitzsch®, the Dean
of Peterborough, and Prof. Cheyne), that a fresh series of expla-
natory notes does not appear to the writer to be required.
1 Elsewhere (except in 01°71>) rare, and mostly late: ch, 16, 2 Kt. (the 5 an
error); 113, 21 ΠῚ ΤΡΙΣῚ (also probably an error: notice the following '715));
2. 1010 7, 2 ἘΚ 3 Ez, 40, 255) 47, 253; Ψ, 20, 65 Ook. 5, 1; Neh. oy 19); 12, 38}
2 Ch. το, 7; 25, 10; 29, 27 being all the examples that occur.
* Translated from the fourth German edition by Rev. 1), Eaton (London,
1887-9).
T
274 The Second Book of Samuel,
(4) 28, 1-7. David's ‘ Last Words.’
τ. ὮΝ] The genitive which follows is usually m7 (occasionally
a synonym, as }yINn Is. 1, 24. 19, 4): except here, ON) is joined
with the name of a human speaker only Nu. 24, 3. 15 (with 7330
in the parallel clause, as here). 4. τό (of Balaam). Pr. 30, 1 (337):
ψ. 36, 2 the gen. is ywp personified.
Den] The tone is thrown back from the ultima on account of
the tone-syllable immediately following. Whether, however, the
anomalous duplication of the p (found in most editions) is correct,
is doubtful: for the retrocession of the tone takes place, as a rule,
only when the penultima is an ofen syllable (Ges. ὃ 29. 3: Del. on
Is, 1, 2). See OL § 25955) Stade, ὃ 3940; KG6nig, p. 475 (who
thinks the duplication defensible on the ground that the retrocession
of tone may take place where there is, at least, a vzr/wal duplication:
as Lev. 5, 22 3 wn2)).
by] by is here a substantive (as in by Gen. 27, 39 al.), con-
strued in the accus. after npn ‘raised up on high, as Hos. 7, τό
by xb ἸΔῈ}. they return, (but) not wpwards; 11, 7 8p" ΟΝ they
call it wpwards——On Ssay myr pys, see on ch. 8, ro.
2. 92 135] “3 735 is used similarly, of God (never of men’)
speaking with a person, Nu. 12, 2. 6. 8% 1 Ki. 22, 28, Hos, 1, 28,
Hab. 2,1; and in the phrase ‘2.72359 ἼΝ ΡΠ Zech. I, 9. 13. a; 2
4, 1. 4.5. 8, 5.10. 6, 4. The usual expression, even when the
subject is God, is bx 05 (e.g. Ex. 33, r1._Nu; 42,45 Hes eee
and it is a question what is the exact force of “2 125. In some
of the passages the meaning 7 or ¢hrough* would be admissible ;
but these will not suit the phrase in Zech. Ew. (δ 217) understood
the phrase on the analogy of ’2 pnw to play wh, “ἃ Jay to labour
with (=to use as a labourer, Ex. 1, 14 al.), in the sense of 20 speak
with, but with the collateral idea of a superior speaking zh an
inferior as his minister (so Nowack on Hos. ὦ c.: cf. C.H.H. Wright
1 Except in other senses, as agazzst, about (1 19, 3; 25, 39)-
2 Or sometimes ΠΝ 127, as Gen. 17, 3. 22. 23. Ex. 25, 22. Ez. 2, 1. 3, 22. 24.
8 Though this would be more properly 172: Is. 20, 2. Hos. 12, 11° al,
XXIII, 1-4. 275
on Zech. 1, 9). Others regard the “3 as having the force of a
strengthened 4 (cf. “2 ANT, “2 HN to look αὐ. “3 yow)?: others,
again, suppose it to express the idea of speaking z#/o a person
(Acnenreden)*, On the whole, the explanation of Ewald appears
to be the most probable. But, however it be explained, the phrase
certainly appears to imply closer and more intimate converse than
the ordinary 5x “Δ.
sndp] nbp is properly an Aramaic word, in Heb. used only in
poetry, Ψ. 19, 5. 139, 4. Pr. 23, 9 and thirty-four times in Job.
3. Sane SNe). Us; gO, 20) Ch ee. 22, 5 ΟΣ 27: bese, 45.15:
£8.31. 37.
4} Ὁ] ‘When one ruleth over men, as a just one,
When one ruleth (in) the fear of God,
(v. 4) Then is it as the light,’ etc.
bunp is a ptcp. absolute; cf. on I 2,13; and Jud. 7,17. 9, 33
(Zenses, δὲ 126; 135.6): for 1, marking the pred., comp. Job 4, 6
(Delitzsch); Pr. 10, 25; ch. 15, 34 (Zenses, ὃ 125 Obs.). The accents
must be disregarded: the chief break in clause 4 should be at p'V¥.
4. prs] LXX καὶ ἐν Θεοῦ Por, which is adopted by Th. We.
and Stade (Gesch. i. 297): ‘Then is it as the light of God (of
Jehovah, We.), in the morning when the sun ariseth,’ etc. But
ἊΝ and "p32 are often conjoined in Heb.; and it is doubtful if the
addition is an improvement.
may xd] xd and %a in poetry, and })x in prose as well, are
construed with a following subst. as a circumstantial clause, in
which case they become equivalent to the English wethout: Ex. 21,
II ῸΞ δὲ On ANY she shall go out free, zz/hout money; Job
24, 10 naked, they walk up and down wad 553 without covering ;
12. 24 1 xd yana=in a pathless waste (Tenses, § 164).
7 wD 720] ‘Through brightness after rain the tender grass
(springeth) out of the earth.’ The beneficent operation of a just
and gracious rule is compared to the influence of the sun, on a
1 Konig, Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T.’s, ii. (1882), p. 179.
2 Riehm, Die Messtanische Weissagung, ed. 2 (1885), p. 31.
T 2
276 The Second Book of Samuel,
cloudless morning after rain, in refreshing and invigorating the
growing verdure of the earth. The style is unusually condensed :
YS ANWT (Joel 2, 22) for pax NWT would lighten the construction
of the clause. 73) of a brightly shining light, as Is. 62, 1. Pr. 4, 18.
10 of the cause, as Job 4,9; 14,9 M15" DY NN: above, on 7, 29.
5. ‘For is not my house thus with God?
For he hath appointed for me an everlasting covenant,
Set forth in all things and secured.
For all my salvation, and all (my) pleasure,
Will he not cause it to spring forth?’
13 points backwards to the description in v. 3>—4. In ny nb 5 the
question is indicated by the tone (on I 11, 12: Ew. ὃ 3248). na
nb is an allusion to 7, 12-16. TW" bo2 ΠΡῚΝ is an expression
borrowed probably from legal terminology, and intended to de-
scribe the ΓΖ as one of which the terms are fully and duly set
forth (comp. the forensic use of ἽΝ in Job 13, 18 al. 40 stale 271
order or set forth pleadings), and which is secured by proper pre-
cautions against surreptitious alteration or injury. With ypn the
suffix of the preceding ‘yy must be understood, though, as such
an ellipse is very unusual—Ex. 15, 2 (Ew. ὃ 339; Zenses, § 181 7.)
being in fact the only parallel—'yy* ought in all probability to be
restored. ΓΝ is used figuratively: comp. II Isaiah 45, 8. 58, 8.
61, 11>, or in v. 5? is explicative, introducing an example of the
general truth expressed in v. 3>-4: the blessings of a righteous
rule, described in general terms in Ὁ. 3>—4, David in v. 5 anticipates
in particular for his own dynasty, on the ground of the covenant
established with him by Jehovah, and of his assurance that the
welfare which he desires himself for his house and people will be
promoted by God. yw, like ΠΡ) as used by the prophets and
psalmists (comp. on I 14, 45), denotes we//are, spiritual and material
combined.
6. ‘But worthlessness,—as thorns thrust away are all of them:
For not with hand do men take them.’
bynba is a cas. pendens (as Is. 32, 7 OY PP) bn, Ψ. 89, 3 and
often: Zenses, ὃ 197. 2), and the suff. in andy refers to the persons
AXXITT. 5-7. 277
in whom the 5y53 is conceived implicitly to inhere. The form
pnba is to be explained on the analogy of ὉΠ}, pany, etc.
(Stade, §§ 350%. 3; 107». 1): this uncontracted form of the suffix
of 3 pl. does not occur elsewhere with substantives in MT.
(except in the fem. : mands PKL 7:37; mana Ez. 16, 53), but it
must be assumed in Jer. 15, 10 [see p. xxx]; cf. pia once, Job 11,
20, for ON, also pans (5 times), pay often, both in and out of
pause [the sign t+ in Stade, ὃ 350%. 4; 377” is an oversight], bap
always. ‘13 is the passive either of 72) 20 chase away (Job 18, 18
wi) bani : 20, 8 md" pina ὙΠ), or of TIT fo put to flight (ψ. 36,
r2 ὙΠ be pw: 2 Ki. 21, 8 ΠΟῚΝΠ pio Syne din spond).
But the word excites suspicion: for it is not one that would
naturally be applied to ¢horns. For "Δ see on I 26, 23. The subj.
of inp’ is, of course, nnprdn (on I τό, 4).
7. ‘But the man (who) touches them arms himself with iron and
a spear’s shaft :
And with fire are they burned [on the spot].’
xb, on the analogy of nvipa i ΝΡ 2 Ki. 9, 24, lit. fills
himself, viz. in so far as the hand using the weapon is concerned.
!M3W3 lit. 2 the sitting, which is interpreted to mean ‘in (their)
place,’ or ‘on the spot.’ But the expression is a very singular one ;
and the supposed meaning is destitute of analogy, DANA being the
idiomatic word for expressing it (Job 40, 12 ONNn oye FIN:
cf. Is. 25,10). Nor is cessation, annihilation (from NY), proposed
by Delitzsch on Pr. 20, 3, a more probable rendering. The word
is in fact otiose after 5) Aw wNI); and, it can hardly be
doubted, has arisen in the text by error from nawa in the line
below.—In vv. 6-7 the poet contrasts the fate of the wicked,
whom men spurn and extirpate by force, with the love and honour
awarded by his people to the righteous ruler described in vv. 3-4.
On this poem, comp. Ewald, Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, i. τ
(1866), pp. 143-145; Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy, § 20. The
central idea is the prophetic thought, expressed by David in the
near prospect of death, that if his successors upon the throne are
278 The Second Book of Samuel,
guided by righteous principles of government, his dynasty (‘ house,’
as 7,16), under the blessing of God, will be established and prosper.
This thought is developed in the three strophes (vv. 3-4, 5, 6-7)
which form the body of the poem. Observe the finished parallelism
of the exordium (vv. 1-3°, forming a strophe of eight lines).
(ὁ) 28, 8-39. Further explorts against the Philistines (comp.
21, 15-22), and list of David's heroes.
23, 8-39 =1 Ch. 11, 11-41%: twelve of the names recur also
in 1 Ch. 27, 2-15, as those of the captains of the twelve divisions
of David’s army.
Here are the three lists, as they stand in MT.,—the names in
several instances vary, nor is it always possible to determine which
form is original, or whether both may not be corrupt :—
2 Sam. 23. τ ΕἸ aha. 1 (δ τ 2%
8. ΘΠ ΠΕΣ aw τ oom [3 μα 2. ΝΣ 12 bya
9. ΠΝ DTT 15 ΟΝ 12. mms yy 4. ΓΊΠΝΠ TNT
It, ‘7 NIN fa ΠῸ»
18. ONY ONS ὌΝ 20. IN) ΠΝ WIN
20. yon 13 ΠΣ 22. yon 12 ΠῸΣ δ. yo 12 yn.
24. axyons Synwy 26. anyone Senwy 7. any ony Syn
yt ya pms yt 12. pbs
25. ann mw 27. “nnn nie 8, morn minnow
ssant xpos
26. soban yon sadam yon το. snban yon
YPNA WHY PINT 28. NPN wPy 12 ΝῪ 9. PNA wpy 13 Ny
27. MMT ΣΝ MINIT ἭΝ 12.Ψ ΤΛΠΟΝΠ ANN
‘nv 330 29. ‘nvm 93D ar. ΠῊΡ ΘΠ 1530
28. inna poby sminwn sy
ΠΒΩΣΠ AD 30. ‘naw ΠΟ 13. ΠΣ ΒΉΔΟΠ NAD
29. ‘nao mya 12 ὉΠ. ΒΟ mays 12 ΠῚ ἀρ. Syvonyd sna dn
Δ 2 ἘΝ 31. Δ 13. NN
308,
‘NYAS ἸΠ22
Ny IAI ΠΣ
NYIDA ΠΣ
AXITT. 8. 279
2 Sam. 23. KOM τὰ;
30>, wy Smo sn 32. wy ‘Srp yn
31. snanyn paby7as snaayn Syeay
‘OMAN Mwy 543. yorInan ΠΥ,
32. sadyyn samby sadyyn wands
oe ND ΤΙ wn Own 23
33. A Aw 5 [13] 1217" 7 Naw 13. 712)"
SANT TW JD ON 35. TIAN Dy 13 DNNN
34. Noyon 13 aon 12 Hoard six 13. dards
36. ΘΠ ἼΒΠ
bin Semin yo yds ban mn
35. sonar ΤΠ 57. ΝΟ ἼΣΠ ὙΠ
TINT YD PBIN7]I YI
36. mayp na 13 δ. 38. ing ons Sy
yn 2 mn 13 NID
37. snoyn poy 39. ΟΣ poy
ymasan ‘sn man yn
38. NANNY 40. nn Νν
ann 5) ama 2
39. mn ΠΝ 418, ‘nnn ΠΡῚΝ
First come ‘the Three,’ Ishba‘al, Eleazar son of Dodo, and
Shammah (vv. 8-17), whose exploits are specially recorded, then
two others, Abishai and Jehoiada (vv. 18-23), whose bravery did
not place them on an equality with ‘the Three,’ but who ranked
above ‘the Thirty,’ lastly ‘the Thirty’ (vv. 24-39).
8. nawa aw] LXX Ἰεβοσθε (i.e. NWI-W'N, as 2, 8 etc.); Luc.
Ἰεσβααλ (i. 6. Sys) ; LXX 1 Ch, 11 "Iece8aAa (prob. for Ἰεσεβαλα),
Luce. ᾿Ιεσσεβααλ᾿ῖ; 1 Ch. 27 (Nestle, Ρ. 56) Σοβαλ, Luc. Ἰεσβοαμ.
The original name was no doubt oyarh or DYN (so We. Klo.),
Sy being here altered into nwa (on 4, 2), with the 3 accidentally
repeated in MT., and in the other passages being otherwise ob-
scured, but still existing uncorrected in some of the MSS. used by
the LXX translators or revisers.
1 Also Codd. 44, 74, 120, 134,144, 236, 243 Ἰεσεβααλ; 56, 119, 121 Ἰσβααλ.
280 The Second Book of Samuel,
so2nn] Read 70200 with We. Kp.: cf. 1 Ch. 27, 32.
whwn] Explained to mean knights pry (Ex. 14,7. 1 Ki.g, 22.
2 Ki. 10, 25 al.): but this leaves the gentile or patronymic ‘— un-
accounted for. From the sequel, it is tolerably clear that we
must read either (with 1 Ch. 11, rz Kt.) owndwn wen, or (with
Lucian τῶν τριῶν both here and τ Ch.) nvowia WS (so We.). The
latter is probably better: Ishba‘al is styled αι of ‘the Three.’
wsyn wy xin] The words are meaningless. Read, with 1 Ch.
ΤΙ, 11 and all moderns, ἸΠ 2 Π ΠΣ WHY NW he radsed aloft his spear :
cf. v. 18. But ‘the LXX here does not support this reading ; for
ἐξήγειρε τὸ δόρυ αὐτοῦ, v. 18, shews that ἐσπάσατο τὴν ῥομφαίαν αὐτοῦ 15
derived from the LXX translation of Chronicles’ (We.).
ΓΝ mow] Ch. mixo-why. ‘The text here is attested by all
Versions [except Luc., who has ἐννακοσίους] ; and is also more
probable independently, as otherwise’ Ishba‘al ‘would have no
superiority over Abishai, v. 18’ (Thenius).
9. *NAN}3] No doubt an error for ‘MANA, as in 1 Ch. 11 and 27.
In τ Ch. 27 before "1 the words 73 “1ydx appear to have acci-
dentally fallen out.
pnwbpa nana 17 oy] Read after Ch. 8583 4 ὮΝ mn NIN
p’nw>p) om: the mention of the place, as Th. remarks, is required
by the following nw. That the text of Samuel is imperfect appears
independently (1) from the construction of Β΄ with 3, which is
not found elsewhere, and not substantiated by ὃ yin 2.0 25. Τῇ;
(2) by the omission of "wx (implied in MT.) before ΒΝ), which
is suspicious in prose (on I 14, 21).
by] were gone up, i.e. had retreated: in 10? they return.
ro. 12%] More picturesque than 13%: ch. 2, 28.
ἽΝ] Position as I 21, 5. Ex. 10, 17 al. nySn IN.
11: Be Probably for "1193, as 7. 33 and 1 Ch. 11, 34.
mn 5] to the ¢roop or band (?) Read with Bochart, Kennicott, Ew.
Th. Bo. We. Keil, Kp. i mnp to Leh? (Jud. 15, 9: comp. Luc. ἐπὶ
σιαγόνα) ; and note the following nw.
11-12. oy AWN... oY yin] In 1 Ch. 11, 13-14 these
words (slightly varied) are referred to the exploit of Zveazar, the
AXIIT, 9-18. 281
words from gb ydy to 112 ΠΡ (incl.) having been accidentally
omitted. For owsy Jentiles Ch. has a yy darley.
12. Syn] ‘and took his stand:’ similarly I 17, τό.
13 Kt. owbw] An evident error: read with Qri MWY for νυν,
These ‘three of the thirty chief’ are not those just mentioned
(Ishbaal, Eleazar, and Shammah), but three others, belonging to
‘the Thirty’ named Ὁ. 24 ff. (Keil). The ‘Thirty’ have not, how-
ever, yet been mentioned ; so perhaps We. is right in treating vz.
13-17% as not standing here in their original connexion, and re-
garding 17) as the close of vv. 8-12.
“Np by] cannot mean 7 or during harvest—for 5x is not used
thus of time. Luc. has εἰς τὴν πέτραν ; and so Ch. ἼΝΠΤΟΝ fo the rock,
which may be right. Otherwise yp must be the corruption of
some pr. n.: LXX (B) εἰς Kadov; A Κασωαρ; many MSS. Kagoa.
ndsy niyo] Explained in the next verse by Aton she hold.
Comp. on I 22, 2. With y% cf. 5, 17>.
nn] the fem. of 4 I 18,18 according to Néldeke, ZD/G. 1886,
176. And so probably wy. 68, 11.
D'NS) ΡΨ] in 5, 18, 22 also the scene of a Philistine attack.
14. ond ΓΔ] 7 or af Bethlehem: p. 29 note.
17. mn] Read, with Lucian (παρὰ Κυρίου), Pesh. Targ. and Ch.
m7, in accordance with usage (e. g. I 26, 11).
» +077] On the aposiopesis, cf. Ew. ὃ 3032.
omwp2| The 3 is the Beth pretit: at the cost or risk of their
ives: ef, Pan 2: 25:
18 Kt. whwn] The sense requires that we should read, with
Pesh. We. Gritz*, and Berth. (on 1 Ch. 11, 20 f.) pviowin the Thirty,
with peowin-p in τοῦ (see 238). Abishai was chief over ‘the Thirty,’
and more distinguished than ‘the Thirty:’ but he was not equal to
‘the Three.’ The sense of nvdwa ow 15) (similarly of Benaiah, in
Ὁ. 22>) is uncertain. In spite of 1 Ch. 11, 21 (RV. marg.) it does
not appear that a second triad of worthies, to which Abishai and
1 In a note on the lists of David’s heroes, Gesch. der Juden, i. (1874),
PP. 419-428.
282 The Second Book of Samuel,
Benaiah might have belonged, is here really indicated; and yet, as
it seems, the reference can scarcely be to ‘the Three’ (Ishbaal,
Eleazar, Shammah) : for it is expressly said of these two that they
did not equal them. We. Berth. read with Pesh., ‘had a name
among the Zhzr/y:’ but Abishai and Benaiah appear to be de-
scribed as ranking adove the Thirty’, besides which the number
thirty is complete without them. In a choice of difficulties, the
former is, perhaps, the less: Abishai and Benaiah had a name
beside ‘ the Three,’ though not fully equal to theirs.
Ig. ‘9n] ‘2n=Ls ct ¢hat...? 9, 1 (in a simple interrogation).
Gen. 27, 36 (expressing surprise’). 29,15. Job 6, 22 (expect-
ing a negative answer)t: for ‘3, comp. on I 8, 9. Here, however,
an affirmative answer is required, which does not seem to be com-
patible with the usage of °30 (AV. RV. zn/erpolate ‘not’). The
word does not stand in 1 Ch.11, 21, or in the similarly worded
sentence below, v. 238 (though there 1 Ch. 11, 25 has prendwn 12)
N17 TaD) 537); and can scarcely be right. It is easiest to suppose
it a corruption of 13, preserved in 1 Ch. 11, 25. For the position
of nybwnryo, comp. on I 20, 8.
20. 517 WAN 13] [3 is not expressed in LXX. Read either wx
bn, or bn 73 we (the sing. of bn 22 nwIN Jud. 18, 2: cf. WN
bm a3 Ru. 2, 1, N22 WX etc.).
prdya-an] The expression has a poetical tinge.
besos aw nx] Read NN 25 ὮΦ ΠΝ with LXX; and then
anyon (cf. above ΝΡ) for aN.
21 Kt. aNd WN] LXX ἄνδρα ὁρατὸντ-- ΟΥἹ ANID WN. But, as
We. remarks, ANID ΔΝ would mean a handsome man (Is. 53, 2:
cf. Gen. 39, 6 etc.), not, like the German ‘ ein ansehnlicher Mann’
(Th. Keil), a consederable or large man: so that the true reading
is no doubt preserved in 1 Ch. 11, 23 ΠῚ UN (see on ch. 21, 20).
23. inyown| See on I 22, 14.
24. ond na] τ Chi τι, 26 ond map rightly.
1 Cf. 1 Ch. 27, 6 ΟΠ by) DowwAT NIA 12 NIT.
* « Can it be that he is called Jacob, and has hence supplanted me twice ?’
AXIIT, 19-33. 283
258. “I1nn] LXX Ῥουδαῖος : prob. of Harod, Jud. 7, τ.
agb, sann xpos] Not in LXX. Omitted in 1 Ch. 11, and not
recognized in τ Ch. 27.
26. bp] From Beth-pelet, in the Negeb of Judah, Jos. 15, 27.
27>, 99319] 330 (Ch.) is probably correct: so ch. 21,18. BA have
ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν (=MT.); but many MSS. Σαβουχαι, Luc. Σαβενι.
28. nndy] LXX Ἔλλων, Luc. ᾽Ἄλιμαν : οἵ, Ch. soy,
29. 25n] Probably 45n or vbn (cf. Zech. 6, 10) is correct. In
cod. B this name is omitted: Luc. has ᾽Αλλαν, other MSS. Ἐλα.
304. ΠΝ 132] LXX corruptly, *n7|Nn [2 .22)2. On Pir‘athon,
in Ephraim (near Shechem), cf. Jud. 12, 15.
3ob-318, Transposed in LXX to the end of the chapter (Γαὃ-
αβιηλ vids=}3 Sway wyi), The name Swan is supported by Ch.,
as well as by Luc. here (Tado-aBiys)?. Perhaps Klo. is right in
conjecturing the ἢ) in ἡδὺν to be a corruption of n‘3, and in
restoring “HAAS bwax Abiel of Beth-‘arabah (Jos, 1556, 61:
called “Arabah 126. 18, 18), in the wilderness of Judah.
31, N37] Ch. wynan. Prob. "2733 of Bahurim is meant.
32b-332, If 32b be compared with 1 Ch. 11, 34, it will become
evident (as shewn in the Table) that jan’ belongs to v. 338, that
jw’ corresponds to own, and that the gentile name has fallen out
after it in the text of Samuel. Either jw’ 23 and own %3 are both
corruptions of one and the same name, now lost, or, as Luc. has
here Ἰεσσαι 6 Τουνυ 2, and in Ch. Elpaca: ὁ Τουνι, it may be supposed
with some plausibility that 122 (in both texts) has arisen by dit-
tography from the preceding ον. The name Gizon is not
otherwise known: Lucian’s ὁ Γουνι(υ) points to "2,377, which, as Klo.
observes, was the name of a Naphtalite family (Nu. 26, 48). Read,
then, in 32> °230 }, The name in 33° will now be nny 12 yn
ann: Ch. has saw for maw, but Luc. there has Σαμαια, and here
LXX and MT. agree: mw has thus the presumption of being
correct. ‘The Jonathan mentioned was a son of ‘Shammah the
Hararite’ of v. 11.
1 Twelve Codd. have also actually ’ABimA, eleven others ’ApinA,
* Twenty-one other Codd, Baca 6 Tov (Tam, Toure).
284 The Second Book of Samuel,
34%. noyonya '3ΌΠΝ ΤΣ wbads=1 Ch. τι, 35-369 15. Serbs
NDNA AHN 3K. ‘nsyMn-j3 is the gentile adj. of Mapp (ch. το, 6. 8)
or Mayo n'a (20, 14.15. 1 Ki. 15, 20. 2 Ki. 15, 29), as 2 Ki. 25, 23
(=Jer. 40, 8). ‘3DMS=75N Ws (Ch.) are probably both corruptions
of the name of Eliphelet’s father: ‘DN is a suspicious form.
3 4b, ban ὈΕΓΤΙΝ ΩΣ py dy] Evidently mutilated in 1 Ch. 11, 36?
sbpn mens: dn Sammy is mentioned in rg, 12.
35% "ΝΠ yD] LXX corruptly rod Οὐραιοερχει. 5 ερχει here
would point to ‘S089 (Klo.): cf. Jos. τό, 2; and "ἽΝ Π ‘win. A
place 318 in the Negeb of Judah is, however, named Jos. 15, 52.
Some twenty MSS. have rod Οὐραι (Odpe) υἱὸς τοῦ ᾽Ασβι : cf. Ch.
36%. nay] Attested substantially by LXX ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως (as
though 82¥). ΠῺΝ as 8, 3. If this be original, sn39 (which
corresponds in position in Ch.) will be a corruption of it, and
"17 "33 here will deserve the preference above "3A7}3 in Ch.
38. inn] A family of Qiryath-ye‘arim, 1 Ch. 2, 53,—unless
indeed we should read A (Th. Klo.: LXX ὁ Αἰθειραῖος) of Fattir
(I 30, 27), in the hill-country of Judah, Jos. 15, 48. 21, 14.
39. ‘nya pwby 55] ‘(The) whole, thirty-seven.’ 537 would
be better (2 Ki. 24, 16. 25, 17. Ezr. 2, 42. 8, 35>. 2 Cho 28) G):
but cf. Nu. 13, 2 + D2 Nw 55, 1 Ch. 11, 410-- adds sixteen other
names.—How is the number thirty-seven to be computed? With
the omission of Eliga in v. 25, the names vv. 24—39 amount, as they
should do, to ¢hzrty: there are in addition the ‘ Three’ vv. 8-12. 17>,
and Abishai and Benaiah, vv. 18-23: the whole=thirty-five. It
seems that either two names have fallen out after v. 237, or the
number, being originally correct (thirty-five), has been altered to
agree with a corrupt text *.
1 Thirteen Codd., however, MaBaay (al. Μαβλαν, MaaBay, Mavaar, etc.) vids
᾿Αγαριίν, 1).
? If so, one may have been ‘Amasai, who is called 1 Ch. 12,18 ΟΠ WRI
(like Abishai here, v. 18): Gratz, p. 426.
3. If with Keil we retain Ὁ. 25> and read ¢hvee names in v. 34, we obtain
thirty-/7vo names for vv. 24-39 ; it seems scarcely likely that ἐλέγέν should have
been used here as a round number.
BATU. g42 ΧΑ 5. 285
(79) 24. David's Census of the People.
Ch. 24 =1 Ch. 21, 1-27.
24, 1. The narrative is evidently the sequel of 21, 1-14 (comp.
especially the opening words 4) 5.) ὮΝ 4D" with the representation
implied in 21, 1. 14), with which also it has linguistically points
of contact: cf. v. 25> with 21, 14> (yaxd ond any).
ΤῸ] moved, zncited. The meaning of the word may be illustrated
from Jos. 15, 8. I 26, 19. 1 Ki. 21, 25 (of Jezebel influencing or
inciting Ahab): Job 2, 3.
mo 7b snd] 1 Ch. 21, 1b, accommodating to the later historio-
graphical style (which is apt to state the fact, instead of narrating
the words), nim. Cf. 2. 17, 25 as compared with ch. 7, 27;
and Ew. ὃ 3382.
2.ins ἽΝ nn sw any 5x] For ww read with Ch. "ds
‘to Joab and fo the captains of the force, that were with him ;’ with
which Ὁ. 4 agrees: Joab’s natural title would be not "wx Sinn ἪΨ
ἫΝ but way ww (or 15. wwe ayn ww).
bw] Rare in prose: but see Nu. 11, 8: also Job 1, 7.
3. FIDY"] 1 is used sometimes in Heb. (like e/ in Latin) to subjoin
an empassioned question or exclamation: cf. c.18, 11. Nu. 12,
14. 20, 3. 2 Ki.1, 10. 7, 13.19. Comp. Zenses, § 119 y note.
Ὁ ANID OND) ond] Cf. Dt. 1, τι.
mint... pi] The same idiomatic usage as ΓΝ Pry Dt. 28,
32. 1 Ki. 1, 48. Jer. 20, 4 (a circumstantial clause).
νου md bon ‘938)| On the position of the subj., see on I 20, 8.
4. Joon Ὁ50] ‘Vulg. Pesh. [and Lucian ἐκ προσώπου] Jan ‘25
[rather, yan BDI] : for according to MT. David himself would
have gone forth as well’ (Bé.). b= before (ch. 5, 24): Ὡβῦϑξε
Srom before (Gen. 41, 46 AYID snd FD NY; 2 Ki. 5, 27).
5.) Wyn pO apps ὉΠ] ‘Read “) ὙΠ pp AMD 9A in
agreement with Dt. 2, 36. 3, 12. 16. 4, 48. Jos. 12, 2. 13, 9. 16.
2 Ki. 10, 33. The starting-point must here be named, from which
they degan to number the people. As such, the southern border
(Nu. 22, 36) was the most natural, as it lay nearest to Jerusalem’
(We.). This acute and felicitous conjecture was found afterwards
286 The Second Book of Samuel,
to be confirmed by the same four MSS. of Holmes, 19, 82, 93, 108
—1i.e. Lucian’s recension’—which had so remarkably supported
the emendations in 13, 34. 39. 15, 23. In the passages referred
to, ‘the city that is in the midst of the torrent (or torrent-valley)’
is repeatedly named side by side with ‘Aro‘er.
33n] In MT. this word is out of construction: "37 ὉΠ) cannot
be rendered ‘ the torrent of Gad,’ and the case is not one in which
apposition would be admissible?. With the text as emended, 37
will be construed as an accus. of direction, ‘ And they began from
‘Aro‘er and from the city that is in the midst of the torrent-valley,
towards Gad and ov unto Ja‘zer.’ Cf. v. 62 ‘And they came to Gilad,
and on unto the land,’ etc.
6. wisn onnn yax] Evidently corrupt. For ὉΠ Hitzig
(Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. p. 29) suggested 0°10; and for win Th.
suggested ‘WIP or nv ,—both strikingly confirmed subsequently
by Lucian’s recension (εἰς γῆν Χεττιειμ Καδης): ‘to the land of ¢he
Hittites, towards Qedesh.’ The Qedesh or Qadesh—in which case the
word would be more correctly vocalized "¥’71?—meant, is the city
of that name on the Orontes, the capital of the empire of the
Hittites; and the expression is used to designate the Northern
limit of Israel: cf. elsewhere 120 §125 ἽΝ and non sadn (Jos:.135 5:
Am. 6, 14. 2 Ki.14,25 al.)?;
yoy Sy aap) yy ΠΥΡῚ Wan] No place Dan of Fa‘an is known.
LXX καὶ παρεγένοντο εἰς Δαν Εἶδαν καὶ Οὐδαν, καὶ ἐκύκλωσαν εἰς Σιδῶνα:
Luc. καὶ ἔρχονται ἕως Δαν, καὶ ἐκύκλωσαν τὴν Σιδῶνα τὴν μεγάλην. As
We. remarks, what the sense requires is ΠΝ bx 131D PUA: and
from the text of LXX, corrupt as the proper names in it are, it at
1 Kal διέβησαν τὸν Ἰορδάνην καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ ’Aponp καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως τῆς
ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ χειμάρρου κ.τ.λ.
2 The extreme cases of (apparent) apposition, cited Zemses, § 190, cannot all
be original.
3’ A more obvious emendation would be wip Ὁ ΠῚ ‘below the sea of
Qedesh ’—viz. Qedesh of Naftali, Jud. 4, 9—i.e. the waters of Merom. But,
as Keil rightly points out, de/ow in the geographical sense—except in the sense
of at the foot of a mountain, Dt. 3,17. 4, 11 al.—is 4 nmnn not nnn alone:
Gen. 35,811 7, 11. 4 a. ay ay
AXIV. 6-15. 287
least appears that the translators found 9 /w7ce, and had a verb in
place of 338). Read accordingly ΠΝ bs 3320 77193 $7 Ἰδ 2), Kilo.
emends differently: ,,, 230% ἢ") ma WWI"; for py see 1 Ki. 15,
26. ΚΙ, 18, 29.
7. WW ἽΝ] So Jos. 19, 29.
ἢ: Ani] See on I τῇ; 21.
IO, DYA"MN DD 72 INN] Read opm nx ἼΒΡ “NN (cf. LXX
μετὰ τὸ ἀριθμῆσαι) : construction as I 5, 9. 13 “MX must have been
written in error by a scribe who did not notice the sentence that
was following.—3yn as 12, 13.
τι. 117 MA] The — in sé. c. is most anomalous: according to
Ew. ὃ 213° mo/e merely an error for 717, Comp. ch. 15, 37 ΠΡ.
12. poy dyn2] do I “7 τ (LXX αἴρω) upon thee. Ch. 703, Th.
compares Lam. 3, 28.
13. Niann] The_/em., the subject being conceived collectively: see
on I 4, 15.
yaw] LXX here, and Chronicles &ivi—probably the original
number : notice the /hree months and the “Aree days following.
yp xm] The words form a circumstantial clause, as Ὁ. 3;
though the szzg. immediately following J™¥ is against our gram-
matical taste. But cf. the sing. in Dt. 28, 48 after the pl. PIN:
the cases are too numerous in the OT. for us to escape the con-
clusion that the Hebrew was able to pass from picturing a group
as a multitude of individuals to picturing it as a unity (or vzce versa)
with greater ease than we can do. Ch. J'977 27m), which We.
prefers.
14. nda] ‘very unjustly changed by LXX and Chron. into the
singular’ (We.).
15. LXX has; καὶ ἐξελέξατο Δαυειδ ἑαυτῷ τὸν Odvarov' καὶ ἡμεραὶ
θερισμοῦ πυρῶν, [καὶ ἔδωκεν Κύριος ἐν Ἰσραηλ θάνατον ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως
ὥρας ἀρίστου] καὶ ἤρξατο ἡ θραῦσις ἐν τῷ λαῷ, [καὶ ἀπέθανεν, κ.τ.λ.]
The bracketed words in the middle agree with MT. The un-
bracketed words = p'On ΝΡ 5) DMT) IITA 44 > ANI
Dya nban nS, the circumstantiality and tragic force of which
(70,000 dying, though the plague had only degun) constitute (see
288 The Second Book of Samuel,
a
We.) a presumption in favour of their originality, as against the more
colourless and ordinary narrative in MT. (to spi). The meaning
of syd ny Sy in MT. is altogether uncertain. Zo the appointed
time cannot be right, for it appears from v. 16 that the plague was
stopped Jdefore the three days had terminated. ‘Targ. paraphrases
the words syy ny Sy) ΡΠ by ‘from the time when the daily
burnt offering was killed until it was offered;’ and so Rashi and
Kimchi: another Jewish explanation is ‘until midday’ (cf. LXX
ἕως ὥρας ἀρίστου : Pesh. ‘till the sixth hour’). But neither of these
explanations has any basis in usage; and for the former sense a
different expression is employed (1 Ki. 18, 29. 36 al.).
no] The sing. as I 1, 2. Nevertheless it is possible that
originally the Hif‘il ΠΝ was intended.
16. yndon] The order verb, object, subject is unusual, and
where it is employed has the effect of emphasizing the subject at
the end (Zéenses, ὃ 208. 4). Here there is no apparent reason why
the ordinary order 1) sxdon nby should not have been used.
We. thinks the unusual position of qndnn an indication that it was
not originally part of the text, but was introduced afterwards as an
‘Explicitum ’ (see p. Ixii f.), and (as a corollary of this) that it was
mentioned in some preceding part of the narrative (which must
now, accordingly, be defective), and was the subject of M2" v. 151.
ndwr'] towards Jerusalem: cf. Is. 10, 32.—bx = by.
2] To be joined with what follows, though not closely with
nny: ‘It is enough: now relax thy hand?
ΕΝ as I ro, 2.
mun Kt.] v. 18 Kt. ΠΝ, vv. 20. 22-24 ΠΤ) : Ch. uni-
1 Against Movers’ proposal (adopted in the Speaker’s Comm. on Ch. p. 200)
to read for 17> (after Ch. Ὁ τ ΝΠ) m1, it was already rightly objected by Th.
that this text would represent Jehovah as repenting directly after sending the
angel.
* The accentuation is not opposed to this rendering: the position of the
Zagef is regulated by the sfeech, the words introducing it being treated as
subordinate. Cf. Gen. 19, 2; and see Wickes, Hebrew Prose Accents (1887),
Ρ. 358
XXIV, 16-23. ἡ... 289
formly ἰδὲ: LXX in both texts Opva. The Π in this verse is
improbable in itself, and not otherwise attested: perhaps Bé. may
be right in attaching it to the preceding word, and reading 7373 DY
AWS (cf. on I 23, 15). The choice between the other forms is
difficult. ‘The Qri in Samuel is everywhere 72118, which Bertheau
(on Ch.) and Keil prefer, supposing that just on account of its
un-Hebraic form it may represent a genuine ancient tradition.
17. 3] as 7, 14. 19, 20: cf. p. 135 foot-note. Observe the
emphatic ‘398 ; and jxyn ΠΟΝῚ placed before wy mp for the purpose
of setting it in strong contrast to ‘33N.
18. ndy] i.e. to the higher ground on which the threshing-floor
was: 50 v.19 Oy".
20. §pwr| looked out or forth, viz. from the 72 or the enclosure
surrounding it. It is the word used of Jookzng oud through a window,
ch. 6, τό al., from heaven, Ψ. 14, 2 al.: somewhat more generally
Gen. 18, 16. 19, 28.
poy pray | So 2 Ki. 2: of by = dy, as in by ΔΝ) Gen. 18, 2,
cf. the correlative by 2. say by “ayn sony,
AYIN DN] Elsewhere always either AYN DDN (the more usual
phrase) or AYIN YSN by 2: 93):
21, “sy Wyn] v.25. Nu. 17, 13.15. 25, 8 (=. 106, 30).
by] ΘΕ ΓΟ Ε 29.
22. "pan 5] i.e. the wooden yoke, comp. 1 Ki, 19, 21.
23. ‘x 59m] ‘the whole doth Araunah, O king, give unto the
king, —the words being the continuation of the speech in v. 22.
But it is not in accordance with general Hebrew custom for a
person, in ordinary conversation, to introduce his own name in the
3rd person: Bé. conjectured that ‘48 Jay had fallen out after
minx. We., on the basis of B6.’s suggestion, conjectures with still
greater plausibility that tay has fallen out, and that ΠΟΥ is a
corruption of ‘7%. Read therefore 715 soon 28 Tay jn bon
‘the whole doth she servant of my lord the king give unto the king :’
the courtly form of expression is quite natural under the circum-
stances. ‘That the speech of Ornan is continued in 238 might
have been understood from 24>, which in agreement with Hebrew
υ
2.90 The Second Book of Samuel.
custom restates the substance of the speech in a final sentence
marked by a fresh Ν᾽ (We.).
jn3] It is only meant by Ornan as an offer, which is not accepted,
v.24. But there is no occasion with We. to point on this account
1nd: $03, implying that the gift is (in intention) completed, is more
courteous: cf. Gen. 23, 11 ‘nnd.
24. ἽΝ] For TANQ, as ONIN Jos. 10, 25; “MIN 272. 14, 12:
often in 1 Ki. 2o—2 Ki. 8 (as 1 Ki. 20, 25. 22, 7. 8. 24), and
especially in Jer..and Ez. (as Jer. 1, 16. 2; 35. 4, 127° Ez2 re
Ὁ, 22, 24.27). (ΟἿ ὉΠ τ, 14.
pan mby] Cf. τ Ki. 2, 31 Dan "Ds.
pwn pope] The order is unusual, and generally late: Neh.
5, 05.7 27Cp. 3540;
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
ΤΙ, 5. It is possible that DDN is not expressed in the Targ., 1°71 being an
explanation of nmx: see II 7, 23 where Δ 17 RNOY= INR Dy.
I, 6. Dya, line 6: Nu. 11, 15 is accidentally omitted.
ΤῸΝ ὙΠῚ ‘Elsewhere in Heb, always ¢o thunder: in Qal of the sea roaring
[y. 96, 11 (=1 Ch. 16, 32). 98, 71]. Only Ez. 27, 35 is it found in another
sense 25 1094 A. V. “they shall be troubled in countenance,” but LXX ἐδά-
κρυσε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν (as though 19193 [so Cornill]), Chald. murmur, but
rather of loud expressions of dissatisfaction [as Ex. 16, 2 ἸῺ » ὙΠΝῚ = Heb.
13991; 16, 7-9 ΠῸ ΝΣ ὙὙΠ ΞΕ ΠῚ35Π],᾽ Dr. Weir. In Syriac the root (besides mean-
ing ἐο thunder) expresses the idea of (loud) complaint: Col. 3, 13 ΔΝ οὗ
= pouph ; Epbr. ii, 275 A bsaxosy basy yassooh wy I; gos a
A SA oo 29 εοοϑ pS mS pr Wo WScfs5 esados : Acta
Pelagiae (Gildemeister), p. 5, 4 EOS TS Jenene hss > Zingerle,
Ephraemi sermones duo (1868), i. 306 virgins hufroass eas 2;
76. 264 a house Ινᾶ993 las poy resounding with the sound of weepings.
1,8. m5] ‘This punctuation is found only here. Ew. [§ 243"] ascribes it to
the threefold repetition,’ Dr. Weir. Comp. the cases in which 7 stands
unusually for m9 (Stade, § 173 c®), and for the tone A/¢/‘el the anomalous m5
Job 7, 20.
1,15. Dr. Weir agrees in preferring 01» nwp, remarking that ‘m1 nwp must
mean not of a sorrowful, but of a hardened spirit: comp. ἢῚΡ MBP, DD Twp,
25 Twp.’
2, 13. The ‘three-pronged fork’ receives apt illustration from the αἱματίου
ὀβελὸς τρικώλιος mentioned in a sacrificial Calendar from Kos, published by
Mr. E. L. Hicks, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies (IX. 1882, pp. 327, 335, 1.52),
and the τριώβολον, which according to Eustathius on 1]. i. 463 (cited 2d.) was
preferred by the Greeks as a sacrificial implement to the πεμπώβολον. (The
verb καρπόω in the same Inscription in the sense of 20 offer or burn upon the
altar illustrates the use of κάρπωσις and compounds by the LXX: Ζ20., p. 336.)
2, 29. y199] Dr. Weir: ‘Is it yiyp? cf. 3, 14.’ But this is weak, and super-
fluous, after the forcible figure 1» yan.
4, 18, line 3. See, however, Job 15, 23. Zech. 4, 12. In Jer. 41, 9 for "Δ
NT ὙΠ 51λ, NIT 5172 792 15 clearly to be read with LXX.
4, 20, line 2: for 17, 15 read 17, 57.
5,3. Ὁ), line 8: Jer. 41, 3 is an uncertain instance, as LXX do not recog-
nize the words 179512 nx. It is easy, however, to find other examples, though
U 2
2.92 Additions and Corrections.
they are exceptional and do not belong to the best style: Lev. 6,8. Nu. 32, 33.
Jos. 1, 2” (omitted in LXX). Jud. 21, 7. 1 Ch. 4, 42. But it is not improbable
that in some of the instances the ‘ explicit’ subst. is a gloss,
P. 42 foot-note, line 3: for Hos. 7, 6 read Hos, 2, 8.
6, 3. On the owe see also Stade, Gesch. des V. 757. ii. 255 f.
6, 11. Some few of the instances that occur might be explained as due to the
composite character of the narrative (so Nu. 13, 26) ; but this does not appear
to be the case in most: and it must be recognized as a peculiarity of Hebrew
style, when two subjects (or objects) have to be combined in one clause, for
the clause containing one of the subjects (or objects) to be completed, the other
being attached subsequently. See a. Gen. 2,9”. 41, 27%. Nu. τό, 25. 180, 27%.
Jud. 6, 55 om dND dy? DTaP. OF 55: J. Gen. 1, 16%. 12, 17 ΤΙΝ γ΄) Δ)
Ia NN) DIA Oya WwW. 43, 18. Jud. 21, τοῦ. 1 Ki. 5,9. Jer. 27, 78: Ζ.
(analogous examples with prepositions) Gen. 28, 14", Ex. 34, 27> Jnx "ΠῚ5
ΝΥ ΠΝῚ Πὴ 2. Dt. 7, 14%. 28, 54% IND AY) 72 JIT Ὁ ΝΠ. 56%. Jer. 25,
12 MT. 40, 9%. The word attached cannot, in all such cases, be treated (Ew.
§ 3397) as subordinate.
P. 58, lines 6, 7, read ‘3 sing. fem. perf. Qal,’ and ‘ 3 sing. masc. perf. Nif?
The forms which ought to be used have been put accidentally for those which
(as pointed) ave used.
II, 11, line 5: 078 522 occurs once, Ψ. 137, 7.
13, 7- D191] We.’s objections against D°92y are well founded. The word
does not express ‘some of the Hebrews ;’ and as v. 7 carries on the thought of
v. 6, there is no ground for the vefetztion of the subj. D’11y, and its emphatic
position before the verb: a verb co-ordinate with 1xamn v. 6 is what would
be expected. For y11A-nx 172Y D°71y) he conjectures, accordingly, with
but slight changes, JT ninayD 31732¥) ‘and they fassed over the fords of
Jordan.’ This is a decided improvement, except that 112°) would be better
than 171)).
14, 43. MON 1220] AV. RV. ‘And lo, I must die.” But this rendering
neglects the suffix in »3271; and the words, as it seems, can only express the
sense, ‘ Here Iam; I will die’ (so Kp. Klo.),—Jonathan thus not complaining
of the fate to which he has involuntarily rendered himself liable, but declaring
his willingness to accept it. For 327 as an expression of resignation, cf. 12, 3.
II 15, 26; also Gen. 44, 16. 50, 18. ΠΏΣ Dyw will then have the force of
‘J certainly tasted...’
17,1. D7 DPN. Cod. Β Ἔφερμεμ, which Lagarde! regards as a corruption
of σεφερμαειμ (σαφερμαιμ, σαφαρμειν, etc.) read by a group of other MSS.
(above, p. lxxviii)*. This Lagarde further supposes to represent the original
reading here, viz. 0’ 15D (in the sense of ee ΕΝ edge or brink of water).
The name 0°97 DbN is no doubt strange; but such a pronounced Aramaism
1 Uebersicht tiber die im Aram. Arab. u. Hebr. tibliche Bildung der Nomina
(1889), p. 76.
? Two or three also σαφαισμαιμ, σαφεσμαμ: Pesh. "Ophars’min,
Additions and Corrections. 293
as 1)D (in this sense) would be, is incredible as an appellative, and hardly
probable even in a proper name.
20, 19. ΤἼΠ ΠῸ 501] The combination of diferent tenses (necessitated here
by Hebrew idiom, which would not use naturally ww) is illustrated from the
cognate languages by Lagarde, Ueberstcht, p. 212.
21, 5. The position of w after WIP OM is partly for variety (after the pre-
ceding clause with }»x), partly for emphasis: comp. Is. 43, 8, and jx similarly,
πεν 7. lic. 7025 Pro t7. 10. 25; τὰ (ch. Gene2as5. Is. 37, 3 al.).
21, 6. In illustration of this passage, see W. R. Smith, 716 Religion of the
Semites (1889), p. 436. Prof. Smith, adopting rightly Dr. Weir’s view of
Ὁ band, supposes David to speak as follows: ‘Nay, but women are
forbidden to us, as has always been my rule when I go on an expedition,
so that the gear (clothes, arms, etc.) of the young men is holy, even when it is
a common (not a sacred) journey; how much more so, when [Pr. 21, 27]
to-day they will be consecrated, gear and all,—a distinction being drawn
between ordinary expeditions and campaigns opened by consecration of the
warriors (cf. Jer. 6, 4), and David hinting that his present excursion is of the
latter kind. ‘This interpretation, if it may be assumed that the text is sound,
is decidedly plausible; it has an advantage over the view of Ew. (iii. 83), We.
(p. 122 2.) in explaining satisfactorily ‘w ‘n>, and over the common view in ex-
pressing besides a real argument a minort ad maius, such as ἢΝῚ implies.
21, 7. On corruption from the faulty repetition of a letter, see also Altschuller
in the ZA ΤῊΝ. 1886, pp. 211-213.
22,1. Of pbqya plausible etymology has been proposed at last by Lagarde,
Uebersicht, p. 54, from jas to turn aside (ψ. 119, 157; Lane, p. 1973), with
the D — found frequently in pr. names (Ὁ "2, 079, etc.)—whether as a for-
mative affix (Ol. § 216%; Stade, § 293), or as a relic of a Zamwim (Lagarde, 76.
p- 20), so that the word would signify originally a retreat. It is not an ob-
jection to this derivation that 51y is not a root known to be in use in Hebrew:
for Heb. proper names have preserved in many cases roots that otherwise (so
far as we are aware) fell into disuse. It is strange how such an etymology
as ‘justice of the people’ could have obtained currency.
22, 3, line 5: read oN.
25, 15 foot-note. Add W. R. Smith in the Journal of Philology, xvi. p. 72 f.
It is doubtful whether an zz. cstr. Hif. in /z- is original. If the instances be
examined individually, it will appear that in most a ferfect is admissible
syntactically, while in the few which remain it may be questioned whether the
Massoretic tradition has preserved the genuine pronunciation.
30, 24. Add Ez. 42, 11 ewd-12 (beginning v. 12 with ὉΠ ΤΠ Β5Ὶ; as Keil,
Smend), as the text stands, though the extraordinary style of this passage shews
that in point of fact it is corrupt.
II 6, 10. The view that ΘΝ is here the name of a divinity is certainly more
probable than not: cf. W.R.Smith, Zhe Religion of the Semites, p. 43.
8,18, p. 220. Baudissin, Die Gesch. des ATlichen Priesterthums (1889),
294 Additions and Corrections.
p- 191 f., sees rightly that 72 cannot here retain exceptionally a sense which
it has otherwise lost in Hebrew, but agrees with Movers! in thinking (on the
ground that the ‘ priests’ have been already named in v. 17) that it may have
been an honorary title conferred upon kings’ sons or high officers of state, and
perhaps adopted (as Movers supposes, together with the rest of David’s court
establishment) from the Phoenicians, among whom members of the royal family
often filled priestly offices. This was no doubt the case, as the Inscription of
Tabnith (p. xxvi) sufficiently shews : but the difficulty remains that in Phoenicia
(so far as appears) these members of the royal house were priests, so that the
title—especially as it was s7gzficant in Hebrew—being borrowed directly from
them, would naturally be applied only to persons who were priests likewise.
Movers (p. 542 ff.) quotes passages from Strabo and Justin proving that priests
in certain countries ranked ext to the king”; but does not shew that persons so
ranking were styled ‘ priests,’ unless they were priests actually. In 20, 26, how-
ever, Baudissin admits that 02) shews that Ira was ‘ priest’ in the same sense
as Zadoq and Abiathar in v. 25°; but thinks that (perhaps) ‘ Jattirite’ should
be read for ‘Ithrite’ (see note), in which case Ira might be of the tribe of Levi,
for Jattir is described in the Priests’ Code (Jos. 21, 14) as a priestly city, which
may mean that in old times it was the seat of a sanctuary which was served by
members of that tribe.
12, 31. In support of Hoffmann’s view of this passage, it may be observed
that Mesha’ in his Inscription, 1. 25 f. (p. Ixxxviii), speaks of having employed
Israelite prisoners upon excavations near Dibon.
13, 20. On Diminutives, comp. also Lagarde, Uebersicht, pp. 85-87.
13, 34. The first D)19n, though codd. BA have ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ, is supported
by Lucian, who has for it (τὴν ὁδὸν) τὴν Zwparp [Swparp as in clause 4] and the
Old Latin (per viam) cord [‘coram’ also in clause 4], as well as by codd. 44,
74, 92, 98, 106, 120, 123, 134, 144, 242, 243, which prefix τῇ ὥραμ (236 τοῦ
Apap; 52 τῇ Οραμ; 64, 119, 244 τῇ Qpav) to ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ [all reading cor-
respondingly in 6], and thus recognize the genuine text, by the side of the
corruption, as a doublet.
P. 236, zote 1. The order is that which prevails in Aramaic, Ezr. 4, 8, etc.
14, 16. Ini Ch. 14, 7 βααλιαδα is read also by codd. 52, 55, 64, 119, 121,
158: βαλλιαδα by cod. A, XI, 93; βαλιαδα by 44, 71, 74, τού, 120, 134, 144;
βααλιδα by 56; Badada by 243.
P. 266, zo¢e 1. Or, to speak more accurately, is found so rarely as, in a verb
of common occurrence, to be highly improbable: see ΕΖ, 14,8 (Baer); 21, 21;
Job 4, 20; and comp. Néldeke, ZD/VG. 1883, p. 530.
1 Die Phonizier, ii. τ (1849), p. 548.
? Strabo xi. 4. 7 (p. 503), xii. 2. 3 (p. 535), of Temples in Albania and Cap-
padocia, the priests of which are described as so ranking; Justin xviii. 4.
* So also Dillmann, Zx.-Lev., p. 460.
BA) EX.
Abstract subst. for adj., page 103,144. | Hebrew words and forms (covt.) :—
Accus., cognate, strengthening verb, 7.
— of limitation (different cases), 31,
34, 43, 78, 99, 224, 243.
Adverbial relations expressed by a
verb, 11, 18f., 34, 105, 293.
Apposition, I, 23, 36, 67, 82.
Article used idiomatically, 5, 43 f., 57,
65, 123.
— used exceptionally, 45, 74, 95, 106.
— omitted exceptionally, 4, 122, 153,
180.
— with force of relat., 57 f.
— generic, 161.
Casus pendens, 20, 74, 276.
Collectives construed with fem. sing.,
38, 110, 222, 287.
Confusion of letters, Ixv—Ixix.
“ Conjugation of attack,’ 118.
Diminutives, 232, 294.
Doublets, lvi-lviii, etc.
‘Futurum instans,’ 35, 73, 144.
Hebrew words and forms :—
-NiIN=-ARX, 230, 290.
1m, I, 43.
PR, 140.
JR, 103, 154.
Sx ποϊ-- μή; 164f.
38 =i among, 65,138.
— =with reference to, 17, 35, 39.
— =y, 35, 41, 77, 88, 216.
R= TDN, xxvii 2., 27 72.
PRON and 85 ON, 249.
pee HIOMEIN Ole
ΟΝ ἸῸΝ, 198.
ἼΩΝ with inf. and 5, 172.
ὮΝ, 264.
5 FN, 87,144, 197.
DWN, 43, 292.
Wwr=/or that, 26, 96, 136, 185.
— =@a5, 103.
wr ‘recitativum,’ 97, 149 f.
— other usages of, 149 f.
— omission of, 84 f.
τος NUT WR, 64.
nx used anomalously,175, 224, 273.
ns) used anomalously, 111, 160.
291 in pr. names, 186, 195 f., 202,
203, 279.
793, 40, 172.
Da, idiom. uses of, 7,17, 158, 201.
9ya, 182,
Ἢ Nit, 121: 1581 ara,
7 art. retained after prep. or 3, 273.
7 of Hif. elided in inf., 28 ἢ,
— of Hif. retained in impf., 113.
- suffix of 3 sg. masc., xxxiv f.
"2 nq (Aram.), 239 2.
N17, uncommon uses of, IT, 136.
— how formerly written, xxxiii.
m7, 87, 108.
ΤΣ and ptep., 22, 51, 117, Igl.
227, 282.
15, 80.
25) Jorn, 30.
1... ΠῸΠ, etc., 54, 55, 110, 188.
1277 expressing a condition, 54,129,
253.
) apparently =as, 73 2.
DVT DN, 5.
+. 9) (with inf.), 114.
85), 233.
3 used idiom., 63,188, 225, 236.
T>°5r, 74, 150.
DM, 100-102.
115», 200.
DD’, 4, 163, 233.
TY Ὁ» go.
PM ΠΣ τ rand oe 309.
5. (0,65, 82:
DVD, 55.
775, 219 f., 293 f.
5 after oath, 89, 90, 169.
5 after JN, DDN, étc., 52f., 59.
— ‘recitativum,’ 24, 64.
296
Hebrew words and forms (cont.) :—
9...9, 89, 157.
WV ὅπ ΡΒ, Lage
DN 5, 138, 159, 194, 235-
ΤῸ 13, 169 f.
amy °5, 77, 87.
D1), 24, 59.
192, 186f., xxxv.
ὙΠῸ ny2, 56.
5 as dat. of reference, 31, 54, 66, 138,
246 f., 253.
— reflexive, 35, 53,132, 142, 174,
188, 248.
— of norm, 241.
— as ‘nota accusativi,’ 142, 145 f.,
193.
x5 and ptep., 193.
729, 36, 165.
75 used idiom., 123.
ΤῸ =aught, 121, 255.
» how = whoso, 66 f.
129 fig., 72.
72, 36, 91, 147, 176, 215.
Dn, 267.
$y, idiom. uses of, 11, 43, 47, 98,
109, 167, 222, 231, 256, 289.
Ἢ in impf., 11, 23.
553, 7929, 155, 230.
WHI, 12, 126.
31D (Massoretic term), 69.
y=T, 105 f.
ὨΣῚΝ, 293.
My, 135.
Sy idiom., III, 141, 157, 240, 246,
253, 280.
—— = JN, 10) Il, 22, 77, 241.
285 Ty, 106.
iy not= 2, 167 f.
ninwy, ee 178.
18, 37»
ἈΠῈ δὲ wife, ἡ 1.
mrs, 76.
raga, 1575, 155, 158.
Dyin, 291.
w for Ὁ, 183.
NN 15, 230.
Sy NIP? DW, 226.
ΝΥ Ὁ Ὁ, 13 f.
nnn idiom., 81 f., 188, 211.
‘Idem per idem’ constructions, τύ, 146.
Imperfect with frequent. force, 9, II,
25, 34, 41, 78, 229.
Index.
Imperf. with waw cony. introducing
pred. or apod., 39, 43, 84, 98,
110. 139.
— for perf. and waw conv., 24, 92.
Impersonal passive, 250 f.
Implicit subject, 23, 102 f., 187.
Inf. abs., force of, 24, 28, 30, 127, 101.
— in protasis, Io, 127.
— carrying on finite verb, 28, 143.
— defining, 35, 215.
— in Qal, when the principal verb is
in a derived conjug., 266.
Inf. constr. in T=, 9.
‘Nomen unitatis,’ gt.
Numerals, not denoted anciently by
letters, 75 7.
Object of verb anticipated by pronom.
suff., 40, 140f., 237, 292.
Order of words :—
Obj. at end, 5, 238.
— after τῷ, 161.
Emphatic, 41, 52, 92, 118, 128, 140,
187, 240, 250.
Unusual, 236, 290, 293.
Participle absolute, 22, 275.
Perf. and simple waw used irregularly,
II, 39, 63, 247, etc.
Perf. and waw conv., with frequent.
force, 4, 5, 23, 23f, 25, 51, 92,
112, 225, etc:
— introducing pred. or apod., 110
155, 237.
Pluperfect, 56,154, 241.
Pronoun emphatic, 64, 73, 847., 115,
123, 147; 225, 220, 270;
᾽
Question indicated by the tone of the
voice, 67, 103, 141, I5I, 223.
Resumption :—
— of object, 55 f., 57, 95, 156, 210.
— of 5, 89, 157.
— of other words, 109, 129, 155.
‘Scriptio plena’ and ‘defectiva,’ xxxii-
xXxxiv, lxiii f.
Sentences, noticeable types of, 42, 44,
292.
Singular used of nation or group of
persons, 42,174.
Suspended constr, state, 166, 265.
ae |
ΠΝ ἊΝ ΙΝ
A Ae
; ane ὰ νι
hey ΝΗ ᾿
᾿ ἣν 1 ne be ‘
ΤᾺ) 6 On ΠῚ
+ ay ᾿ u (ha
DATE DUE
rie =
DEMCO 38-297
ree ied aati 4 γ΄ *
salt Sigg sia q
. Wor, ae ie 7 a” 3 ἕ 4:
ate fl μ᾿ ee BS κῃ oom ae
er oes
of A ΤΩΙ
ἣν ὦ